evil_twin617

These words are NOT mine, they are from Penn Jillette (the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller). It's pretty much the most amazing thing I have ever heard/read, and comes as close to the way I feel about life than anything else I've ever come across.


I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, because it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less.

But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.


Any thoughts?????

__________________
I'm not good at empathy - will you accept sarcasm?

aberkok

That's great!! There's a lot of responsibility we have to accept as believers in no God, and I'm happy to take them on.

Oh why can't Penn be on TFP?

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Charlatan

What's amazing is that believing this and saying it aloud has lead to death threats. So much for a loving religion. Someone has their wires crossed about what their religion is supposed to mean...

Personally, I have been in agreement with Penn's position since I was young and getting dragged to church on a fairly regular basis.

I understand why people believe in the myths that religion puts forward I just don't see why we can't shrug them off the same way we have other religions that have perished over time (like Greek or Norse pantheism).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ryborg

Penn & Teller really do have a knack for getting their point across and really "sticking it where it hurts most." I agree with aberkok, they might fit in well on TFP.

__________________
Solve two problems at once. Feed the homeless to the hungry.

Ch'i

Which religion is this from?

Daniel_

Ch'i - if you start from the posision that a deity is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (i.e. knows everything, is everywhere, and has unlimited power) then there is no option but to believe that all the bad (and indeed good) things that happen in the universe are because;

a: The Deity desires them

or

b: The Deity chooses to allow them.

Any other options (such as the deity not knowing about them, or not being able to prevent them because of lack of power, lack of will, or being somewhere else) all negate one or other of the "omni"s.

If you accept that God has power, then the choice to allow things that might be termed "evil" becomes the responsibility of the god.

If God does not have that ability or power then God is not not all powerful.

If God does not have the will to prevent evil then God does not deserve worship.

I personally am utterly convinced that there is no God.

What ammuses me is that I have been of this opinion for most (if not all) of my self aware existence, and have never been shy of talking about it. I have never been threatened or criticised in any meaningful way because of this conviction.

It seems that in the USA it is much more controversial to espouse a-religious opinions than it is in the rest of the "developed" world.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Ourcrazymodern?

...dumbfounded yet believing in the genetic lottery.
My kids are all smarter than I am...
Somebody stops in for tea everyday, and even though I can't really see who it is, I serve them.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

asaris

Daniel: I assume you discount the possibility that God might allow some evil for the greater good? I mean, if I knock over someone trying to save the life of my kids, that's a good act right? While just knocking someone over is bad. That's why the argument from evil just doesn't work as a deductive argument.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

CSflim

"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-Douglas Adams (I think)

__________________

Daniel_

It's a fair point - but what greater good can come from genocide? Even if you allow that it serves an educative purpose for the survivors, there can be little improvement for anyone in hacking the hands off babies (as has hapened in several african conflicts).

One option I've heard put forward is that people have free will, that God (for want of a better term) checks out your behaviour when you die but refuses to intervene while you live. In other words God is a scoring system for the afterlife.

Well, if that's the case, I go back to my earlier comment about not deservig our worship.

Any supreme being that is so inseccure that it needs my worship ought to get itse;f to a therapist. It's like me caring whether mildew loves me.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

asaris

That's a basic misunderstanding. It's not that God needs our worship. God cares because he cares about us, and he knows that we can only flourish if we worship him. God not caring about whether we worshipped him would be like a husband not caring whether his wife loved him, or me not caring about whether my friends like me.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Gilda

"I believe that there is no God."

That isn't beyond atheism, that is atheism, at least as I understand it.

"I don't believe in God" can be agnostic or atheist depending on the reasoning behind it. The searching for evidence type of person he describes there would, I think, fall more into the definition of agnostic.

I have no problem with anything he says here. I happen to be an intensely religious person, but my religious beliefs are about how I live my life and relate to my family, and not about anyone else.

If his atheism brings him peace and a greater appreciation for life, I say good for him. Those are the same things for which I look to my faith. If he finds that in a different place from me, who am I to say he's wrong?

