Emotions, God, and Atheism

[Dameedna]

Saying “I can’t talk myself into believing in Santa either” can be regarded as an offensive statement to many Christians. Drawing an analogy between God and an ‘obviously’ fictional character who we all know does not exist, and in addition, using a figure from childhood can be seen as provocative in the sense of trying to offend and draw a response. It suggests that belief in God is clearly and obviously absurd and childish.

It is a tactic that I have observed in many who wish to question the faith of others and it is one that draws high levels of emotion. (Along with being called stupid and superstitious of course!)

hehe…but you see, we “know”(to within a 99% probablility) that the god of Christianity is an obviously fictional character, so telling people how to behave in regards to this character seems rather silly to us.

They feel THE SAME way about God as they do about Santa. It simply doesn’t exist and anything invoked in Santa’s name is meaingless.

You don’t have to agree with the athiest, but the analogy stands as a way of helping you to know how they feel and how silly pascals wager seems to us.

Could you ever go back to believing that because some-one tells you it might be true and you may get presents?

That’s how it comes across to the athiest. Believe in something that isn’t true, on the offchance you will get an eternal life. You CAN’T believe in something you don’t think is true even if you wanted to.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No , human reasoning is a valuable tool in and of itself.

I’m not sure how else to explain this, it’s just something that you do. I won’t believe everything I read, because I know it won’t necessarily be truth, regardless of how it makes me feel.

All of us can say that. How do you treat things you read that are unproven, but make sense?

It is about putting an ideal, something else above your own desires, needs, wants etc etc. It can and often is painful, BUT you do it anyway because you’ve made a decision.

Do you mean ‘you’ve made a decision and you’re stuck with it’ because of your ideal? That’s ideology. Is your athiesm an ideology?

I asked you several questions in my last to you regarding the many unsupported presumptions you make about the Gospels and Christianity generally. Do you intent to continue to ignore them? Doesn’t do much for your credibility, y’know.

 

[Dameedna]

All of us can say that. How do you treat things you read that are unproven, but make sense?

I say they are unproven and make sense.

Do you mean ‘you’ve made a decision and you’re stuck with it’ because of your ideal? That’s ideology. Is your athiesm an ideology?

Truth is an ideal and yes I stick with it. I believe it’s very important. Maybe it isn’t at the end of the day, but that’s the choice I’ve made, and I’ve seen it work in my own and other’s lives. If you bite the bullet and choose honesty it works out better for you in the end, even if it hurts a bit.

I asked you several questions in my last to you regarding the many unsupported presumptions you make about the Gospels and Christianity generally. Do you intent to continue to ignore them? Doesn’t do much for your credibility, y’know.

I’m don’t know which questions you are talking about, you might want to rephrase them. All I’m getting from you is questions with regards to what I mean by submitting to truth.

Cheers

 

[HappyRevert]

Sigh, when I say you , I don’t mean a specific you, it’s a conceptual one. I should start saying “When one, does this, or when one believes that, it is possible, yadda yadda yadda”.

I was just being lazy in my wordy. Sorry to offend.

Okay - I guess it is just the joy of writing with no inflection or body language around to indicate which we mean…

 

[Fran65]

we “know”(to within a 99% probablility) that the god of Christianity is an obviously fictional character

I love the spurious use of statistics - it makes people feel so much more…scientific and knowledgeable than they actually are. 87.2% of those asked agreed that this was the case

In addition, Dameedna, no one is asking you to believe anything! You come here of your own free will. You choose to discuss these things with Catholics. There are other sites you could visit…unless your agenda is to convert us to your way of thinking…in which case…you’re in for a frustrating time…unless you enjoy disagreements and its easier to pretend knowledge of philosophy than american football.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

hehe…but you see, we “know”(to within a 99% probablility) that the god of Christianity is an obviously fictional character, so telling people how to behave in regards to this character seems rather silly to us.

i wonder how you might know to a 99% probability that G-d is non-existent? consider the following.

1. the universe itself.
   
   a. Aquinas’ First Cause argument

we know from a mathematical regression from current observable conditions that causality stops at 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang, when there is posited a ‘infinite moment’ for lack of a better word, when no time, space or physical laws existed. so infinite regression of causality, “the who created G-d?” argument, stops there.

so it would seem that the existence of the universe is indeed proof of a creator.

