Suppose maybe there is, maybe there isn't. (I don't believe that, but let's just stipulate for the purposes of argument)
My belief in God has resulted in no negatives through my life. I am more considerate of my fellow man than I otherwise would be, due to the belief that God's mercy applies to all and that, as a Christian, I am called to practice spiritual and corporal acts of mercy to my fellow man. I am called to love my fellow man and to live in a less materialistic manner than I otherwise would. I raise my child to have certain standards of belief and practice which are constructive and conducive to a well-ordered and caring society. Etc. etc. etc.
If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life. Everything would be situational. If I saw a woman who was good enough looking where it would be worth the price, I would have no motivation against committing adultery. I would have no motivation for raising my child properly, other than to make my life easier. Honesty? When it's convenient, etc. Respect for human life? When convenient. And so on. The root of my morals would not be there so the standards by which I live my life would be completely utilitarian rather than based on any absolute.
I believe in God. If, when it is all said and done, I am right, I believe that God, in His mercy, will overlook my shortfalls and grant me eternal life. If I'm wrong, no harm has been done and a lot of good has been done through my life and I won't ever know that I was wrong (after all, death to an atheist is nothing more than obliteration -- there is no awareness after death)
If I didn't believe in God, I would more than likely live my life according to utilitarian morals...with the corresponding impacts. If, in this circumstance, I am right, then I will never know it. There is no awareness after death. But if I'm wrong, I will have an eternity to ponder that error.
So, from my perspective, even looking at it from the most cynical point of view, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by acknowledging God. And there is everything to lose and nothing to gain by denying His existence.
I guess I'm kind of curious as to whether others are fighting this battle and what you have done or are doing about it. What goes through your head when you contemplate life and its meaning and the possiblity that there really isn't a God?
hi jj
B)
i have found that the meaning of "God" can simply keep changing
from faith to faith to faith, as it were
each faith is actually a layer we shed
once it has done its job
and the difference between layers are not small or subtle
but rather, each is a stark drastic shift in perspectives and values and expectations and understanding
i would even say that God wants us to smash our faith in God to smithereens
over and over and over again
and in one sense...
...we are not done until there is nothing left to smash
Geeze, I'm not quite sure if I should weigh in here or not.
At the risk of being called a "faith blaster" or other epithet, I've gotta say, it doesn't look good for there being an all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving, benevolent diety "out there".
Consider, if statistics are correct, 25 to 30 thousand innocent children died yesterday from such incurable ailments as diarhea, measles, malnutrition, and various parasites. Don't you suppose their mothers spent some time turning to The Almighty for help? You think maybe they pleaded, begged, wailed, moaned, and beseeched some invisible force to save their child? I think that's a safe bet. Yet they died anyway.
Or how about the Jews and other undesireables that were exterminated like so many rats during WWII?
You think maybe they prayed to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to help them? I'll bet it was incessant prayers, at least for awhile. Yet, again, no help came.
How many times have we heard of good, decent people who have some horrendous event destroy their lives? It's certainly not uncommon. And then what do we hear from the religious community? Well, spin, mostly. Near as I can tell.
It's gotten pretty hard for me to reconcile the supposed attributes of the loving Almighty God of the NT with what happens in real life. Looky, either He's omnipotent and loving, or He's not. If He can't intervene in some situation because of this or that, well, then He's not omnipotent. Or if He chooses not to intervene because of this or that, well, then He's not loving now is He? Unless we concoct some bizarro world where love equals neglect or power equals impotence, which is what I saw entirely too much of with the Bible-thumper crowd.
But to get back to your question "Assume for a moment..." well, isn't that the way we should have really started out in our spiritual quest? Why should we assume from the outset that there IS a God? How can you come to any logical conclusion by starting out with such an outrageous a-priori assumption? But that's what we've always done, then get into the arguments of "Well, prove that He doesn't!" and other such illogic. Sigh...
So, yeah, maybe it's a bummer to think that we're not going to float around forever with all of our friends singing "Cum By Yah". But also, it puts to rest any ridiculous notions of blowing oneself up because you think you'll be reincarnated to frolic with 72 virgins forever too. Life becomes more precious because you realize that this most likely is all we've got. We've only got this chance to live, love, and be decent to one another, and funerals really ARE final, so we'd best do the best we can with what we've got...
I guess I'm kind of curious as to whether others are fighting this battle and what you have done or are doing about it. What goes through your head when you contemplate life and its meaning and the possiblity that that there really isn't a God?
-JJ
Can I still have my brain cryogenically preserved and go with the lucid dream option?
Or is this present life already merely a dream (or a nightmare), from which we will eventually awaken?
:)
I agree with SG along the lines of shedding the old beliefs to make room for new possibilities and new mysteries. It keeps our hearts young within these bodies which are passing away.
And I agree with Mark that there's nothing to lose in believing in a higher being - even if we should lack all evidence for such in this world. If one's "faith" is the size of a tiny mustard seed, so be it. It should suffice for this life.
And I agree with geo, too - "this life" may indeed turn out to be all that we have to be decent to one another.
My best wishes to you, JJ, in your new contemplations, wherever they should lead you.
Being honest with oneself is never a bad thing, IMO.
JJ- I’ll share some of my thoughts on my own changing perspective and understanding of God, godliness, and religions because it seems to me to be what you are really asking for.
First off I do not view this so much as a battle of faith or needing to smash my old faiths as I view it a natural process of questioning, discovery, understanding and reconciliation of ideas. This is the natural (at least for me) path that a human follows in their thought life to understand and thus be able to predict and thus control themselves and the world around them. Additionally it gives their life meaning and purpose and knowledge of their creator. Therefore changing views, perspectives and beliefs as time goes on is a good thing not a bad one.
