Why Are You an Atheist or a Believer?

[TGHusker]

When I was a Christian, I had this conversation in person many, many times. I was a staunch defender of my faith, but there were several times when I was outnumbered and basically persecuted. It sucked royally. Oddly, most of those instances happened in the workplace, and had I known there were laws against it, I would have had a pretty good case.

Much as I disliked the tenor of those conversations (they were often mocking in tone), a lot of what they said stuck with me, and some of the logic they used made more sense when I stopped ignoring it. It sucks to realize you've been wrong about something, and it sucks even more knowing how adamant you were.

I think the key is humility. We only know in part - as Paul (the real ST Paul not our friend in this forum) said "we look through a glass dimly". It is no fun to be on our dogmatic high horse and get bucked off. It is ok to believe firmly in what you believe otherwise we are wishy washy tossed here and there, but be open for discussion. For example, I may believe firmly in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and I agree wt ST Paul again - if it isn't true - our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied), however there are too many doctrinal things (religion doctrine, political doctrine and even scientific doctrine) that we hold too dogmatically and too tightly. I've changed my views on various doctrinal issues as I've gotten greater clarity on the issue. I suspect when we get to heaven (my doctrinal belief), we'll realize how 'off' we were in our pet doctrines and be thankful for God's grace. I think 'religion' in general helps us to define values and gives us a worldview to help us to navigate this complex, confusing, mysterious world we live in. It is a framework - like the 'Snorkel Blanket' cartoon I posted earlier. It gives us boundaries yet sometimes those boundaries need to be expanded, reviewed and adjusted as we gain more understanding.

 

[Redux]

I think the intentions of the Bible are good. It is just in need of an update.

I think the intentions of the Bible are good. Most Christians just need to start living the way it teaches instead of using it as a crutch for all of their stupid and ridiculous views of the world.

I would be happy if some stopped using it as an excuse to treat people like crap.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think the intentions of the Bible are good. It is just in need of an update.

I think the intentions of the Bible are good. Most Christians just need to start living the way it teaches instead of using it as a crutch for all of their stupid and ridiculous views of the world.

I would be happy if some stopped using it as an excuse to treat people like crap.

That's basically what I'm talking about.

 

[TGHusker]

Verbatim, if there is a set path for all of us and our destiny is predetermined, then we are all following it as we should.

Those who have faith were meant to, and those who question that faith were meant to as well. Does that mean that before birth non believers were born simply to fill space only to be cast into hell upon death.

That alone is reason enough to question religion.

This thing about predestination comes from places in the bible that say your name is written in the book of life (or not) before you were born. How can that not be predestination? I've grappled with this question. But it’s really not a question of predestination. I’d say it’s more of a question about what omniscience means. Forget about the book of life for a moment. What if we actually DO have freedom of choice—that is, we can decide our own fate? I think that’s the way it is. I can choose to goof around on Huskerboard all afternoon. Or I can choose to take my deer rifle and climb up a clock tower. The choice is mine. The book of life merely records, ahead of time, what fate we choose for ourselves. It’s like when you were a kid and you held your hand behind your back and asked some person to guess how many fingers you were holding up. If you did this twenty times, and the person guessed correctly twenty times, it wouldn’t mean that you lacked the choice of which fingers to hold up. It would simply mean that somehow the person knew ahead of time what fingers you were going to hold up, regardless of what you chose. Maybe that person could tell the future. Or maybe the person just knew a lot about you and your propensity to select a certain number of fingers to hold up next. So if God has your name written in his book of life, it’s because he’s omniscient and knows what you are going to choose. Or perhaps he lives in a realm outside of our linear time, and he can see in our future, present and past. In any case, I don't think his book of life means that he controls what you do. I think we have freedom of choice inasmuch as we can control our own actions and beliefs. /JMHO

Does that mean that before birth non believers were born simply to fill space only to be cast into hell upon death.

Would you prefer that he only created an earth and filled it with people who did exactly as he wanted?

Essentially we are getting into a chicken or the egg argument here. If all life is predetermined then God knows the outcome. If God knows the outcome it is because he set it in course. If we have choices but god knows what we choose ahead of time why create us at all? By creating life God chooses our outcome from the get go right? He creates us, we act accordingly to his will, he dislikes our actions yet created us anyway. Quite the confounding idea is it not?

