Why is disbelief a sin?

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

So yet another word means something else than what it means? Why not use a more appropriate word then?

you make more of this semantic variance than is needed; people often use words (slightly) differently from one another - what of it?

“immutable” is fine if you understand its usage correctly.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Nope, that is simply not true. The basic question is not: “who created the universe?”, rather it is: “does the universe require a creator?”. And unless you can prove that the universe does require a creator, the other question does not even pop up.

what do you mean by “prove”?

 

[LatinCat]

Hitetlen:

Maybe this thread will not go to hell in a handbasket, one can only hope. Many apologists keep repeating that atheists will reap the “rewards” they have sown, and the “reward” is eternal damnation.

They also say that atheists “reject” God, and therefore they can blame only themselves for their fate. Let me clarify the issue: I don’t “reject” God, I am simply unconvinced of his existence. Whether you believe in something or not is not subject your volitional control. No one can force oneself to believe in something. Beliefs are predisposed by experience, they cannot be changed volitionally.

So why should God punish atheists for something they have no control over, of which they are literally innocent?

I could go through the motions and join a church, go to mass, pray etc., but that would be a set of empty motions if I could not believe in the rituals, which I cannot. Even if I liked to believe them, it would be impossible for me.

Do you think that God would be pleased by my “subterfuge”, by my attempt to display the “surface” of believing, while knowing full well, that it is just a pretense and not real? I don’t think so. But maybe you disagree, I don’t know. So get out the big guns.

Because there is enough evidence for anyone to come to conclusion that God exists. There are just some who choose not to see it. A person who Chooses not to see it is guilty of choosing not to see it.

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

That is not what I proposed: I only said that there is no need to formulate my desires out loud - if God is omniscient, he knows them anyway. And will fulfill my wishes if he wants to, and not fulfill them if he does not want it, regardless of whether I ask for it or not. If God is immutable I cannot influence him either way, so why bother?

Ah. I did not know you were talking about mental prayer versus vocal “out loud” prayer. Thank you for clarifying. I assumed by “ask”, you were including any prayer, mental or vocal.

Yup, God accepts prayers in any format. Don’t “bother” trying to arm-wrestle God, but by all means, “bother” putting yourself in the right relationship or position (to use the landscape analogy) with God.

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

Nope, that is simply not true. The basic question is not: “who created the universe?”, rather it is: “does the universe require a creator?”. And unless you can prove that the universe does require a creator, the other question does not even pop up.

Huh??? For starters, can you prove your assumption? I don’t think so. At some level we must admit that we do make an assumption. I admit mine, but can you admit or even discern your’s?

I believe what I believe for a couple of reasons. First, I believe my assumption that something cannot come from nothing is reasonable and true. Thus, my assumption (based on reason) leads me to the conclusion that the only thing that is capable of not needing a creator is God, the creator Himself. He is reality itself, a creative intelligence, a spirit of the universe, that is responsible for all of creation. He is eternal, hence nothing preceded Him. And yet, because He is reality itself, this does not contradict the Principle of First Cause.

Secondly, the consequences for taking the assumption that you do are that “life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere”. We aren’t intelligent agents. We are here by chance. There is no objective reality. It’s all relative. The consequences of this philosophy (which Nietzsche espouses) lead to ultimate despair. Not only does it make life meaningless, it makes death meaningless. What’s the point? I find this view highly intolerable, and it leads to even worse things when we apply this philosophy to real life.

Remember, philosophy is theory that must be applied to life. If there is no truth, than philosophy’s search for truth takes an ironic twist. Philosophy, according to this viewpoint, has traveled full circle.

Finally, Sarte gave us a great example of taking this philosophy to it’s natural end. He protested the Nuremburg trials based on his perception that their are no universal or objective truths. Thus, how could anyone tell the Nazis that what they did was wrong? Thank God for people that are consistent with their philosophy!

 

[Strider]

Hitetlin,
First, like most atheists who post here, you are obviously of above-average intelligence (as an aside, that seems to be a possible impediment to faith - belief in a transcendent, supernatural being who cannot be seen or directly detected - as the truly bright are usually very independent), and the threads you begin here seem to be sincere in discovering just what faith is and how it works.
I cannot give you any better answers than some of the above posts, especially reading books by those who have traveled from where you are to true faith.
But I do have a suggestion. It’s an old test I give myself from time to time to see if I’m on the right track in some area of my life: I take the argument opposite to the one I believe or favor and try, as objectively and honestly as I can, to prove IT true. It just gives one a view from a different angle.
Have you ever argued for the existence of an omniscient, transcendent God?
It might be an interesting exercise.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Of course I do. Whose understanding should I rely upon? I can only rely on what I know.

Do you not see? You must and you do rely also on other people’s understanding. You can and do rely on the automechanic’s knowledge to fix your car. You can and do rely on the pilot to fly the airplane. You can and must rely on the involuntary functioning of your body to continue living. You can and do rely on doctor’s understanding of the human body as they treat your sicknesses. etc. etc.