1. the convergence of prophecy in Christ.

dozens of prophecies, many very exacting and exclusionary to other claimants, were written over the course of millennium by different people, at different times, in different languages, and in different places, were fulfilled in the person of Christ.

if even a few of these were fulfilled it would leave us with a massive surety in the order of 99.999999999999999%

even many Jews accept that fulfillment, and the ones who dont dispute side issues as opposed to the actual prophecies in most cases.

before you tell me i am trying to hard or simply ignore these arguments, (as seems to be the way you handle difficult arguments opposing your position, let me say ‘dont’

the only argument that i have seen you consistently make are those concerning your inability to understand how a loving G-d can allow suffering in the world. Christ answered that question, when asked why the blind man was blind Jesus said that it was for the greater glory of G-d. the only reason you seem to have to hold the atheist position is that you dont like that answer. that is not denial based on logic or reason that is denial based on personal opinion. not a worthy motivation for anyone claiming reason as their companion.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I say they are unproven and make sense.

I asked how you treat things which are unproven but make sense. You answered with the words of my question, which is no answer. You didn’t understand, so I’ll re-phrase it. By ‘treat’ I mean, when you read something that is unproven, but makes sense, do you dismiss/ignore it because it is unproven or do you seek more information because it makes sense?

Truth is an ideal and yes I stick with it. I believe it’s very important. Maybe it isn’t at the end of the day, but that’s the choice I’ve made, and I’ve seen it work in my own and other’s lives. If you bite the bullet and choose honesty it works out better for you in the end, even if it hurts a bit.

I didn’t ask you about truth or an ‘ideal.’ I said ‘ideology.’ Do you know the difference? I asked if your athiesm is an ideology.

I’m don’t know which questions you are talking about, you might want to rephrase them. All I’m getting from you is questions with regards to what I mean by submitting to truth.

I never asked you that question. The message is #131. If you read it, there are several rhetorical questions and remarks I’d like you to follow up on, particularly regarding the history of the Church. The direct questions include, can you back up your assertion that words were put in Jesus’ mouth?..that people put those words into His mouth because they wanted people to listen to Him?..why you choose to believe the Jesus Seminar people over the Gospels? I also asked that you name the theologians who you say left the Church rather than support false teachings and what those false teachings are.

 

[crowonsnow]

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

To be honest I have no problem imagining beings that routinely cause universes to happen. They would be technologically and scientifically advanced. Is that what you mean by gods? If so then there can be gods. And I suppose that in some quirky way such advanced organisms might trouble themselves to advance the cause of superstition in less capable organisms. Maybe they have a need to play.

And if they were so inclined I suppose everything ever written or imagined, including the bible stories could have happened. You imagine it, it can happen. They can even be in control of our thoughts. Their purpose would be self amusement…

I would seriously dig meeting such organisms. I have no problem imagining the universe to be part of a much larger organism, much like the amoeba and bacteria that colonize humans, and the parasites that colonize them. This is entirely possible. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.

And I’ve never been able to appreciate the notion of worship. So if these advanced critters wanted me to do that I’d have to take the fifth. Religion would be a kind of theatre for them.

So depending on what you mean by gods I could go either way. But I’d have to nix the worship, the adoration, the veneration, the subjugation, etc. These god things would be a source of knowledge, self betterment, a way to solve problems, not a superstitious, religious distraction.

 

[utunumsint]

To be honest I have no problem imagining beings that routinely cause universes to happen. They would be technologically and scientifically advanced. Is that what you mean by gods? If so then there can be gods. And I suppose that in some quirky way such advanced organisms might trouble themselves to advance the cause of superstition in less capable organisms. Maybe they have a need to play.

And if they were so inclined I suppose everything ever written or imagined, including the bible stories could have happened. You imagine it, it can happen. They can even be in control of our thoughts. Their purpose would be self amusement…

I would seriously dig meeting such organisms. I have no problem imagining the universe to be part of a much larger organism, much like the amoeba and bacteria that colonize humans, and the parasites that colonize them. This is entirely possible. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.

