Easy Life of an Atheist

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

Does God lay off from atheists because he knows if he sends trials and tribulations to atheists it will not bring them closer to him since atheists do not believe in God?

You’re directly implicating that people do not actually have a telepathic communicating relationship with their deity that is a rather large common claim made by believers. Is this the case or not from your experience?
Yes trials and tribulations would not work on an atheist since we do not believe there would be a justified causal link that these events are from a deity. If we could, then we would become deists who have justified belief that a devil exists since it sent trials and tribulations to us instead of love and compassion and dialog.
You are directly implicating that your deity would reveal itself to people that don’t believe it exists by offering evidence of the worst side of its nature. That first experience would only show atheists that devils exist, not a loving deity.

On the contrary with believers, trials and tribulations will most likely bring the believer closer to God and so believers have harder lives than atheists.

This is true because it is the exact example of Stockholm syndrome. No amount of bad behavior could ever get the loving spouse to leave their abusive relationship. Evidence of bad behavior is argued for a loving god and loving behavior is evidence of a loving god. That’s fundamentally messed up. If bad behavior is good from your deity, then how can the bad behavior of the devil not be good as well? If bad is good, then nothing is ever bad, then how did you assess your deity to be the good one over the devil?

From my limited perspective atheists do in indeed seem to have easier lives.

We run into the exact same loses everyone experiences. We don’t lie to ourselves about the myth of an afterlife or channeling mythical powers though. Myths can bring you comfort and make you part of an in-group. Both myths and being a part of a special group can bring you benefits. Such as family, friends, peace about loss, etc. Doesn’t make it true though.

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

Best part of your deity is that it doesn’t reveal anything about its existence to us. If it did, then everyone would be rubbing that genii bottle ever time they messed up. Simple example: we’ve all sat at a table and tried to use the force to move the pencil to us. But the person that sat up and took hold of the pencil are the people that get on with their lives and work together to solve the world’s problems. We have it in all of us to get up and pick up the pencil to solve our problems. The people that keep trying to sit there and use the force are part of the problem. They want the genii. But your deity understands that we have the potential in all of us to stand up and pick up the pencil and if it showed that it could cure our cancer with a flick of the wrist, then we would all be sitting down channeling that genii for all our problems we can solve ourselves. So argue that point. that the absence of any evidence of your deity forces us to stand up and actually work together as people to solve our problems instead of needing a magical dear leader to solve our problems for us.

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

Gnostics and Agnostics are making claims about what they claim to know about reality through direct experience of demonstrable events.
Theists and atheists are making claims about what they have been convinced of about reality through secondary evidences and logical discourse.

Just like a jury at a trial.
The witnesses of the events that are called in to give their testimony are gnostics. They have direct knowledge of the event.
The jury members are agnostics since they have no direct knowledge of the event.
After the trial is argued and the jury members come to their conclusions, some are convinced, others are not. They are the theists and atheists.

So you can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, and gnostic theist. Hope that muddies the water a bit, but nuance is important to point out.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Here’s an organisation for atheists in foxholes.

http://defencehumanists.org.uk

It seems your argument is invalid.

 

[jfz178]

I don’t see any evidence any of them have been under fire. Get them under fire and report back.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t see any evidence any of them have been under fire. Get them under fire and report back.

Here’s another site called Military Atheists which includes testimonies of those without faith who have served in combat. You painted with too broad a brush and without research when you said the fallacious trope of “There are no atheists in foxholes” was true.

Edited to add: Apart from that I do wish to thank you for your service as a military aviator.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

we must separate gnostics from agnostics. They are different, they believe in different things.

