Parting of the reason I am not a deist (and theist, to an extent) is because I just do not need the belief to function.
It’s pretty pointless. there is a wide world of happiness, wonder, science, and ethics without throwing the God hypothesis into the equation. It can work inversely and hold one down.
Why hang on to the extra, unnecessary baggage? Try living a day with the assumption that god does not exist. The average person will not change much, unless their entire life is centered around praying or preaching, like a pastor.
Comments from theists are appreciated.
Anyone mentioning Pascal’s Wager will be ignored.
A word for the ignorant (no, not you Chillin), William of Ockham’s original quote goes something like this:
This often gets misused as meaning ‘the simplest answer is probably right’, which is very subtly not the case.
William was making the argument that, if there’s no need for an entity when trying to explain anything, it shouldn’t be included. Or to rephrase that: In order for a postulated entity to be included in the excepted explanation of something, it must be shown why the inclusion of that entity is neccesary. For example: Don’t include an invisible pink unicorn that no one can see, smell, or detect in any way for the simple reason that it’s unnessesary to explain what we can observe.
So the naturalistic worldview – should you, like myself, accept it as wholly satisfactory – precludes the supernatural worldview because the naturalistic view can already explain everything. The ’supernatural’ world view, though ’simple’, isn’t neccesary.
*excepted = accepted. Silly me.
Ubiquitous Che:
Basically what I meant. We just don’t need god!
Arogenrt libtards.
Xtian: Err…. Touché?
lol… Yes, touché.
I challenge the pointless-ness of having God IN the equation. To know that God, a designer, started the whole series of events, adds such a deeper, passionate understanding of the world we live in.
What if you took a spiritual world-view and started with God, God in the events of your day. God in the relationships that you have. God in the grief that you will somedays endure.
What if you used science to seek God instead of using it to try to disprove Him?
I can guarantee you of one thing. the very existence of life, the very acts of people become exponentially more vivid.
Ahhh that is true. Some people use religion to hold people down.
But Christianity “SHOULD BE” (not often is in actuality) about helping others. Serving others needs. Reaching out to the widows and children. The homeless and hurting.
The word “Minister” actually means “serve” in scripture. A public servant. Yet we Christians are all called to be ministers.
When faith is expressed through love, real brotherly/sisterly love, then amazing things happen. However, if you are doing it without a relationship with God, then it remains empty.
Even solid Christians drag their feet doing something for someone else, but after they are done, there is this incredible peace because you’ve drawn closer to God.
The effects of a “good deed” wear off. The effects of drawing closer to God do not.
God Bless,
Chris
http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com/
I’m not completely sure why you consider God such a great burden. Sometimes it seems that you view Christians or theists in general as monastic hermits who spend all day purging themselves and reciting Greek and Aramaic texts.
I could just as easily say to you, “hey chillin, why not release yourself from the oppressive, unnecessary binds of ethics? Or science?” Try living without science for one day. I bet the average person’s life would not change much, unless of course they are someone who’s entire life hinges on beakers and test-tubes, like scientists.
I think your question has a problem in priority. Your worldview does not see a need for God and thus you deem Him a superflous aspect of life. However, if someone presented a view that considered science the “extra baggage”, you would dismiss their view as ignorant. You need to always be mindful to not allow your bias to influence the necessity of certain factors of existence.
My worldview begins with God, but still includes wonder, happiness, ethics, science, art, etc. In fact, God does not complicate my life, but brings greater simplicity because He is the continuity that binds all things together.
I say that god is extra baggage because he just isn’t necessary to explain our world, as he once was. There isn’t much reason to hang on to him, except perhaps that some people find comfort in the concept of god.
Science is far more necessary than god because it discovers things that keep us alive and well. The same can’t be said for god.
Again, your answer is based on your worldview and not an objective opinion. There are many people who view God as not only necessary to explaining our world, but foundational.
I do not discount science because I believe it has benefits, but you seem bent on completely discounting God because you personally do not see His benefits. Holding the view that I do, I know that there is great benefit and reward and a relationship with God and faith in Jesus. However, I realize that you do not believe in His existence. In light of that, even if you do not believe in God, I would challenge you to realize that theism does contain benefits to those that hold to it.
Of course it has benefits – every world veiw has SOME benefit in it.
I think of it as a placebo effect. Religious people tend to live longer. Self-counseling via prayer is a great stress relief.
So, if you recognize this, why worry about those who hold to this position? Even if it only is a placebo (which of course, I believe it is much more), if it works why not allow for it?
Because in this modern age we are better served by hard truths than soothing lies.
Chris:
Both what Che said and because this belief has done far more evil than good.
If you tell a child who is hanging off a cliff by a branch that it can fly, it will greatly comfort the child, but it does a great evil when the child puts the belief into practice.
angryxtian, I would gladly welcome a discussion on this topic. Calling people you don’t happen to agree with names won’t help us understand each other.
