Why do some people prefer to be atheists?

[Charlemagne_III]

When I read this I think of something in an Oxford publication about a certain group on another continent and their religious views.

"…another important distinction between [their] religion and institutionalized religion is that there is no such thing as worship of God in the former. Worshiping is usually a formalized group activity that takes place at a designated area or facility. No such activity is found in [their] society. Nor is there a practice of individualized personal worship. The problem is conceptual. The word worship does not correspond to anything in [their] language. The nearest thing to worship in [their] language is the word Som. But this means “to serve,” and it is not apparent how any being can serve the supreme being. What can he possibly need? What difference can such a “service” possibly make to him. So even though in Christian missionary translations Som is used to mean “worship”, that practice is open to question. "

–The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity

The notion of Deity that makes it so minimal in the East is that there is no Supreme God of all who deserves our worship and our obedience. Even in the West the idea of a magnificent supreme Deity who will tolerate no rivals is fairly limited to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes, the usual atheist argument is for determinism of all kinds. This is the irony of the atheist view: that it frees us from the shackles of religion only to shackle us with the conviction of robotic determinism.

The only atheists I am familiar with who argued for free choice were Jean Paul Sartre and Ayn Rand. Sartre near his end ceased to be an atheist.

Yes this is an irony…though I do not agree with determinism…for I have been quite able to choose to do certain things even though my natural inclinations were to decline…

Now march yourself to the the milestone thread and make note of your 5000th post…congratulations…!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is it not possible to have free will without a creator present to provide for such a thing? Why might biology be incapable of eventually providing for itself the means to choose?

Interesting question.

I think it was Einstein who believed that neither in the macrocosm nor in the microcosm is there any freedom. “God does not play dice with the universe” or words to that effect sum up his view of freedom. So his answer to your question would be No.

While I respect Einstein’s views on many subjects, there are a few where I think he leaves something to be desired both as a philosopher and a theologian.

Man seems to be set apart from the rest of Creation in having not only the notion of free will, but also in the sense that he comes from a Creator and that he has a soul and that his soul is destined for a world beyond this one. Not all men share this view, but the fact that so many do raises the question of why they do. Did not God plant in them these desires which they are free to acknowledge or deny?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Interesting question.

I think it was Einstein who believed that neither in the macrocosm nor in the microcosm is there any freedom. “God does not play dice with the universe” or words to that effect sum up his view of freedom. So his answer to your question would be No.

**While I respect Einstein’s views on many subjects, there are a few where I think he leaves something to be desired both as a philosopher and a theologian. **

Agreed…as the man was apparently morally bankrupt…

Man seems to be set apart from the rest of Creation in having not only the notion of free will, but also in the sense that he comes from a Creator and that he has a soul and that his soul is destined for a world beyond this one. Not all men share this view, but** the fact that so many do raises the question of why they do. Did not God plant in them these desires which they are free to acknowledge or deny?**

It is possible…yet seemingly is it not strange that a desire might have been planted and not along with it an identity…? For if God might have planted a desire to know Him, but yet refrained from specifying who He was, while seemingly equally being largely concerned that humanity might arrive at a similar conclusion, would He not fairly be considered to be sewing seeds of unnecessary conflict…?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The notion of Deity that makes it so minimal in the East is that there is no Supreme God of all who deserves our worship and our obedience. Even in the West the idea of a magnificent supreme Deity who will tolerate no rivals is fairly limited to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This isn’t in reference to an eastern religion. But I’m curious for your perspective on this. ? The people referenced above do believe there is one supreme being. Based off of what you’ve seen so far why do you classify their concept of this being as a deity?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is possible…yet seemingly is it not strange that a desire might have been planted and not along with it an identity…? For if God might have planted a desire to know Him, but yet refrained from specifying who He was, while seemingly equally being largely concerned that humanity might arrive at a similar conclusion, would He not fairly be considered to be sewing seeds of unnecessary conflict…?

Here’s the rub. Adam and Eve knew who God was, and knew they owed him obedience.

It was they and their progeny who sewed the seeds of unnecessary conflict not only with God but with each other.

Why God left the whole human race in darkness for so long before the advent of the Messiah is anybody’s guess. Why much of the world is still in darkness so long after the advent of Jesus Christ is still anybody’s guess. Perhaps that could be chalked up to stubborn disobedience … and the machinations of the Devil who loves to divide and conquer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This isn’t in reference to an eastern religion. But I’m curious for your perspective on this. ? The people referenced above do believe there is one supreme being. Based off of what you’ve seen so far why do you classify their concept of this being as a deity?

I don’t understand this question. You are referring to Jews and Christians, right?

Do you mean I should have referred to this being as THE deity? Or as the Deity?

Agreed, then.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Here’s the rub. Adam and Eve knew who God was, and knew they owed him obedience.

It was they and their progeny who sewed the seeds of unnecessary conflict not only with God but with each other.

Why God left the whole human race in darkness for so long before the advent of the Messiah is anybody’s guess. Why much of the world is still in darkness so long after the advent of Jesus Christ is still anybody’s guess. Perhaps that could be chalked up to stubborn disobedience … and the machinations of the Devil who loves to divide and conquer.