Gnostics thought Jesus was the gnosis, a teacher who could tell people the secret formula for leaving the material type world and living in a much better place. they thought the material world, matter, was evil.
Gnostics believed Jesus lived, but most thought he wasn’t human, wasn’t manifested physically, but that he was a great teacher, or prophet. Because they did not believe Jesus lived physically, they did not believe He could be crucified. Gnostics were very active in the early church, pre the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. They were established in Rome along side the Jesus Movement ( the early Christians) and another group who was also declared heretical in the 4th century.
Gnostics concentrated on knowing the message and wisdom of their idea of Jesus who lived but was not human.
compared with Paul concentrating on the Death and Resurrection of a real living Jesus.

during the early church times, until the councils mentioned, the Jesus movement consisted of many different groups attempting to make sense of what happened, what Jesus represented, what the Passion and Ressurectoin was about, and just how to worship. And they were considered members of the Jewish community, because they held to the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament. The Jesus movement became the Catholic Church. And Constantine united and confirmed a unified system of beliefs and canon with his bishops in the 4th Century. They did have a few disputes and this lead to one group believing one thing about the Holy Spirit and another, believing another thing. Orthodox vs Latin Rite.

Agnostics do not subscribe to the beliefs of the Gnostics. They might believe Jesus lived, but thats about it. the definition of an Agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God
quite the reverse about what a gnostic believes.

we must not lump gnostics in with agnostics and atheists.

 

[Nap66]

That’s fundamentally messed up. If bad behavior is good from your deity, then how can the bad behavior of the devil not be good as well? If bad is good, then nothing is ever bad, then how did you assess your deity to be the good one over the devil?

No I don’t think it’s fundamentally messed up. Bad behavior can lead to good. Bad behavior can also lead to bad. The bad behavior of the devil is to make you turn away from God, which is bad. The bad behavior of God is to make you turn to him, which is good. Now… how do you discern the difference? When is bad behavior from God (or trials and tribulations) and when is such bad behavior (trials and tribulations) from the devil?

I believe (and my belief only), is that actual physical trials and tribulations do not come from the devil. The devil only has the power to get in your thoughts, not actually cause any physical harm. So am I saying that when physical trials and tribulations occur in my life then that comes from God? Yes. But while the devil will say “see, God has turned his back on you, look your life is crap!” God is telling me “time to change, come to me and I will help you through this.” But then you might say, why does God have to send you crap in the first place just to help you through it. Why not send crap at all? Well, I know in my case if God’s bad behavior in my life (or I say trials and tribulations) did not occur, I would have no belief in him. For some people, like me, having only good behavior in life would have never allowed me to turn to God.

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

we must separate gnostics from agnostics. They are different, they believe in different things.

We are talking past each other here. I pointed out that gnostic claims are about knowledge claims and theist and atheist claims are about what you have become convinced of without direct knowledge. That is all I was pointing out.

Gnostics thought Jesus was the gnosis, a teacher who could tell people the secret formula for leaving the material type world and living in a much better place.

You’re not using these words as I understand them to be used. So can you define what you mean by them then?
Gnostics who met jesus were people with direct knowledge of meeting the person. Everyone else that never met the guy were agnostics, since they don’t have direct knowledge of that person’s existence. If the people that never met the guy believe or are convinced of his magical powers, then they would be theists. People that were not convinced of his magical powers are atheists. Since these are positions about what someone was convinced of without direct experience. That’s all I’m talking about with these labels.
Theist and Atheist are terms about what you have been convinced of based on indirect evidence and logical arguments.
Gnostic and Agnostic is what you have direct knowledge and experience about.
I go out and buy a puppy, so I am gnostic that I have a puppy. I tell my neighbor I bought a puppy without showing her the puppy. She believes me, so she is theistic on that question. She’s convinced without direct experiential evidence.

Gnostics believed Jesus lived,

Not the way I understand these words are used. Gnostics don’t have to be convinced that the guy lived because they have direct experiential knowledge of meeting the guy.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Do you have any understanding of how the early church developed and how the gnostics built up their understanding of who they thought Jesus was?

Gnostics probably did not meet Jesus, Jesus lived and died very early in the first century AD. But very early gnostics would not have called themselves gnostics, they were part of the jewish and gentile masses of people who had heard the story of Jesus and were trying to make sense of it. There was such diversity in the early Jesus movement. The Jesus movement became the Catholic Church. But this did not happen until the 4th Century. People were calling themselves Christians , but to be Christian meant a wide variety of beliefs about who Jesus actually was and what He was about. Paul worked very hard to keep his churches true to what he taught of Jesus.
Valerian founded gnosticism and he was not born until 100 AD or so. He set up camp in Rome, alongside the Marcians and the Jesus movement.
Gnostics did not believe Jesus had magical powers. That is not what a person who is believed to be a gnosis, is all about.