Before I was in the way I had an urge to know God. Looking back there were several different opportunities to do so with different groups. I ended up taking PFAL. Was it my personal individual choice or God’s divine plan for my life I choose the group that gave me what I wanted to know in the way I wanted it. My personality quirks probably meant that its cult aspects were also what I needed. It was so nice to know the right answer after it was spoon fed to me.
All paths lead toward God, The same paths lead away from Him. The more we try to raise ourselves and especially try and impose our understanding of how to do this on others we promote religion. This limits us and those we influence. What works for me will not work as well if at all for most others. For me realizing that God is with me where I am on any path I choose to take at all times is the godliness I seek. Religion says I am nowhere near God unless I find him. Godliness says he is always now here with me, I just have to remember that and thus I know where He is I am.
Looking at the physical universe there is so much order from atoms to molecules to DNA to all life to physics to astronomy to mathematics there is so much elegant order and interdependence that it almost impossible not to at least assume that there is an intelligent creative force behind it.
Then there is also perfect complete randomness and that is what most people attribute and equate to the devil’s actions or God’s will because it is their only logical explanation for the “bad” things that happen. Randomness is extremely hard for people to accept or understand and it is scary because it cannot be controlled. But since it part of what God created it fits in perfectly somehow. It is ok if I I don’t ever understand how, I don’t even have to “have faith” about it
Thanks for all your responses thus far! As expected, they are thoughtful and compassionate.
If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life.
Mark: This is what I'm wondering about. I don't have any particular problem with this aspect of faith. Its probably what is keeping me hanging on, if only by a thread. But I have two problems with this. First, surely there are non-Christians who live morally. Is the only alternative to faith in a Christian God immorality?
Second, is that really the extent of your faith? (That's rhetorical; no disrespect intended.) The vast majority of Christians I've ever known were advocating something far more involved than that. From personal spiritual relationships with God/Jesus Christ/[Hh]oly [ss]pirit to physical manifestations to life after death, every group has had something bigger on their agenda. I don't think I know anyone who got involved to be moral.
But having said that, I think you're right. There doesn't seem to be much of a downside to believing in God. As long as it stays as simple as creating a solid moral foundation in one's life. When we get beyond that and into, say, witnessing, or imposing our own understanding as ckeer noted, its a whole nother ballgame.
i would even say that God wants us to smash our faith in God to smithereens
over and over and over again
Sirg: are you saying the very act of smashing is what helps us grow and brings us a stronger and more well-defined faith? I have thought along these lines but have a nagging suspicion I'll be long in the dirt before there is nothing left to smash.
Thanks for weighing in, George. I was hoping you would. What happened when you started coming to those realizations? Did you still seek a greater understanding of your place in the universe or did you not bother? For me, I started tip-toeing into the works of various 'non-Christian' authors such as Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine and Robert Buckman. Their arguments make sense but I'm not sure they talked much about where to go from here. Something in my soul seeks a higher ground but I'm kind of lost in how to get there or satisfy the need.
Taking the topic question to heart - Jumpin Jive...
My first post at Greasespot was "Got Any Holy Milk Left?" The idea was to see if people had ditched as many of their beliefs as I had... and if ANY of it remained after TWI... for me, not much. I was sort of asking a similar question to yours.
However, I chose to consider your question this way...
Since it is said that “God is light. God is Love. God is Peace.” Etc… then… one must wonder... if this is what we will find ultimately...
If we get rid of the notion of God, do we of necessity get rid of Hope?
Must we sink in gloom and despair? (Some will, if the “reality” is that there is NO hope – for there is no God).
Is there no other path towards betterment?
Is there no love? (Some say it now – that love is dead… for it never was… it was just emotional, childish attachments)
Is this the kind of thinking that will “take over” in the absence of the God of Love?
Do we start a war against peace – simply because it is the most likely (statistically predictable) outcome of the human species?
Do we start to campaign and riot for anarchy as the natural state of man?
The loss of any of these things is tragedy waiting: of huge proportions.
If you, fear that any of these are REAL and Possible outcomes, I suggest you stay put. Keep your beliefs. They will protect you.
If, on the other hand, you are willing to suffer the shock that will settle over you, - maybe you will deal with it, maybe you will not... then I suggest you proceed VERY slowly.
If on the other hand, you are a boyant type... jump on in... hope for the best... treat everything as OPEN SEASON... and consider it all and decide later!
There may ne some who will treat my questions like they are stupid and silly and look like fear tactics to keep people in the fold or to suggest that un-believers are the bane of human existance... Trust me. I am asking (have asked, already these questions). They are honest questions. Because they are possible outcomes.
Here is another point... If God is not, then the Devil is not. If he is not... then from whence cometh deception and destruction??
I no longer fear deception from "devils" in the same sense at all. I am an "experience experimenter" and a careful one, too - to be sure. I have found that the basis for all deception is... in me... it is not "out there". So - I had to learn what is likely to deceive me... i.e. what in me has strong attractions... look at them, honestly. It took me 15 years to SLOWLY deal with these issues before I was "ready" to entertain what if's and chase them down through experience.
Not saying it will take you 15 years... but you indicated that you were branching out, slowly in your reading. Reading is one thing... Doing - well that is quite another step... LOL.
I found a way to destroy what I believed, usually more than once!! But, before I destroyed ANYTHING, I knew I wanted to emerge stronger in some faith as a result. That has been my path. So I resonate with SirGuess on that one.
If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life.