Hitetlen:

You still have not clarified what do you mean by the word “faith”, so this sentence is unclear.

In this context, I was using it as you used “believe”. In that sense, to have faith generically means to believe. To believe means to allow something to become part of your knowledge. It thereby becomes part of what you will live by.

You said you couldn’t force yourself to believe. The problem is that you are relying solely on your own understanding as a basis to believe. And since you don’t already understand it, you cannot “believe” it, because you think it has to already be part of your understanding before you can believe.

You have things reversed. To believe means to pre-emptively allow yourself to understand something you do not already comprehend. It is like the decision to open your eyes without knowing what you will see beforehand. The fact is, you do not need to know what you will see in order for you to be able to open your eyes. You only need to “see” (realize) that you have control of your eyelids. We know such an ability because of our consciousness and ability of our will to do so.

Hitetlen:

Why should I? As Paul said: “When I was a child, I behaved like a child. When I grew up I left the childish things behind”. (Not a verbatim quote, but we can look it up in the Bible if you want it.)

That is from 1 Cor 13:11. But look at the verse surrounding it:

1 Cor 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

As you can see, his point is that a child does not see and know all things very clearly. He is focusing on the aspect of lack of knowledge, even in faith. He is saying that the perfect is coming in which we will possess the reality that we only see dimly by faith. And the reality will be charity, which is greater than faith, but in this life is based on it.

But Our Lord says we must be like a child as far as trust and purity are concerned.

Matthew 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. … 10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

As someone who works with addicts and alcoholics everyday, I can only tell you the evidence is out there. Just as when I flip a light switch, the light comes on, so too when addicts believe in God and live by that, they recover. The Big Book of Alcoholic’s Anonymous teaches that this is the ONLY way to recovery. That may not be absolute proof, but it is certainly strong evidence. God in people’s lives changes them. That is an observable and replicatable fact.

Actually this is not true, and the “Big Book” is incorrect. There are purely secular organizations out there who help addicts to cope with their addiction, without resorting to religious ground. And from being an “absolute” proof, as you said, it is not evidence at all. Sorry. But even if it WERE true, it would only prove that placebos (and self-hypnosis) sometimes work in the place of actual medications, and there is nothing astoninshing about that. But I have to tell you that no level of trust in God has ever helped an amputee to regrow his lost limb.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

You must admit that the other question has indeed popped up for other people…

For sure. That does not make it a valid question, however.

hurst:

But before we consider the universe, let’s consider ourselves. Did we always exist, or were we made? Did we “require a creator”? What is your answer?

The answer is obvious: we did not always exist, and my birth was the direct result of sex between my parents. In this respect, yes, I had a creator. Please go on.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

what do you mean by “prove”?

Merely this; the sentence: “The universe simply exists” is either an impossibility according to the known laws of nature, or it leads to a logical contradiction. Either one would be sufficient to ask the next question: “So, then who created the universe?”. But until it can be shown that the universe is not sufficient unto itself, or the above sentence leads to a logical contradiction, the secondary question has no reason to be asked. Fair enough?

 

[Hitetlen]

LatinCat:

Because there is enough evidence for anyone to come to conclusion that God exists. There are just some who choose not to see it. A person who Chooses not to see it is guilty of choosing not to see it.

Evidence?

 

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

Ah. I did not know you were talking about mental prayer versus vocal “out loud” prayer. Thank you for clarifying. I assumed by “ask”, you were including any prayer, mental or vocal.

Actually, I did not think about this differentiation.

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

Huh??? For starters, can you prove your assumption? I don’t think so. At some level we must admit that we do make an assumption. I admit mine, but can you admit or even discern your’s?

I did not make any assumptions as of yet. I simply asked that the question: "Does the universe require a creator? be substantiated.

Redbandito:

I believe what I believe for a couple of reasons. First, I believe my assumption that something cannot come from nothing is reasonable and true.

No, it is not. There are observations that matter-antimatter pairs of particles pop out of nowhere. So even the first assumption is false. Therefore the rest is incorrect as well.

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

Actually, I did not think about this differentiation.

I think we’re narrowing in on what the nature of prayer should be. Rather than throw this thread too far off course, you might be interested in the section of the Cathechism on prayer (I hope I’m not piling to many links on you):

scborromeo.org/ccc/p4s1c3a1.htm#2711

(I’ll let you page through as far as you wish rather than posting each section with a link)

 

[Hitetlen]

Strider:

Hitetlin,
First, like most atheists who post here, you are obviously of above-average intelligence (as an aside, that seems to be a possible impediment to faith - belief in a transcendent, supernatural being who cannot be seen or directly detected - as the truly bright are usually very independent), and the threads you begin here seem to be sincere in discovering just what faith is and how it works.