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Baraka_Guru

My thoughts are that this seems more a rant against religious dogma than against concepts of God and the fundamental teachings related to these. But if you want to know what I think...

Whether you can prove the status of God's existence doesn't even matter.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you have concrete evidence that God exists. Even if the inverse were true (that you have concrete evidence that God doesn't exist), having this knowledge will not change your life as it will only reveal an already existing truth. To think that you even need to prove or disprove God's existence is an exercise in egotism because it suggests that you must have this knowledge in order to make your life meaningful. Did it occur to you that regardless of your having this knowledge, the truth will remain the same and your life will be no different?

If you live a miserable existence, proving whether God exists will only mean that you're living in misery even in spite of knowing what some would call the "ultimate truth." We all need to awaken to something far less corporeal than having specific evidence of what is ultimately a conceptual being.

...that we're the cause of our own suffering would be a good start.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

politicophile

The problem of evil works in several different ways. I think the most devastating is the "distribution" formulation. That is, it is not possible to justify who is affected by evil. Sure, other people might learn important lessons when infants in the third world starve to death, but are we to seriously believe that the infants themselves were treated justly? What kind of lesson is worth that price?

God could make it so terminally ill people cease to feel pain. He could smite murderers, rapists, and torturers moments before they caused their evil. Etc.

While I don't find Penn's comments to be especially enlightening, I would certainly agree that "God's mysterious ways" are often used as an excuse for the presence of unacceptable evil in our world.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Baraka_Guru

Isn't it the medieval Christian idea of freewill used to explain the existence of evil in the world? Rather than God being a tyrant who forces us to behave or suffer a smiting, he instead offers us the freedom to choose our actions. This way, we can choose to live a good life thereby earning an afterlife in heaven; the alternative being eternal damnation for committing evil.

Why is it so hard to accept that God permits evil in this world because a physical existence is merely a test of faith, will, and capacity to do good? And for non-believers, by doing good, even a bodily existence can be rewarding. It is basically understood that people do not like to suffer, so if you help others by alleviating their suffering, you might lessen your own suffering. And I'm sure you've heard the question: how can we know what is good if we cannot know what is evil?

God doesn't want to prevent evil. He gave that up centuries ago. It's up to us to prevent our own evils. It's our own damned choice. (Pardon the pun.)

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

DaveOrion

God is not responsible or accountable for the ills of the world. They are not the result of Bad Karma, or the workings of Satan. Unfortunatly bad things happen to good people all the time, they just happen. Many people cant handle this simple concept, and are always looking to blame somebody or something. It has to be someones fault. God has given us all free will, and the ability to help each other in times of need. Its up to us all the use that ability, we can choose to to good, or choose to do evil. Although I dont believe in organized religion, I do believe in God. Any time you set yourself apart and say I'm right and everyone who doesnt belive what I think is wrong, you're missing the entire point of Faith. The dogma isnt important, the rituals arent important, its whats truley in Your Heart that makes the difference. So if you love your family, help others in need, give of yourself, and basically try to do the right thing, you may believe in God and just not know it.

I think that Penn has had some tragedy in his life and now wants to dismiss God, because God didnt help. Tomorrow a miraculous event may change his mind and return his faith....or not. Things just happen, its the chaos effect in full force. Hey we could all blame the choas effect, thats a new one!

We're all in a very precarious situation, on this planet, thats spinning around our sun, thats spinning around our galaxy, thats whirling through through the universe. The ice caps may melt, the tectonic plates may shift, the seas may rise and fall, but in the end, we only have each other.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

politicophile

Any proof this is true or are you taking this on faith as well? My point is not that God causes evils to occur: it's that God does not exist (or if he does, he's quite evil) because God would not permit evil to happen.

And some of this is due to bad decisions made by people with free will. But why do innocent people get killed by natural disasters? God created earthquakes and mudslides and tornadoes and other fun stuff to test us, perhaps? Perhaps you believe this to be true, but I am repulsed by any sort of "test" that involves the killing of completely innocent human beings.