Chris, it seems pretty pointless to me since there are so many definitions, beliefs, word-views, religions and philosophies in the world Even to the point that the word “God” in your comment can mean different things to different people.
Listen, after many years of wrestling with the God question I came to the conclusion that: I know I don’t know what I don’t know.
So I leave it at that.
So you consider yourself an agnostic, Kurt?
Chill, think about that for a minute.
That is a completely illogical argument.
HOWEVER, “IF” believing in God necessitated doing something dangerous and harmful, then I could see your argument.
However, no teachings from the Judeo-Christian God lead to this conclusion.
Chris
I admit that the analogy is not perfect, but you get the idea, which is that something is not valid, true, or healthy just because it is comforting.
The belief in a theistic god tells oneself that anything – no matter how crazy – can be accomplished, since natural laws can be bent in your favor. This is a dangerous belief.
The belief in a theistic god tells oneself that they know what the most intelligent and moral being in all existence wants, thinks, and demands of creation. This is an incredibly arrogant belief that can quickly become dangerous when someone lets it really sink it that they know better than everyone else and that they have divine sponsorship for their political views.
The belief in the Christian god tells oneself that being meek, weak, and abused in this world out of weakness will be rewarded in your afterlife.
This is a bunch of dangerous wish thinking that we are better off without.
Chris Taylor:
To take a softer approach (no offense intended, Chillin), you can think of our concern following something like this.
Now, I’ll grant to you that a lot of this view is arguable. A lot of religious people either don’t concede that compassion and morality are innate to us in a naturalistic, biological sense (I feel very strongly that they are). Or if they do concede that, they don’t concede that that our morality doesn’t have to come from religion.
As I said, these points – and other points I could make very much like them – are highly argueable. I get that. But consider the fact that we’re not concerned about religion simply because we want to tear it down for no other reason than the act itself. We have good reason to be concerned. You might disagree with us on the details, but you can’t deny that, given our worldview, we’re not concerned without due cause.
Hope I’m making sense, here. Looking forward to your response.
Chill,
Hmmm
Matthew 10:16-17 16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 “But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;
You seem to think that humble and meek means letting people run all over you?
You are associating meek with abused and weak.
Humble doesn’t mean 0 value or low value. It means you place someone else’s value above your own.
So if I value myself (which I do – scripture support provided), then I am to value others even higher than I do myself.
I think you’ve given me an idea for a new post.
God Bless,
Chris
Ubiq,
I’m not 100% sure what you are trying to say.
I think you are saying that you (Atheists?) have a reason to be concerned about religion? About a belief in God?
Is that what you’re saying?
Chris
Of course we have a reason to be concerned about religion and belief. Many of us – myself included – think it pretty much the greatest threat out there.
Why is it a threat?
Well for one reason, Chris, religion is a roadblock to the addvancement of the collective knowledge of science. The self-righteous conservative christians think that they should dictate what is tought in schools regarding science (equal time for creation science). Also, they think that they have the right to prohibit certain scientific study because it goes against their little fantasy (stem cell research).
Also, Chris, you need to check your dictionary regarding “humble” and “meek”. You are reading your christian viewpoint into those two words.
I’ve written countless posts and comments on why it’s a threat. I don’t really want to rehash the obvious again. Maybe later.
Sonic,
The Christian viewpoint for humility and meekness is the only one that matters when applying them to the Christian’s lifestyle which is what Chill is addressing. Not the world’s “definition” of humble and meek. Therefore the view of humble and meek should come from scripture which I will address on my site shortly.
Hmmm..tell that to Isaac Newton (Anglican), Albert Einstein (Jewish), Max Planck (Protestant), Gallileo (Catholic), Copernicus (Catholic), Francis Bacon (Anglican), Descartes (Catholic), Kelvin (Anglican).
SHALL I CONTINUE?
Blessings,
Chris
Ha! What a bad argument.
First off, Isaac Newton believed in ALCHEMY… lol
“Hmmm..tell that to Isaac Newton (Anglican), Albert Einstein (Jewish), Max Planck (Protestant), Gallileo (Catholic), Copernicus (Catholic), Francis Bacon (Anglican), Descartes (Catholic), Kelvin (Anglican).”
I don’t understand just exactly what you are saying here.
I said the “collective knowledge” meaning not what is known by the scientists doing the work but what is then passed on to become the knowledge of the people.
As far as your unique definitions of “humble” and “meek” that you will post on your blog…I’ll wait with bated breath.
That affects my argument how exactly?
Sonic’s point was that “RELIGION IS A ROADBLOCK TO THE ADDVANCEMENT (sic) OF THE COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE”.
Did Newton contribute to the advancement and collective knowledge of science?
Besides, theoretically some degree of alchemy is possible using radioactivity and/or nuclear reactions, but the energy needed to provide such a change is massive for the amount of change that occurs.