Thank you for your kind words. You are right, I am fascinated by understanding other peoples’ ways of thinking.

Strider:

But I do have a suggestion. It’s an old test I give myself from time to time to see if I’m on the right track in some area of my life: I take the argument opposite to the one I believe or favor and try, as objectively and honestly as I can, to prove IT true. It just gives one a view from a different angle.
Have you ever argued for the existence of an omniscient, transcendent God?
It might be an interesting exercise.

That is really a very good suggestion: to put oneself into the shoes of an opponent and see where it leads. Yes, I have tried in in a sense: I was a believer before, and had few problems with my belief until I really started to question the fundamentals.

The problems I first experienced came while I was a child: I prayed to God to grant me certain powers (I recall that being able to fly and become invisible were some of them) and when my prayers went unanswered, I was seriously disappointed. But then I forgot these prayers, and I was a “lukewarm” believer for quite a long time. Indeed my belief was actually strengthened in college, where some very dumb and inept teachers lectured us on materialistic philosophy. Having always been an antagonist, these stupid lectures reinforced me in my beliefs. Only later did I start to really think for myself (at least the discipline of philosophy) and realized how unacceptable the religious worldview is.

This is my journey in a nutshell. (Written by a nutcase )

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Do you not see? You must and you do rely also on other people’s understanding. You can and do rely on the automechanic’s knowledge to fix your car. You can and do rely on the pilot to fly the airplane. You can and must rely on the involuntary functioning of your body to continue living. You can and do rely on doctor’s understanding of the human body as they treat your sicknesses. etc. etc.

I agree, those are reasonable requirements. But trusting other peoples’ opinion only goes that far. I trust their opinion only because it would not be expedient for me to try and train myself a mechanic or a doctor. But I would not accept anyone else’s opinion about my basic worldview, unless they can come up with a compelling argument.

hurst:

In this context, I was using it as you used “believe”. In that sense, to have faith generically means to believe. To believe means to allow something to become part of your knowledge. It thereby becomes part of what you will live by.

Ok, that sounds good. I believe in many things, some are more substantiated than others. I even believe that we (as intelligent beings) are not alone in the universe, even though there is absolutely no physical proof for that, except the speculation that life cannot be unique on this planet.

But there are limits to these beliefs. For example: I do not believe in the existence of purple elephants who express themselves in Esperanto in perfect iambic poems, even though it is not impossible that such creatures exist.

I do not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, but for a very different reason. To have the attributes: “pink” and “invisible” contain a logical contradiction, therefore such a being cannot exist.

The beliefs that I can entertain have two limits: they must be at least logically possible, and cannot contradict the insofar known laws of nature. Of course I will not believe everything that is within these parameters, that would not make sense.

There is a very strict rule that I apply: “extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs”.

hurst:

You said you couldn’t force yourself to believe. The problem is that you are relying solely on your own understanding as a basis to believe. And since you don’t already understand it, you cannot “believe” it, because you think it has to already be part of your understanding before you can believe.

That is not correct, I am not so filled with hot air that I would assert that I know everything. On the very contrary, I am very open to new ideas. But the above mentioned restrictions apply: just because someone or many others assert something, I will not automatically accept their utterances, not even as a working hypotheses. I demand either “proof” or at least a level of “evidence” which make their assertions reasonable to examine.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Hitetlen, have you read Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton? It’s the book that intellectually convinced C.S. Lewis to believe in Christ. (Not that you’re looking to be converted, but just to check it out since both those guys were extremely intelligent.) Anyways, it’s available online in its entirety if you’re interested. Just go here:

mrrena.com/em.shtml

God bless!

-Jon

 

[Hitetlen]

JSmitty2005:

Hitetlen, have you read Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton? It’s the book that intellectually convinced C.S. Lewis to believe in Christ. (Not that you’re looking to be converted, but just to check it out since both those guys were extremely intelligent.) Anyways, it’s available online in its entirety if you’re interested. Just go here:


God bless!

-Jon

It seems to be of reasonable size, so I will see how interesting it is. By peeking into it I think I might just like it. I know that I like Chesterton’s “Father Brown” mysteries. Thanks for the link, I added it to my favorites.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

There are observations that matter-antimatter pairs of particles pop out of nowhere. So even the first assumption is false.

This is a misleading statement. Even antimatter has positive mass, and mass does not naturally come from nowhere. Even science contends that they do not come “out of nowhere”, but rather from energy in the vacuum (~1MeV for electron-positron pair).

Hitetlen:

Therefore the rest is incorrect as well.

Since your claim about matter-antimatter coming out of nowhere is itself false, then you no longer have a basis for declaring this.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

I was a believer before, and had few problems with my belief until I really started to question the fundamentals.

When you say you were a believer, do you only mean a believer in God generically speaking, or were you in a Christian family? Were you baptized? Were you Catholic?

hurst