Redux, I don't think all of life is predetermiend by God any more than I think that all of our actions, decisions are a result of chemical reactions - determinism. I think God 'knows and sees the beginning from the end' as He isn't bound by time/space. He then 'works all things (even our actions/choices) together after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). He created out of His desire to share His love. He didn't need us. God's ultimate goal for us is Christlikeness - to live as Jesus taught. (Romans 8:28-30). His eventual destiny for us is Heaven.

I mentioned this in my Steven Fry revisited thread in post 2 of my 4 post "essay":

God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

 

[Redux]

The thing that gets me about our fates already being determined are the people who have premonitions. One way to explain such "visions" would be that our lives are already determined and these individuals are just unlocking a portion of their mind that knows what is in store.

I admit this delves into the paranormal a bit and I apologize but those are the things that fascinate me.

 

[Redux]

Could life itself be a loop? Does the Big Bang repeat itself over and over until eventually getting everything just right?

Those who have near death experiences who float out of their bodies and begin their "ascent to heaven" only to be sucked back into their body talk of the after life like they witnessed it first hand. Those accounts make me think there is something else going on.

 

[knapplc]

For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

This is the crux of the argument for why God left us in the shed, but it just doesn't hold water. If I really love my little child, and I want him to really love me, I have to let him play in my gun room for a year so he has the opportunity to choose not to harm himself?

Little children are not capable of making profound consequence decisions like not not touching the really pretty guns. He's inevitably going to mess up, possibly with dire consequences.

A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers. He doesn't even let the child touch the guns, just shows him from a distance. Because the consequences of a misstep are too great to risk it.

This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society.

 

[Redux]

To simply accept The Bible as fact and follow it whole-heartedly is something I feel is impossible to do.

 

[TGHusker]

For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

This is the crux of the argument for why God left us in the shed, but it just doesn't hold water. If I really love my little child, and I want him to really love me, I have to let him play in my gun room for a year so he has the opportunity to choose not to harm himself?

Little children are not capable of making profound consequence decisions like not not touching the really pretty guns. He's inevitably going to mess up, possibly with dire consequences.

A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers. He doesn't even let the child touch the guns, just shows him from a distance. Because the consequences of a misstep are too great to risk it.

This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society.

Knapp, I understand your point & it is well taken. I also don't understand why this is the path presented to us. Yet in the Bible I see two clear paths throughout. #1 Man's inhumanity to man & man disobedience to God (primarily shown in man's inhumanity to man - even the Bible heroes are shown at their worse and their best) and then #2 the thread seen in all of the books of the Bible - God's redemptive plan - his love for mankind.

A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers.

Well I think God did point out the dangers of wrong choice - The Christian faith would put it this way I think: first the natural law written in everyone's heart. The 10 commandments, Jesus, his teachings and his example, then the Church to teach by word and example Jesus' teachings (this is the point were too many of us flub it up - the example part). Other faith families may state it a different way.

This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society.

I would say that is more of an OT focus. The law - 10 commandments were given to show how we have broken the natural law written within us. We find in the NT, the emphasis being not on the laws of dos and don'ts t but on the grace enabling ability to love. The emphasis is on the 'kingdom of God within us' and thus the ability to love with a focus on the kingdom to come. (sorry some churches are still all about 'do's and don'ts' but that isn't what Christ's teaching was about - that is were 'religion' gets in the way of practicing grace.)

 

[TGHusker]

For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

This is the crux of the argument for why God left us in the shed, but it just doesn't hold water. If I really love my little child, and I want him to really love me, I have to let him play in my gun room for a year so he has the opportunity to choose not to harm himself?

Little children are not capable of making profound consequence decisions like not not touching the really pretty guns. He's inevitably going to mess up, possibly with dire consequences.

A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers. He doesn't even let the child touch the guns, just shows him from a distance. Because the consequences of a misstep are too great to risk it.

This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society.

Knapp, I understand your point & it is well taken. You know I respect you and your journey - as well as how X detailed his journey in this thread. So any of my statements aren't to make light of your journey or your conclusions. I also don't understand why this is the path presented to us. Yet in the Bible I see two clear paths throughout. #1 Man's inhumanity to man & man disobedience to God (primarily shown in man's inhumanity to man - even the Bible heroes are shown at their worse and their best) and then #2 the thread seen in all of the books of the Bible - God's redemptive plan - his love for mankind.

A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers.

Well I think God did point out the dangers of wrong choice - The Christian faith would put it this way I think: first the natural law written in everyone's heart. The 10 commandments, Jesus, his teachings and his example, then the Church to teach by word and example Jesus' teachings (this is the point were too many of us flub it up - the example part). Other faith families may state it a different way.