I say thusly a comment by Albert Einstein:
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Think about it. Do you mean to tell me that, without the concept of God, you cannot have a concept of right or wrong? Or of what hurts other people? That morality and ethics shown to other people just cannot be practiced w/o a God in your life?
Remember Pat Tillman, that guy who used to be a star college football player who forsook going to professional football with the potential 6-7 figure salary, who instead joined up with the Army and went and fought in Afghanistan for his country? The guy died there even (by 'friendly' fire, no doubt). Ie., he had the selfless morals to believe to fight for his country in what he regarded was right. Ie., he thought outside of himself and his selfish desires. (I mean, fer crying out loud, pretty selfless to turn down a 7 figure salary and a posh life, doncha think?)
You do know that he was an atheist, don't you? And he always was. His brother stated so plainly at his funeral, and I see no reason to doubt his brother's testimony.
And ya know, its funny, but it seems that ever since that tidbit came out about him being an atheist, his praise coming from all around the country ... stopped.
Think about it. Do you mean to tell me that, without the concept of God, you cannot have a concept of right or wrong? Or of what hurts other people? That morality and ethics shown to other people just cannot be practiced w/o a God in your life?
Remember Pat Tillman, that guy who used to be a star college football player who forsook going to professional football with the potential 6-7 figure salary, who instead joined up with the Army and went and fought in Afghanistan for his country? The guy died there even (by 'friendly' fire, no doubt). Ie., he had the selfless morals to believe to fight for his country in what he regarded was right. Ie., he thought outside of himself and his selfish desires. (I mean, fer crying out loud, pretty selfless to turn down a 7 figure salary and a posh life, doncha think?)
You do know that he was an atheist, don't you? And he always was. His brother stated so plainly at his funeral, and I see no reason to doubt his brother's testimony.
And ya know, its funny, but it seems that ever since that tidbit came out about him being an atheist, his praise coming from all around the country ... stopped.
..... Make ya wanna go "Hhmmmmm ..."
No, Garth, it doesn't make me want to go hmmmm...
And I am shocked that you believe that my faith is so shallow that I am motivated by the fear of eternal punishment. Sorry to tell you, but that is hardly the case. My motivation is more along the lines of being motivated by the goodness of God, rather than by fear. But, of course, that is all twaddle to you, so I will leave my motivations aside. One thing I would say, though, is that I am very sorrowful of you that, before you abandoned Christianity, that you never acquired a deep enough understanding to recognize that the primary motivation technique used by God is that of love.
As to the Einstein quote and the witness of the great atheist martyr Tillman (since you all would reject the term "saint" being applied to one of your martyrs, what is the term that you all would use?), neither surprise me. But, again, your comments don't surprise me as you are incapable of understanding the words I wrote.
You quoted my statement, If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life. Apparently, that statement through you into such a rage that you were unable to read the concluding statement of that paragraph: The root of my morals would not be there so the standards by which I live my life would be completely utilitarian rather than based on any absolute. One statement is incomplete without the other. The quote you cited from Einstein is quite telling, he validates my statement: he states that ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties -- all utilitarian concepts. If his ethics are based upon his sympathy, his education, and his social ties, all of which can change over time and are situational, then there is no solid foundation upon which to base his life -- except what seems good to him. Perhaps another quote by Albert would be a little more revealing:
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that
the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing?
Such might indeed be the right thing to do a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for an new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.
As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego. Heroic, yes, but still supremely situational.
I am not for a second saying that altruistic behavior is the sole provence of the theist. That's foolish. If you can manage to do so, please consider what I did say: that the altruistic behavior is simply situational and utilitarian. Not necessarily "bad," per se.
You apparently took my post as an attack upon atheism. It wasn't. You are more than welcome to believe as you will and I will hardly be the one to argue with you. As I said in the original post: if I'm wrong, I've hurt nothing and have nothing to lose. If you're wrong, you'll have an eternity to contemplate that error (and I'm not even saying where or how that contemplation will occur...just that it would occur). That's not an attack: it's just a simple statement of deductive reasoning.
1) First off, you presume at least much as you accuse me of, as your post did not 'through (sp? ;)) me into such a rage', altho' I can see how such an image would seemingly enhance the view of non-believers as being 'base animals' and nothing beyond that, yadayada. Your post did amuse and puzzle me tho'.
2) Regarding the utilitarian vs. the absolute comparison. You see, my 'utilitarian' POV does indeed include, and is based upon an absolute standard. And so does Einstein's. And it's in plain view for all to see. Ie., "sympathy, education, and social ties", and what enhances all concerned in those areas; ie., the betterment of humanity in all people do. No doubt there are other areas to keep in mind when determining such absolutes, but note that it isn't simply because aomeone in authority determines what those absolutes are for everybody, but are things that are tested and learned over time.
For example, stealing. Not only has it been established that stealing is wrong because you can get arrested and put in jail for stealing, but people of good reason, be they theistic or atheistic, have seen that stealing from another robs and hurts not only the individual being stolen from, but ultimately from society, and even from the thief himself, as he doesn't see the benefit of working and earning his way thru society.
That is but one example of what I'm talking about. Ie., instead of some High Superior Being stating what morals are, and we but obediently w/o question accept that as right or wrong, one can see through personal experience and learning from actual proof what right and wrong is. And yes, I realize that is far easier said than done.
I took your post as conveying the idea that w/o believing in the concept of god, one didn't have morals. After reading your explanation of what you posted, I withdraw the 'not having any morals' part, but still challenge the utilitarian vs. the absolute morals part of your argument, seeing that they both endeavor to get to what is right and wrong. They apparently use different standards/means of arriving at the same or similar answers. There are those however, that still maintain that atheists cannot have morals for the simple reason that they don't believe in God -- period.