Remember, alchemy is the changing of one element into another, such as lead into gold. However, what is theoretically possible for ONE element is theoretically possible for ANY element. (Because it affects the atoms themselves)
http://www.anl.gov/Science_and_Technology/History/Anniversary_Frontiers/alchemy.html
Any other comments?
Oh, so their work did NOT BECOME part of the collective knowledge of scientists and people???
Blessings,
Chris
My unique definitions? So you DISAGREE that the meaning of words changes over time??
That the current definition that you use for HUMBLE is the only correct definition?
That IS what you are saying by the way if you follow it logically.
Blessings,
Chris
Che and Chillin.
Again, you are deeming your worldview more accurate and rational. If I made the same assertians about your views I would be just another closed minded fundy, but you can simply dismiss other views because they don’t match your bias. Kinda weak.
And that analogy is hardly comparable to the belief in theism. Don’t demonize just because you don’t agree.
Chris Taylor and Chris Dills:
Sorry to you both if I’ve been unclear. I’ve recently decided to try and argue down a different path when it comes to disagreements between conflicting worldviews. It’s required a change in my use of language, so I’m still learning how to make myself clear.
Now, I admit that I deem the naturalistic worldview to be more accurate and rational than the supernaturalistic worldview. That kind of goes without saying – it wouldn’t be my worldview if I didn’t. And – though I disagree with it – I have every expectation that you deem your worldview to be just as accurate and rational as I deem mine to be.
So I’m trying to drop the issue of trying to argue the case for why my worldview is more rational than yours for the very simple reason that I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. Emphasis on the word trying, as bias can be a tricky, insidious thing.
Instead of griping over who’s right, I’m just trying to get accross the concept that those of us with a naturalistic worldview are not without some very valid grounds to be concerned by some of the components involved in religion.
For example, we’re concerned that an inflexible moral code can cause people to ignore their innate human compassion.
Now, we can ask ourselves: Is it the case that an inflexible moral code can cause people to ignore their innate human compassion? We might disagree on the answer. We might even disagree that there is such a thing as ‘innate human compassion’ to begin with.
I’m just trying to establish that this is an important question to be asked, and deserves to be taken with a high degree of seriousness. So that even if we’re divided in what our answers are, we can at least be united in our understanding that questions such as these are important.
I’m trying to move this out of an ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ dialouge and into a ‘we have a different answer, so let’s show how we worked those answers out’ dialouge.
Better?
Much better Che. I really appreciate the comment. You’re dead on about showing our views instead of coming at it from an I’m right you’re not point of view.
And you’re right, without care a specific, rigid moral code can be a dangerous thing. Obedience without question or flexability can be a scary slope to tred. And you’re also right that following a fundamental set of codes or laws can in fact cause one to be calloused to innate human compassion (which I do believe in strongly, but I imagine we differ on where it comes from). I’ve met Christians (who I will single out because I am one) who have become so focused on being good church people that they allow their fundamentalism to overtake their compassion and love for others. However, in my personal worldview (Christian theism), there is a certain range of flexability in some parts of the “moral code” and most of the stress is placed on emphasizing and participating in that human kindness. Ultimately, the result of following the teachings of Christ should be unconditional love and compassion for others.
Che,
The angle I come at in these conversations is getting people to define their words and uses of words.
Many times people “believe” something of someone because of their own definition of words.
When your beliefs of someone (or something) are incorrect because of lack of knowledge, then any conclusions you draw are also wrong.
Chris
It appears the “kids” are making leaps and conclusions – AGAIN – without all the facts….hmmm imagine that!!!
Curious, is that helpful or needed? Inflammatory at a minimum.
*sigh*
Chris
Damn I’m getting bored of this converstaion…
Dills: Glad to know we’re making progress.
Should we get into the subject of how we reached our differing conclusions about where human compassion comes from? I think that it is naturalistic in origin, and I presume you disagree. I think it would make for an interesting topic for discussion.
On the other hand, is it enough that we both acknowledge that such a thing as innante human compassion exists?
Taylor: I’m not totally clear…. Are you saying that I’m using some of my terms incorrectly? Which ones?
Once again, I’m trying for clarity. If my meanings have been opaque, I do apologise. Just point them out. If we do have a disagreement on a given term, that in and of itself could be a very interesting point to try and understand how we each reached the conclusions we did.
I’m looking forward to your response.
Che: Looks like you have a gift in diplomacy lol. You’re right, I do disagree. Although I think it is an important common ground to start a dialogue upon. I believe that our innate human compassion is something that we inherit being made in the image of God. In Christian theism there are two facets of God’s characteristics, the communicable and the incommunicable. The incommunicable would represent the things that are only obtainable by God (omnipotence, omniscence, etc). The communicable are things that God instilled in humanity as an expression of His glory (compassion, love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, etc.)
Dills:
I’m not ignoring you… Just waiting on Chris Taylor to see if he has any more input on what I’m saying.