This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society.

I would say that is more of an OT focus. The law - 10 commandments were given to show how we have broken the natural law written within us. They were to lead us or point us to Christ- show our need of God in life. We find in the NT, the emphasis being not on the "laws of dos and don'ts" but on the grace enabling ability to love. The emphasis is on the 'kingdom of God within us' and thus the ability to love with a focus on the kingdom to come. Which is a heaven-ward look instead of man centered. (sorry some churches are still all about 'do's and don'ts' but that isn't what Christ's teaching was about - that is were 'religion' gets in the way of practicing grace.)

PS - thanks X for teaching me how to use the quote box.

 

[zoogs]

In my opinion, much of what you wrote is about what humans have done with Christianity. I'm specifically talking about the Bible and what it tells us about how we should live. The post I was referring to was implying that it was written by a bunch of people to do nothing but control the masses and make them do what they wanted.

I'm baffled by that. Yes, you can say having compassion and empathy is just "being human" but then why do so many people not have that?

If the Bible is this horrible document that is nothing more than an attempt to control us, I fail to see the harm in humans following what it teaches and I fail to see why a truly compassionate person would have a problem with someone else following what the Bible tells us to do.

Wait, wait, I think we're getting off track here. Of course religion is a way to control people. I don't see how this can argued. Religion is meant to guide the way people live their lives. Every culture in history has developed some religious aspect to inform and guide themselves, define their customs, and provide a unifying social identity.

Now, maybe one among these is truly divinely inspired, and you're responding to the call of God rather than the call of the Christian religion.

Outside of religion, everything from social norms to shared ethics also "control" people in a similar sense. What I think is we should try to have this without the requirements: of worship of one God over others, of believing in one book over others, of seeing yourself as one of "The One Group of People That Gets It" over other, mistaken groups.

In your previous post you talked about how Jesus's message was just to live as he did, humbly and loving. I think few people would say, "Wow, that message sucks." This is why I call compassion and empathy human qualities, because they aren't tied to religion. In other words, it is not necessary to be Christian, or to worship Jesus as son of God, to be those things.

Can we, as humanity, ever reach a day where we all treat the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, Tao Te Ching, etc, etc, etc...on equal footing as magnificent, but human creations? Really tear down the walls and unite as a species with love for one another and forget the squabbles over different, unknowable descriptions of the supernatural. I think it will freely promote the sharing and exchange of values if we don't have the "come into the folds of my religion" first. And I think such exchanges serve humanity much better than "OK, [atheist/Muslim/etc], you live your way, and I'll live mine."

 

[NUance]

For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

This is the crux of the argument for why God left us in the shed, but it just doesn't hold water. If I really love my little child, and I want him to really love me, I have to let him play in my gun room for a year so he has the opportunity to choose not to harm himself?

Little children are not capable of making profound consequence decisions like not not touching the really pretty guns. He's inevitably going to mess up, possibly with dire consequences.

A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers. He doesn't even let the child touch the guns, just shows him from a distance. Because the consequences of a misstep are too great to risk it.

This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society.

I believe you're comparing Eden and the tree of forbidden fruit to your gun room. I am not sure that's an apt comparison. Eden was chock full of trees and plants that were not harmful. But there was one tree that was forbidden. And just one rule. Don't eat from that tree. They could choose to obey, or not. There was nothing to be gained by not obeying, given that there was plenty of food in Eden. Would it have been better if God gave Adam and Eve freedom of choice to obey or not obey, but then did not make any rule for them to obey and did not put the tree there? I think the whole point of the forbidden fruit was to allow Adam and Eve (humanity) the freedom of choice to obey God or disobey God. It could just as well have been a tree stump that they were not supposed to sit on, or a boulder that they were not supposed to touch.

 

[Scratchtown]

http://conservativetribune.com/biblical-discovery-atheists-not-happy-mark/

I dunno how to link on mobile but it appears a fragment of the gospel of Mark has been found and dated much closer to the time of Jesus than previous fragments.

 

[Scratchtown]

I guess its a story from January that I was unaware of. Oh well.

 

[ZRod]

http://conservativetribune.com/biblical-discovery-atheists-not-happy-mark/

I dunno how to link on mobile but it appears a fragment of the gospel of Mark has been found and dated much closer to the time of Jesus than previous fragments.

Read some of the supporting articles, this doesn't seem like a sound conclusion.