Allan,
I don't know if that quote you give of Einstein is correct or not (I tend to doubt it), but to keep a clear viewpoint of where he stood on this matter of believing in God, this is what he said in addressing what a lot of people said in trying to pigeonhole him in believing in God:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Now, you take those two quotes and compare them, and I'm sorry chief, but they hardly look compatible to each other to me, and I have some reliable sources to give a lot of creedance to the latter, and none to the former.
Here is another statement from Albert that gives further creedance to what I say here about him:
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation,
whose purposes are modeled after our own--
a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body,
although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.
Note how that also addresses several of the points that are raised in this thread.
Overall, this is a really good thread. :)
P.S., Clay, no more than you hate atheists and other non-believers, pal. As a matter of fact, I would dare to say that my level of 'hate' is a helluva lot less.
But seriously, I have given no indication of hate, or anything that can be rationally be regarded as hate, towards those who believe in religion. That I dare challenge various of its concepts is what I think you mistake as hate. And its a mistake based purely upon emotion and arrogance. And a good deal upon bigotry, I might add.
So bite me.
(And no Mark, I am not 'afflicted' with an evangelist's zeal either. Any more than others who post with as much 'zeal' as I do.)
I know, this is not my thread... but I just wanted to make an observation... because it could be of value.
The title of the thread is not ... "Assume for a moment there is no Religion...."
It is “Assume for moment there is no God”. These are not even close to the same statements and should not be confused.
On this topic, Einstein - in his work on "Religion and Science" - is most abundantly clear. And for the record, he wrote much about the causes for the rise of religion... and his own beliefs about God.
However, Garth seemed to confuse matters a bit when he mixed up the nouns – “religion” and “God”. I think a reader would get the sense as if Einstein meant they were one in the same. He failed to point out that Einstein was very clear about his thoughts regarding God and that those were not at all of the same content as his thoughts about religion.
There are many, many, many, many quotes in which Einstein seeks to outline his perceptions of God, and separate them from religion. Einstein derived his thoughts about God through science… rather than religion.
"Why bother bringing this up?" you may ask. The ways in which we comment on topics says something about us… I just didn’t want anyone reading that Einstein had rejected all notions of a God… that "notion" is simply, false.
Einstein, in speaking to mans’ newest penchant for the dismissal of an orderly universe - in favor of a universe that simply occurred via randomization of forces - he said… "No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Those who make no distinction between religion and God - and assume that the death of the one means the death and obliteration of the other...
or that the absence of God means no more religion... or that that the absence of religion means no more God... just haven't thought much about this topic, at all.
They are different. Very different. And any thinkihng guy... like Albert, knew it as well.
You must have posted before my latest post which has this:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
That quote by Einstein is no 'mistake' or 'confusion'. He actually said that, and did believe it.
Also keep in mind, that to many people, 'relgion' and 'God' are synonymous, altho you are correct that there is a distinction between the two. ... But not enough of a distinction to dismantle my point.
P.S., Clay, no more than you hate atheists and other non-believers, pal. As a matter of fact, I would dare to say that my level of 'hate' is a helluva lot less.
where do you see hate in me?
You attack and i try to strengthen. and it seems i already bit you.
And i was a lot less bold then i could have been fella.
cuz the temptation was to rip your head off and shove it up your foot.
Garth, Actually, I did post before and did not see... you were right on that one...
BUT HOLY _ _ _ _ - did you see that I mispelled "thinking" in my last line.... of my post??
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ... I am SUCH an IDIOT!!!!!
Oh... man... I am ROTFLMAF. Some times, in these things.. we all try to be so square-rooted on everything.. and then we go and blow any smiggggin' of credibility like I did...
Ya gotta admit... that mispelling, at that time, in that place...
Oh well...
Also, for the record, I was not trying to dissmantle your post... or point. I figured you know the difference between the two. It seemed to me that you were "almost" saying that Abert did not. He did. And your post of him, initially was in a misplaced context - as far as he goes.
Seems you hate anyone that wants to believe in God or that believes in God.
Why is that?
You applaud this atheist when he was one of many who died over there.
This religion of YOURS is irrational and bigotry.
You refuse the obvious in favor of your beliefs-narrow minded i'd say.
Now read that again, .... slowly if you have to. There is a lot os ASSumption and oversimplified mistatements, w/o *ONE* fact to back that up.
Here, allow me be more direct. ... In that statement you made to me, you are a liar! Yes, now I'm ticked off, and I have good right to be. All I'm doing is openly and verbally challenging various points that I don't believe to be true. Others (like Mark, in a very civil manner I might add) are responding with what they believe to be true and challenging me. So far, no hate. ... YOU barrel in with your rant about me hating, for no better reason than because of my remarks stating such challenges, and now you tell me that you are resisting the temptation "to rip my head off and shove it up my foot." ... Again, for no better reason than the challenging statements that I make. Or for like others like George Aar makes for that matter.
See, this is one reason why various unbelievers walk away from your religion and others like it. Ie., you can slam and damn atheists, infidels, unbelievers, etc. with pert near impunity, and Hey! no problemo! That's life in the big city, pal! ... BUT, one of us goes off on you and your beliefs, folks like you act like 9-11 has just hit!
Ie., you can (and often DO) dish it out, but you don't have the brass ones to take it.