Are you able to prove the existence of free will? What about the fact that God intentionally "gave" free will to humans? Certainly, this is not self-evident.

To the contrary, belief in God and being a nice person and two entirely seperate things. There are nice and mean believers and nice and mean unbelievers. To equate niceness with belief strikes me as peculiar. Why can't I firmly reject any belief in God whilst simultaneously being a nice person?

I think you're trying to insult the rationality of atheism by fabricating a story about how atheism is some kind of mental illness that people use to cope with tragedy. I'll gladly start quoting Nietzsche's views on the psychology behind theistic belief if you want to start this type of mudslinging match.

It's hard to accept because you have offered no proof that there is any world beyond the physical. Your justification for evil is based on a number of wildly speculative claims, any one of which might be false. Among them: the existence of God, the existence of an afterlife, the existence of a God who uses performance in the physical world to determine one's place in the afterlife, the existence of free will...

HOW, if you would be so kind as to explain, do you know the will of God? And just how long did it take an omniscient God to realize that he couldn't prevent evil? I have to tell you that, on a general basis, I get very nervous when people start sentences with "God wants" and "God doesn't want". When a human being is permitted to speak for God, their power to justify virtually any imaginable action becomes as limitless as the faith of their underlings.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

DaveOrion

Please feel free to disect my posts at your discretion.....some people.....I was simply stating my opinion, isnt that what this forum is all about??? Maybe not.......

I do applaud your effort, I bet that took awhile to get all those quotes and responses together.....but you're overcomplicating everything....Faith is easy..all you need is about the amount of a Mustard Seed......

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

politicophile

Of course you are supposed to express your opinion! I, along with every other member of TFP (I hope), welcome diverse viewpoints. It just so happens that I think your opinion on this subject is quite wrong. I've listed my reasons above. If, on the other hand, you persist in thinking it is I who am mistaken, please tell me why.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

DaveOrion

This isnt the first board I've posted on, or the first time I've had this debate. Some debates are healthy and others are pointless, I would have to put this one in the pointless category....May God Bless You Every Single Day, Amen.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Zyr

To me, that sounds rather similar to:


Anyway, my problem with people saying "God lets people suffer for the greater good" or "God lets people suffer to test them", is that by definition, he is all powerful. If he wanted, he could make it so no one suffered for the greater good. He could put all the people he knows are going to be good (all knowing) straight in heaven, and all the others into hell. No need for any good people to suffer, no need for the bad ones to enjoy themselves at all.

Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

DaveOrion

When two diametrically opposite view points try to debate, it inevitably becomes pointlesss fast. I'm all for someone stating their opinion, but slicing up a post line by line, then stating why each line is wrong is a juvenile tactic at best. I've seen this before and it only promotes animosity, not a debate. The same thing often happens in a politcal debate between a conservative and a liberal. Neither side is convinced by the others arguments, so the debate is pointless and proves nothing. Call it what you will............

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

politicophile

Juvenile tactic? Are you serious? I'm supposed to let you make all the ridiculous assertions you please without pointing them all out and challenging you to support them? Perhaps I just find it odd that you want to tell everyone else your opinion, but become upset when another member challenges your views.

In your particular case, it doesn't seem like your dogmatic beliefs are especially harmful: they tend to be confined to a rather abstract, metaphysical realm. My concern is actually more with your methodology rather than your beliefs. Imagine a conversation like the following one that is consistent with your methodology, but uses wildly different beliefs:

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

asaris

On free will, natural disasters, and the problem of evil:

1. As to the deductive version of the problem of evil: this is the argument that says that it is self-contradictory to assert the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God if evil exists. As used in response to this problem, the assertion of free will does not require that free will justify the evil in the world, only that it possibly justify the evil in this world. Of course, many people now use a probabalistic argument from evil: given the amount of evil, it is very unlikely that God exists. I am unfamiliar with the literature in this area.