Who is claiming Jesus had magical powers?

Lets use concrete definitions of what a gnostic is/was. and what gnosticism was all about during the Jesus movement, before the early Church was established by Constantinople in the 4th Century.
St Ireneus had tried to unite and unify Christian belief earlier. Constantinople had that vision , the dream when he saw the cross on his sun , he worshiped appollo the sun god. he went to war with the cross, won, came back, became Emperor, and realised that the Jesus Movement, the Christians were not going to be wiped out, not going to be martyred into oblivion, and were quite a substantial part of his society. So he set about unifying Christian belief and doctrine. This started at the Council of Nicea. in 325 or 326 AD.
in 100 to 300 , christians had been seen firstly as a new jewish sect. And were subject to the protection of Rome, whatever that meant. But by the time of Pliny , christians were being troublesome and were being killed for not offering sacrifice to the pagan gods. in the first part of 200 - 250 there was a huge effort to wipe us all out. And then a second attempt, but by the late 200s we were educated and held good government and commerce positions in the Roman Empire. so the powers that be had to give up trying to wipe us out.

Gnostics believed in a real Jesus but thought He was not of human form, as in flesh and bone. They thought He was spirit. so therefore they denied He was resurrected from the dead.

what gnostic early proof do you have of any gnostics saying they met Jesus and built up their idea of him, from those meetings?

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

Again we’re talking past each other. You seem to be using the word Gnostic as a group identity like a team name. I am using the word gnostic to talk about anyone that has direct knowledge of an idea that is being discussed.
You’re using Gnostic as I would the Cleveland Indians it seems.
I’m using gnostic as an adjective to describe someone, anyone, that has direct knowledge of the idea being discussed.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am not talking about the outcome of the bad behavior that your deity used to bring me to it, but it’s bad behavior. Yes you can have good results out of bad events, but we must hold those people accountable for their bad behavior as well after the fallout of the event has settled. Sorry but bad behavior doesn’t give you a pass for that if there was good that came out of it. Bad behavior is how we judge the character of someone for their methods of solving problems. You’ve just painted your deity to be a mob boss. Breaking people’s thumbs and burning down people’s businesses to keep the peace in the neighborhood. Is there nothing your deity could do or say that would ever make you break from it? If not, then how can you claim that religion takes morality seriously? You’ve shelved your moral assessment of any hellish event that you believe your deity created to give it a pass. That’s called a cult and makes you the zealot where the dear leader is infallible because you are no longer a morally serious person when it comes to this leader.

who is this addressed to, and what deity are you referring to

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

@Nap66 reply to my response to their post.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Again we’re talking past each other. You seem to be using the word Gnostic as a group identity like a team name. I am using the word gnostic to talk about anyone that has direct knowledge of an idea that is being discussed.

we must use the established meaning of the word because it carries the weight of 2000 years of history and the weight of what early people did, what they believed, and what outcomes came from those believes

when I say a cat, I mean a cat. when I say a dog, I mean a dog, you know exactly what I mean. When I say gnostic, I mean a person of gnostic belief and all the heritage and history that goes with it.

Thats why we have language, so we can understand each other. , its not just to win scrabble!

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

I agree. That is why I gave the definition as I understand the work gnostic and an example of how to distiguish someone who makes a gnostic claim vs a belief claim.
Again: Gnostic claims are about knowledge and Theist/Atheist claims are about what you are convinced of without direct knowledge about the topic being discussed.
Can you give me any reply at all that you understand what I am talking about here when I spell things out like this for how I understand these to concepts are used? I’ve repeated my self three times now on how I understand these words are used and you haven’t given any feedback that you are understanding the difference from how you use them and how I understand they are used. What about anything that I have presented is unclear to you or what words would you use here for these two concepts instead of agnostic statements and belief statements as I understand the use of the label “Gnostic” and “Belief” to be used? If you don’t help provide clarification for the concepts I am trying to communicate, then we’ll keep doing this round and round and round since I have no idea what you took from my points and keep giving a history lesson of a team called the Gnostics, which is nothing to what I am talking about.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

first of all can you show me the historical evidence that a person calling themselves gnostic walked the earth with Jesus.