Can't have it both ways. Besides, if your belief is so strong, you ought to welcome the verbal challenges, hmmmm? Then you can show the whole freekin' world how strong your truth is.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 4
18
Jan 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
markomalley
At my most cynical, I can state this:
Suppose maybe there is, maybe there isn't. (I don't believe that, but let's just stipulate for the purposes of argument)
My belief in God has resulted in no negatives through my life. I am more considerate of my fellow man than I otherwise would be, due to the belief that God's mercy applies to all and that, as a Christian, I am called to practice spiritual and corporal acts of mercy to my fellow man. I am called to love my fellow man and to live in a less materialistic manner than I otherwise would. I raise my child to have certain standards of belief and practice which are constructive and conducive to a well-ordered and caring society. Etc. etc. etc.
If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life. Everything would be situational. If I saw a woman who was good enough looking where it would be worth the price, I would have no motivation against committing adultery. I would have no motivation for raising my child properly, other than to make my life easier. Honesty? When it's convenient, etc. Respect for human life? When convenient. And so on. The root of my morals would not be there so the standards by which I live my life would be completely utilitarian rather than based on any absolute.
I believe in God. If, when it is all said and done, I am right, I believe that God, in His mercy, will overlook my shortfalls and grant me eternal life. If I'm wrong, no harm has been done and a lot of good has been done through my life and I won't ever know that I was wrong (after all, death to an atheist is nothing more than obliteration -- there is no awareness after death)
If I didn't believe in God, I would more than likely live my life according to utilitarian morals...with the corresponding impacts. If, in this circumstance, I am right, then I will never know it. There is no awareness after death. But if I'm wrong, I will have an eternity to ponder that error.
So, from my perspective, even looking at it from the most cynical point of view, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by acknowledging God. And there is everything to lose and nothing to gain by denying His existence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi jj
B)
i have found that the meaning of "God" can simply keep changing
from faith to faith to faith, as it were
each faith is actually a layer we shed
once it has done its job
and the difference between layers are not small or subtle
but rather, each is a stark drastic shift in perspectives and values and expectations and understanding
i would even say that God wants us to smash our faith in God to smithereens
over and over and over again
and in one sense...
...we are not done until there is nothing left to smash
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Geeze, I'm not quite sure if I should weigh in here or not.
At the risk of being called a "faith blaster" or other epithet, I've gotta say, it doesn't look good for there being an all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving, benevolent diety "out there".
Consider, if statistics are correct, 25 to 30 thousand innocent children died yesterday from such incurable ailments as diarhea, measles, malnutrition, and various parasites. Don't you suppose their mothers spent some time turning to The Almighty for help? You think maybe they pleaded, begged, wailed, moaned, and beseeched some invisible force to save their child? I think that's a safe bet. Yet they died anyway.
Or how about the Jews and other undesireables that were exterminated like so many rats during WWII?
You think maybe they prayed to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to help them? I'll bet it was incessant prayers, at least for awhile. Yet, again, no help came.
How many times have we heard of good, decent people who have some horrendous event destroy their lives? It's certainly not uncommon. And then what do we hear from the religious community? Well, spin, mostly. Near as I can tell.
It's gotten pretty hard for me to reconcile the supposed attributes of the loving Almighty God of the NT with what happens in real life. Looky, either He's omnipotent and loving, or He's not. If He can't intervene in some situation because of this or that, well, then He's not omnipotent. Or if He chooses not to intervene because of this or that, well, then He's not loving now is He? Unless we concoct some bizarro world where love equals neglect or power equals impotence, which is what I saw entirely too much of with the Bible-thumper crowd.
But to get back to your question "Assume for a moment..." well, isn't that the way we should have really started out in our spiritual quest? Why should we assume from the outset that there IS a God? How can you come to any logical conclusion by starting out with such an outrageous a-priori assumption? But that's what we've always done, then get into the arguments of "Well, prove that He doesn't!" and other such illogic. Sigh...
So, yeah, maybe it's a bummer to think that we're not going to float around forever with all of our friends singing "Cum By Yah". But also, it puts to rest any ridiculous notions of blowing oneself up because you think you'll be reincarnated to frolic with 72 virgins forever too. Life becomes more precious because you realize that this most likely is all we've got. We've only got this chance to live, love, and be decent to one another, and funerals really ARE final, so we'd best do the best we can with what we've got...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Can I still have my brain cryogenically preserved and go with the lucid dream option?
Or is this present life already merely a dream (or a nightmare), from which we will eventually awaken?
:)
I agree with SG along the lines of shedding the old beliefs to make room for new possibilities and new mysteries. It keeps our hearts young within these bodies which are passing away.
And I agree with Mark that there's nothing to lose in believing in a higher being - even if we should lack all evidence for such in this world. If one's "faith" is the size of a tiny mustard seed, so be it. It should suffice for this life.
And I agree with geo, too - "this life" may indeed turn out to be all that we have to be decent to one another.
My best wishes to you, JJ, in your new contemplations, wherever they should lead you.
Being honest with oneself is never a bad thing, IMO.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Hi Sir G
JJ- I’ll share some of my thoughts on my own changing perspective and understanding of God, godliness, and religions because it seems to me to be what you are really asking for.
First off I do not view this so much as a battle of faith or needing to smash my old faiths as I view it a natural process of questioning, discovery, understanding and reconciliation of ideas. This is the natural (at least for me) path that a human follows in their thought life to understand and thus be able to predict and thus control themselves and the world around them. Additionally it gives their life meaning and purpose and knowledge of their creator. Therefore changing views, perspectives and beliefs as time goes on is a good thing not a bad one.
Before I was in the way I had an urge to know God. Looking back there were several different opportunities to do so with different groups. I ended up taking PFAL. Was it my personal individual choice or God’s divine plan for my life I choose the group that gave me what I wanted to know in the way I wanted it. My personality quirks probably meant that its cult aspects were also what I needed. It was so nice to know the right answer after it was spoon fed to me.