Well I like Start Trek and other Sci-fi as much as the rest of us. I have no problem contemplating the idea of more powerful and more intelligent creatures, but you are right: I’m not meaning the extra terrestrial kind of being. God, acording to my understanding, is the source of all being, creator of time, space, matter, etc…God is outside of time, infinite, non material. Gods, in the way you imagine it, would be compatible with the pagan/polytheistic world view, not with the monotheistic world view.

And I’ve never been able to appreciate the notion of worship. So if these advanced critters wanted me to do that I’d have to take the fifth. Religion would be a kind of theatre for them.

I’d also have to take the fifth and so would any other Christian worthy of the name. This would be violating the first commandment.

So depending on what you mean by gods I could go either way. But I’d have to nix the worship, the adoration, the veneration, the subjugation, etc. These god things would be a source of knowledge, self betterment, a way to solve problems, not a superstitious, religious distraction.

Why would you nix the following:

• worship: if God were the source of all being, time, and space, don’t you think such a being would be worthy of worship, since you’re very sense of self would be something created by this creator?
• adoration: the same as above.
• subjugation: if the being is as I’ve described it above, would not the act of subjugation be a simple statement of reality? An acceptance of our status as created and limited beings

Are worship, adoration, and subjugation wrong in any imaginable context? Why do you find these concepts so abhorent?

God bless,
Ut

 

[crowonsnow]

Why would you nix the following:

• worship: if God were the source of all being, time, and space, don’t you think such a being would be worthy of worship, since you’re very sense of self would be something created by this creator?
• adoration: the same as above.
• subjugation: if the being is as I’ve described it above, would not the act of subjugation be a simple statement of reality? An acceptance of our status as created and limited beings

If by worship you mean respect then certainly. But respect is reciprocal. It’s impossible to respect something or someone that does not reciprocate. A being cannot respect someone and still require subjugation. A being that requires subjugation is disrespecting itself, in which case I could teach it something about the value of respect.

 

[utunumsint]

If by worship you mean respect then certainly. But respect is reciprocal. It’s impossible to respect something or someone that does not reciprocate. A being cannot respect someone and still require subjugation.

Agreed. That is why Catholics believe God created us free. But, maybe I should specify what kind of freedom he wants: he wants us to be free to do the good. Not evil. Evil, be definition, is an aberation of the good. A defect. God wants us to be without defect, and therefore wants us to be as we are meant to be. This is the ultimate form of respect.

Is it possible for your to imagine such a being?

God bless,
Ut

 

[crowonsnow]

Agreed. That is why Catholics believe God created us free. But, maybe I should specify what kind of freedom he wants: he wants us to be free to do the good. Not evil. Evil, be definition, is an aberation of the good. A defect. God wants us to be without defect, and therefore wants us to be as we are meant to be. This is the ultimate form of respect.

Is it possible for your to imagine such a being?

I can imagine that. I can imagine anything. You name it. And again, in all honesty, I can imagine something better. But why does this god you describe seems incapable of same? I know, my flawed vision again.

I can imagine very advanced organisms wanting to get it right, this universe thing. I can imagine them duplicating their experiment time and again, tweaking it, attempting to get a better result, not being content with creating lives that are so flawed, so “evil,” so containing aberrations, but still taking great satisfaction in bringing about more desirable characteristics. It’s the same thing you or I would do when we develop vaccines or antibiotics. We know it doesn’t work 100% so we try to find out why and then make it better.

Your imagined god seems to have given up. Why? Unless you are saying that despite the fact that this god allows aberration in its handiwork, it is still perfect. But how can that be? Are we back to axioms?

I can imagine very advanced life forms wanting to get it right and continuing to work and aspire to same. But these are not gods as I understand the classic Christian of deist god, something that can abracadabra anything it wants without the effort of even a thought. I personally find that fantastically silly.

I suppose one could imagine a god that doesn’t allow children to suffer and die. We could personally decide to believe in and even worship and seek guidance from such a god, based only on the hope that something like that exists, perhaps having come to the realization along the way that we shouldn’t judge our imagined god by the beliefs and practices of followers of a rival imagined god.

And we would obviously have concluded that there is no evidence for such a being, except our own personal desire that in a better imagined universe, one ought to exist.

Obviously, if we’re able ourselves to imagine all these better things, then we don’t need this god. We can do it on our own, provided we don’t give up on ourselves, don’t surrender to despair and violence and superstition.