I fear we must part ways in terms of belief in a specific Adam and Eve…

 

[tonyrey]

Is it not possible to have free will without a creator present to provide for such a thing? Why might biology be incapable of eventually providing for itself the means to choose?

All biological events have physical causes which exclude the power to choose.

Why must God be perfect?

Imperfection is incompatible with being the self-subsistent Supreme Being.

Are spirits finite? If so, will evil yet exist in Heaven? If not finite, how is it possible to consider Lucifer and his angels as evil?

Evil cannot exist in Heaven but Lucifer and his angels are eternal because their existence is sustained by God.

Further, given that evil ultimately triumphs among the living why might God have allowed good only to partially triumph among the dead?

Evil doesn’t ultimately triumph among those who are good because they are united to God.

A possibility…yet does not, in a similar vein, the bacteria or virus know its host even without the host being aware of same? Yet which might be considered superior?

Physical existence has no bearing on what occurs in Heaven and Hell!

Interesting questions.

 

[tonyrey]

I fear we must part ways in terms of belief in a specific Adam and Eve…

Why wasn’t there a first man and woman? Did others develop simultaneously?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I fear we must part ways in terms of belief in a specific Adam and Eve…

Why am I not surprised?

You probably also don’t believe in a first specific living organism?

They were just popping up all over the place at the same time?

 

[tonyrey]

I like what Rossum said (I think in another thread) in that he believes we keep getting another chance to improve on what we have already done. I’m really not certain I could have lived another life other than the one I have lived. It is a world of my making (within reason).

I think the only free will that could ever be considered as real would be that we would have were we given a second chance at life (and then a third and a fourth). Like the guy in Groundhog day who was trying his luck with the heroine. This line obviously didn’t turn out so good, so next time, try another.

Next time don’t cheat on your wide. Spend more time helping others. Work less and be with the kids more. Etcetera etcetera. Who wouldn’t want that second chance?

Maybe I’m a closet Buddhist.

Catholics believe we have a second chance - in Purgatory!

 

[Bradski]

Why am I not surprised?

You probably also don’t believe in a first specific living organism?

They were just popping up all over the place at the same time?

If you think that life started at 2:35pm on Wednesday aftenoon exactly 3.5 billion years ago, then you are under a misapprehension. Life happened gradually. It didn’t turn on like a light bulb, one living organism suddenly appearing from nowhere from which everything evolved.

There are various definitions of life. Just like there are various definitions of exactly what separates homo sapien from its ancestors. There wasn’t one day when homo sapien suddenly appeared.

 

[Bradski]

Catholics believe we have a second chance - in Purgatory!

It’s simply the ante room to an eternity of heavenly bliss. Except for the guy who wore a condom and uses his God given intelligence and free will to object to the fact that he did anything that would deserve eternal torment.

In which case that’s exactly what he apparently deserves.

 

[tonyrey]

Catholics believe we have a second chance - in Purgatory!

If he was doing what he sincerely believed to be right he is in Heaven! The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you think that life started at 2:35pm on Wednesday aftenoon exactly 3.5 billion years ago, then you are under a misapprehension. Life happened gradually. It didn’t turn on like a light bulb, one living organism suddenly appearing from nowhere from which everything evolved.QUOTE]

And you know all this how? You were there to observe?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

All biological events have physical causes which exclude the power to choose.

How might such a statement be provable?

Imperfection is incompatible with being the self-subsistent Supreme Being.

Why?

If a computer programmer might be capable of creating a virtual world (while being imperfect) why might not a supreme being be capable of same, but within greater parameters?

Evil cannot exist in Heaven but Lucifer and his angels are eternal because their existence is sustained by God.

Yet if God might permit this existence then is not God seemingly both an accomplice to all evil caused by their interaction with mankind as well as no longer able to be considered a being of simple goodness? For how might God be considered simple if He is capable of sustaining evil?

Further, is considering evil to be capable only of wrongdoing due to its finite nature truly possible when considering the reality that good beings must equally be finite? For what might keep a finite good being from doing evil if its nature might be equally finite?

Evil doesn’t ultimately triumph among those who are good because they are united to God.

Given that death must clearly be seen as the ultimate evil from the perspective of the living, and that all living things must die, is it not fair to consider that evil ultimately triumphs in the realm of the living?

Physical existence has no bearing on what occurs in Heaven and Hell!

I see…

Interesting questions.

Thank you!

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Why wasn’t there a first man and woman? Did others develop simultaneously?

Gradually, but surely…though we must stop this line of discussion before we tread on a forbidden topic…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Why am I not surprised?

You probably also don’t believe in a first specific living organism?

They were just popping up all over the place at the same time?

Unless you believe that all of humanity is predicated upon an incestual relationship among Cain, Able, Seth and either their sisters or their mother you do not believe in the original duo either…

Yet what do I strictly believe? It is difficult to express without verging on the forbidden topic…which is unfortunate given the possibilities…

Though it might be of interest to consider the lowly virus…currently not quite alive and yet capable of reproduction…?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Bradski;13604658:

If you think that life started at 2:35pm on Wednesday aftenoon exactly 3.5 billion years ago, then you are under a misapprehension. Life happened gradually. It didn’t turn on like a light bulb, one living organism suddenly appearing from nowhere from which everything evolved.

And you know all this how? You were there to observe?

Might you have observed your own birth…? How are you certain that you are even here…?