All paths lead toward God, The same paths lead away from Him. The more we try to raise ourselves and especially try and impose our understanding of how to do this on others we promote religion. This limits us and those we influence. What works for me will not work as well if at all for most others. For me realizing that God is with me where I am on any path I choose to take at all times is the godliness I seek. Religion says I am nowhere near God unless I find him. Godliness says he is always now here with me, I just have to remember that and thus I know where He is I am.
Looking at the physical universe there is so much order from atoms to molecules to DNA to all life to physics to astronomy to mathematics there is so much elegant order and interdependence that it almost impossible not to at least assume that there is an intelligent creative force behind it.
Then there is also perfect complete randomness and that is what most people attribute and equate to the devil’s actions or God’s will because it is their only logical explanation for the “bad” things that happen. Randomness is extremely hard for people to accept or understand and it is scary because it cannot be controlled. But since it part of what God created it fits in perfectly somehow. It is ok if I I don’t ever understand how, I don’t even have to “have faith” about it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
George,
People die. it is a human factor. Mostly because of the stupidity of these humans.
All those children died yes. Why? Human.
And where did they go after they died?
A better place.
Sorry to be so blunt George but I've seen it.
Can't prove it.
Can't show it to you.
Not my Job.
you can see in other directions, please try...
JJ you too...
if it's possible...
wouldn't it be great?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
And George if you don't think i can relate to the big question.
WHY
My father died of cancer at a young age
my best friend took a rifle and blew the back of his head off at 15
my brother was killled in a motorcycle accident
another brother was gunned down in his own driveway for no reason
So if you don't think i can relate to your questions.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Thanks for all your responses thus far! As expected, they are thoughtful and compassionate.
Mark: This is what I'm wondering about. I don't have any particular problem with this aspect of faith. Its probably what is keeping me hanging on, if only by a thread. But I have two problems with this. First, surely there are non-Christians who live morally. Is the only alternative to faith in a Christian God immorality?Second, is that really the extent of your faith? (That's rhetorical; no disrespect intended.) The vast majority of Christians I've ever known were advocating something far more involved than that. From personal spiritual relationships with God/Jesus Christ/[Hh]oly [ss]pirit to physical manifestations to life after death, every group has had something bigger on their agenda. I don't think I know anyone who got involved to be moral.
But having said that, I think you're right. There doesn't seem to be much of a downside to believing in God. As long as it stays as simple as creating a solid moral foundation in one's life. When we get beyond that and into, say, witnessing, or imposing our own understanding as ckeer noted, its a whole nother ballgame.
Sirg: are you saying the very act of smashing is what helps us grow and brings us a stronger and more well-defined faith? I have thought along these lines but have a nagging suspicion I'll be long in the dirt before there is nothing left to smash.
Thanks for weighing in, George. I was hoping you would. What happened when you started coming to those realizations? Did you still seek a greater understanding of your place in the universe or did you not bother? For me, I started tip-toeing into the works of various 'non-Christian' authors such as Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine and Robert Buckman. Their arguments make sense but I'm not sure they talked much about where to go from here. Something in my soul seeks a higher ground but I'm kind of lost in how to get there or satisfy the need.
ckeer: LOL! Ditto on those personality quirks!
-JJ
CM: So sorry. That is tragic.
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Taking the topic question to heart - Jumpin Jive...
My first post at Greasespot was "Got Any Holy Milk Left?" The idea was to see if people had ditched as many of their beliefs as I had... and if ANY of it remained after TWI... for me, not much. I was sort of asking a similar question to yours.
However, I chose to consider your question this way...
Since it is said that “God is light. God is Love. God is Peace.” Etc… then… one must wonder... if this is what we will find ultimately...
If we get rid of the notion of God, do we of necessity get rid of Hope?
Must we sink in gloom and despair? (Some will, if the “reality” is that there is NO hope – for there is no God).
Is there no other path towards betterment?
Is there no love? (Some say it now – that love is dead… for it never was… it was just emotional, childish attachments)
Is this the kind of thinking that will “take over” in the absence of the God of Love?
Do we start a war against peace – simply because it is the most likely (statistically predictable) outcome of the human species?
Do we start to campaign and riot for anarchy as the natural state of man?
The loss of any of these things is tragedy waiting: of huge proportions.
If you, fear that any of these are REAL and Possible outcomes, I suggest you stay put. Keep your beliefs. They will protect you.
If, on the other hand, you are willing to suffer the shock that will settle over you, - maybe you will deal with it, maybe you will not... then I suggest you proceed VERY slowly.
If on the other hand, you are a boyant type... jump on in... hope for the best... treat everything as OPEN SEASON... and consider it all and decide later!
There may ne some who will treat my questions like they are stupid and silly and look like fear tactics to keep people in the fold or to suggest that un-believers are the bane of human existance... Trust me. I am asking (have asked, already these questions). They are honest questions. Because they are possible outcomes.
Here is another point... If God is not, then the Devil is not. If he is not... then from whence cometh deception and destruction??
I no longer fear deception from "devils" in the same sense at all. I am an "experience experimenter" and a careful one, too - to be sure. I have found that the basis for all deception is... in me... it is not "out there". So - I had to learn what is likely to deceive me... i.e. what in me has strong attractions... look at them, honestly. It took me 15 years to SLOWLY deal with these issues before I was "ready" to entertain what if's and chase them down through experience.
Not saying it will take you 15 years... but you indicated that you were branching out, slowly in your reading. Reading is one thing... Doing - well that is quite another step... LOL.