Gnostics don’t have to be convinced that the guy lived because they have direct experiential knowledge of meeting the guy.

so how about we start there… You are talking of a person, not an adjective here. You are saying ‘they have’, and ‘gnostics don’t’

I also have a lot to say about your misconception about God. and the problem of good and evil, in your post to nap, but we can get to that later.

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

first of all can you show me the historical evidence that a person calling themselves gnostic walked the earth with Jesus.

Everyone is gnostic about something and agnostic about something else. It is a state of understanding about reality which everyone is in. I don’t know how to clear this up any better than this. In the past, they may not be calling themselves gnostics, that’s irrelevant and tells me you still are not getting at what I am talking about.
It is a state of mind about something. That is all. The person that comes back to the cave and tells their tribe about the deer in the fields is a gnostic about the deer in the fields since that person had directly experienced that event. They are gnostic about the question, Are there deer in the fields today? That person actually knows this to be the case.
The tribal members who were not in the fields, are agnostic about the question, Are there deer in the fields today? They don’t know.

The tribal members believe the report though. They have experienced deer before and found them in the fields in the past. So they don’t have direct knowledge of them being in the field today, but they understand that the claim is a benign claim to make since it is easily within the possibilities of reality as they have experienced it. They do not have direct knowledge, but are convinced deer are in the fields. So to use the words as I understand them: the tribe members are agnostic theists to the question, “Are there deer in the fields today?” The person that ran back and gave the report is a Gnostic Theist to the question, “Are there deer in the fields today?”. The one member who’s been tricked by this person crying wolf before doesn’t believe the report, so they are “Agnostic Atheist” about the question, “Are there deer in the fields today?” They may not have actually used these labels in their time, but that’s irrelevant.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

define for me, what knowledge meant for a gnostic. because it has a very specific meaning

lets drop the agnostic out of the discussion for a moment.
you are saying gnostic as an adjective is about knowledge. So explain what this is.

Lets be specific because gnostic is a noun, its about a group , however narrow or diverse . who shared a common idea about knowledge.
lets drop the philosphical discussion, because we are on a Catholic forum. Here, Gnostic means something concrete.

 

[Nap66]

You’ve just painted your deity to be a mob boss. Breaking people’s thumbs and burning down people’s businesses to keep the peace in the neighborhood.

No. No one loves a mob boss, especially those under the mob boss’ thumb. They all live in fear of the boss to keep the peace. I only have love for my God. No fear, no worry, no cowering waiting until the next knee-capping. When I leave this earth I will be judged as will everyone else and whether we loved other people will be the standard for judgment.

The main thing to remember is if you obtain no peace or love out of something (bad or good behavior) then it is not of God.

Seems to me your devil did more to free the human race than your deity did since we now have the ability to understand good and evil and hold those standards to your deity as well instead of the credulity that your deity wanted its play things to maintain out of ignorance.

Free. Yes, we are free. But the devil didn’t free us, God’s allowance of our free will did. Even as Adam and Eve were frolicking in ignorance in the Garden of Eden they had free will to become non-ignorant. If God was such a control-freak that would not have been possible. They could have ate of the tree of knowledge without the devil’s prompting. You give the devil way too much power and credit. So, it was in fact God’s grant of free will to humans that freed the human race to understand good and evil. God gave us that understanding and we took it. Now what? God knew we needed guidance in what is good and evil, hence the Bible and Jesus’ teachings. God does not leave us floundering (although at times it can feel like it). When you reject a belief in God all you have is yourself to get through this life. No guidance except other people (maybe), oh and that innate human goodness atheists describe (which is the holy spirit anyways).

 

[otrrl]

As a group, Communists are atheists and they devalue life very greatly. It is very easy for them to rationalize extermination of millions of people for the satisfaction of just a ruling class. In North Korea we hear of high ranking people being executed for the most trivial of slights and insults to the god-like political leader.

My point: it is easier for some atheists than it is for others.