I found a way to destroy what I believed, usually more than once!! But, before I destroyed ANYTHING, I knew I wanted to emerge stronger in some faith as a result. That has been my path. So I resonate with SirGuess on that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
To Mark's remark of:
I say thusly a comment by Albert Einstein:Think about it. Do you mean to tell me that, without the concept of God, you cannot have a concept of right or wrong? Or of what hurts other people? That morality and ethics shown to other people just cannot be practiced w/o a God in your life?
Remember Pat Tillman, that guy who used to be a star college football player who forsook going to professional football with the potential 6-7 figure salary, who instead joined up with the Army and went and fought in Afghanistan for his country? The guy died there even (by 'friendly' fire, no doubt). Ie., he had the selfless morals to believe to fight for his country in what he regarded was right. Ie., he thought outside of himself and his selfish desires. (I mean, fer crying out loud, pretty selfless to turn down a 7 figure salary and a posh life, doncha think?)
You do know that he was an atheist, don't you? And he always was. His brother stated so plainly at his funeral, and I see no reason to doubt his brother's testimony.
And ya know, its funny, but it seems that ever since that tidbit came out about him being an atheist, his praise coming from all around the country ... stopped.
..... Make ya wanna go "Hhmmmmm ..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
No, Garth, it doesn't make me want to go hmmmm...
And I am shocked that you believe that my faith is so shallow that I am motivated by the fear of eternal punishment. Sorry to tell you, but that is hardly the case. My motivation is more along the lines of being motivated by the goodness of God, rather than by fear. But, of course, that is all twaddle to you, so I will leave my motivations aside. One thing I would say, though, is that I am very sorrowful of you that, before you abandoned Christianity, that you never acquired a deep enough understanding to recognize that the primary motivation technique used by God is that of love.
As to the Einstein quote and the witness of the great atheist martyr Tillman (since you all would reject the term "saint" being applied to one of your martyrs, what is the term that you all would use?), neither surprise me. But, again, your comments don't surprise me as you are incapable of understanding the words I wrote.
You quoted my statement, If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life. Apparently, that statement through you into such a rage that you were unable to read the concluding statement of that paragraph: The root of my morals would not be there so the standards by which I live my life would be completely utilitarian rather than based on any absolute. One statement is incomplete without the other. The quote you cited from Einstein is quite telling, he validates my statement: he states that ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties -- all utilitarian concepts. If his ethics are based upon his sympathy, his education, and his social ties, all of which can change over time and are situational, then there is no solid foundation upon which to base his life -- except what seems good to him. Perhaps another quote by Albert would be a little more revealing:
As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego. Heroic, yes, but still supremely situational.
I am not for a second saying that altruistic behavior is the sole provence of the theist. That's foolish. If you can manage to do so, please consider what I did say: that the altruistic behavior is simply situational and utilitarian. Not necessarily "bad," per se.
You apparently took my post as an attack upon atheism. It wasn't. You are more than welcome to believe as you will and I will hardly be the one to argue with you. As I said in the original post: if I'm wrong, I've hurt nothing and have nothing to lose. If you're wrong, you'll have an eternity to contemplate that error (and I'm not even saying where or how that contemplation will occur...just that it would occur). That's not an attack: it's just a simple statement of deductive reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
And yet (I could be wrong)..I seem to remember hearing once that Albert Einstein once said that "everything I do, I do to prove there is a God" ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Speaking of morals Garth,
Seems you hate anyone that wants to believe in God or that believes in God.
Why is that?
You applaud this atheist when he was one of many who died over there.
This religion of YOURS is irrational and bigotry.
You refuse the obvious in favor of your beliefs-narrow minded i'd say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Clay,
Garth is an evangelist and is afflicted with an evangelist's zeal. That's all...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
1) First off, you presume at least much as you accuse me of, as your post did not 'through (sp? ;)) me into such a rage', altho' I can see how such an image would seemingly enhance the view of non-believers as being 'base animals' and nothing beyond that, yadayada. Your post did amuse and puzzle me tho'.
2) Regarding the utilitarian vs. the absolute comparison. You see, my 'utilitarian' POV does indeed include, and is based upon an absolute standard. And so does Einstein's. And it's in plain view for all to see. Ie., "sympathy, education, and social ties", and what enhances all concerned in those areas; ie., the betterment of humanity in all people do. No doubt there are other areas to keep in mind when determining such absolutes, but note that it isn't simply because aomeone in authority determines what those absolutes are for everybody, but are things that are tested and learned over time.
For example, stealing. Not only has it been established that stealing is wrong because you can get arrested and put in jail for stealing, but people of good reason, be they theistic or atheistic, have seen that stealing from another robs and hurts not only the individual being stolen from, but ultimately from society, and even from the thief himself, as he doesn't see the benefit of working and earning his way thru society.
That is but one example of what I'm talking about. Ie., instead of some High Superior Being stating what morals are, and we but obediently w/o question accept that as right or wrong, one can see through personal experience and learning from actual proof what right and wrong is. And yes, I realize that is far easier said than done.
I took your post as conveying the idea that w/o believing in the concept of god, one didn't have morals. After reading your explanation of what you posted, I withdraw the 'not having any morals' part, but still challenge the utilitarian vs. the absolute morals part of your argument, seeing that they both endeavor to get to what is right and wrong. They apparently use different standards/means of arriving at the same or similar answers. There are those however, that still maintain that atheists cannot have morals for the simple reason that they don't believe in God -- period.
Allan,
I don't know if that quote you give of Einstein is correct or not (I tend to doubt it), but to keep a clear viewpoint of where he stood on this matter of believing in God, this is what he said in addressing what a lot of people said in trying to pigeonhole him in believing in God:
Now, you take those two quotes and compare them, and I'm sorry chief, but they hardly look compatible to each other to me, and I have some reliable sources to give a lot of creedance to the latter, and none to the former.Here is another statement from Albert that gives further creedance to what I say here about him:
Note how that also addresses several of the points that are raised in this thread.
Overall, this is a really good thread. :)
P.S., Clay, no more than you hate atheists and other non-believers, pal. As a matter of fact, I would dare to say that my level of 'hate' is a helluva lot less.
But seriously, I have given no indication of hate, or anything that can be rationally be regarded as hate, towards those who believe in religion. That I dare challenge various of its concepts is what I think you mistake as hate. And its a mistake based purely upon emotion and arrogance. And a good deal upon bigotry, I might add.
So bite me.
(And no Mark, I am not 'afflicted' with an evangelist's zeal either. Any more than others who post with as much 'zeal' as I do.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
I know, this is not my thread... but I just wanted to make an observation... because it could be of value.
The title of the thread is not ... "Assume for a moment there is no Religion...."
It is “Assume for moment there is no God”. These are not even close to the same statements and should not be confused.
On this topic, Einstein - in his work on "Religion and Science" - is most abundantly clear. And for the record, he wrote much about the causes for the rise of religion... and his own beliefs about God.
However, Garth seemed to confuse matters a bit when he mixed up the nouns – “religion” and “God”. I think a reader would get the sense as if Einstein meant they were one in the same. He failed to point out that Einstein was very clear about his thoughts regarding God and that those were not at all of the same content as his thoughts about religion.
There are many, many, many, many quotes in which Einstein seeks to outline his perceptions of God, and separate them from religion. Einstein derived his thoughts about God through science… rather than religion.
"Why bother bringing this up?" you may ask. The ways in which we comment on topics says something about us… I just didn’t want anyone reading that Einstein had rejected all notions of a God… that "notion" is simply, false.
Einstein, in speaking to mans’ newest penchant for the dismissal of an orderly universe - in favor of a universe that simply occurred via randomization of forces - he said… "No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Those who make no distinction between religion and God - and assume that the death of the one means the death and obliteration of the other...
or that the absence of God means no more religion... or that that the absence of religion means no more God... just haven't thought much about this topic, at all.
They are different. Very different. And any thinkihng guy... like Albert, knew it as well.
Edited by Too Gray NowLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Too Gray Now,
You must have posted before my latest post which has this:
That quote by Einstein is no 'mistake' or 'confusion'. He actually said that, and did believe it.
Also keep in mind, that to many people, 'relgion' and 'God' are synonymous, altho you are correct that there is a distinction between the two. ... But not enough of a distinction to dismantle my point.
Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
where do you see hate in me?
You attack and i try to strengthen. and it seems i already bit you.
And i was a lot less bold then i could have been fella.
cuz the temptation was to rip your head off and shove it up your foot.
but i am not that kind of person anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Garth, Actually, I did post before and did not see... you were right on that one...
BUT HOLY _ _ _ _ - did you see that I mispelled "thinking" in my last line.... of my post??
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ... I am SUCH an IDIOT!!!!!
Oh... man... I am ROTFLMAF. Some times, in these things.. we all try to be so square-rooted on everything.. and then we go and blow any smiggggin' of credibility like I did...
Ya gotta admit... that mispelling, at that time, in that place...
Oh well...
Also, for the record, I was not trying to dissmantle your post... or point. I figured you know the difference between the two. It seemed to me that you were "almost" saying that Abert did not. He did. And your post of him, initially was in a misplaced context - as far as he goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you are blinded, and it's not my doing Garth,
i won't interfere anymore either...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Clay,
Now read that again, .... slowly if you have to. There is a lot os ASSumption and oversimplified mistatements, w/o *ONE* fact to back that up.
Here, allow me be more direct. ... In that statement you made to me, you are a liar! Yes, now I'm ticked off, and I have good right to be. All I'm doing is openly and verbally challenging various points that I don't believe to be true. Others (like Mark, in a very civil manner I might add) are responding with what they believe to be true and challenging me. So far, no hate. ... YOU barrel in with your rant about me hating, for no better reason than because of my remarks stating such challenges, and now you tell me that you are resisting the temptation "to rip my head off and shove it up my foot." ... Again, for no better reason than the challenging statements that I make. Or for like others like George Aar makes for that matter.
See, this is one reason why various unbelievers walk away from your religion and others like it. Ie., you can slam and damn atheists, infidels, unbelievers, etc. with pert near impunity, and Hey! no problemo! That's life in the big city, pal! ... BUT, one of us goes off on you and your beliefs, folks like you act like 9-11 has just hit!
Ie., you can (and often DO) dish it out, but you don't have the brass ones to take it.
Can't have it both ways. Besides, if your belief is so strong, you ought to welcome the verbal challenges, hmmmm? Then you can show the whole freekin' world how strong your truth is.
So, like I said, ... Bite me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
naaaahhhh, i refuse the challenge
got better things on my mind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
This folks, is what is known as a 'hit and run' insult. 'Drive by posting' is another term for it.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you want a long drawn out war
there is one that you have a war against
and thankfully Mercy is Great
one day you will be dead Garth
do you know what death is?
you will find out
that temple of yours will be destroyed and rebuilt
just like me
it's not in my hands
you will see
you will see
garth, you remind me of me while i was in twi
that's why i can't go head to head with you
it will bring all that back
and it was killed a long time ago
i will not resurrect it for you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.