2. Well, this is well answered by free will. If God smited murderers, etc, then free will would be a lie. "Do whatever you choose, but if you choose wrong, I'll kill you before you have a chance to do it." Moreover, this would be unmerciful. Some of these bad people will repent and go to heaven. If God killed them before they repented, they would go to hell. To the extent that babies starving is the fault of people with free will, that falls under this category.

3. Of course, natural disasters are still a problem. There's no really satisfying answer here -- or, for the agnostics, no answer even as satisfying as free will above. The best, I think, is that it is a good to have a world that operates according to rather strict rules, which God only violates very, very rarely. (Even if we think every miracle recorded in scripture actually happened, it's still very, very rare.) Others have suggested that, if we had not fallen, we would know how to avoid natural disasters. It's possible that, in an unfallen world, we would not build cities on flood plains, know when tornadoes are coming, and the like. It's also possible that natural disasters are necessary to build virtue. In a world where towers never fell, people would have no opportunity to build up their courage by rescuing people from them. The latter two, I don't really agree with (seems either silly or somewhat sadistic.) But if they help you, go for it.

3. Finally, Zyr says "Why doesn't God just put all the people he knows are going to be good in heaven?" There are a number of possible answers for this. First, before we can enjoy heaven, we must be at least a little bit good. See C. S. Lewis's the Great Divorce for a sense of what I mean here. Second, some people who are going to be good are only going to be good because of the actions of other good people. So if God took all the good people away, there would be fewer good people overall. Third, good people do a lot of, well, good. God cares about all people, both good and bad, and so wants the good people around to make things better for the bad people.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Zyr

Thank you asaris, for explaining that far better than I've heard from others.
While I think "the problem of evil" is still that, a problem, I don't currently feel I'm prepared to discuss it as well as it deserves to be discussed.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

roachboy

like asaris said, i would have thought the "argument from evil" problem resolved via the story of the fall---free will presupposes a choice between following the rules and not following them---the only problem that raises, really, is about the initial violation of the rules---the status of the choice in a phase of being that supposedly preceded that shaped by free will.
it's like the problem that attends judas in the new testament--his betrayal was a structural necessity, so to what extent did he have free will?

anyway, outside the particular frame of reference of christianity, these are non-problems.
there is no problem of "free will" in general except in the context of an opposition between an omnscient god and humans who run around doing things on this mortal coil.

even the notion of the "will" is problematic outside this frame of reference: the only reason that human beings are understood at all to be discrete (separated from a world with which it interacts across volitional acts) follows from the separation of soul from body....which is also the origin of the mind/body split that has done so much for so long making human praxis incomprehensible.


as for penn gillette's remark about being "beyond atheism"--i think its meaning pretty straight forward: atheism really is the inversion of christianity. beyond it is indifference to christianity, to the problems it creates for itself by the nature of its structuring assumptions.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

You parsed my statement a little too closely. You dropped the conditional phrase that was directed at non-believers, which was:
Since most non-believers do not have faith in a god or an afterlife, many have no stock in life after death. But this is not to say that non-believers do not understand basic ideas such as suffering and non-suffering, and good and evil. I for one do not believe in God, but I do understand that there is a system of truth that describes why we suffer and that there are possibly answers that will alleviate if not end our suffering. You speak of proof? I can see proof in my actions and through my own self-awareness. Is empirical truth good enough for you? Claims are only speculative until you can prove them true through your own observations. But we must work hard to do this.

I was merely speaking lightly about God and the Medieval mind. For those who believe in God, they perhaps know the will of God through the Bible. Afterall, didn't God tell the prophets his will? And who said humans who speak for God use their power to justify virtually anything? I know that Christian ethics aren't perfect, but what exactly are we talking about here?

Oh, and for the record, God can prevent evil. Remember the story of Noah's ark? That was his old way of dealing with things. But he promised Noah he'd never do it again. Enter free will. (Bear in mind that I'm speaking from a theological standpoint here and that I do not necessarily believe this.)

How would God enforce goodness (i.e. prevent evil)? Through pain, death, mind control? Is being "good" in fear of punishment a true way of being good? If you cannot choose the good, are you truly being good? If you do not refrain from evil actions by your own free will, are you truly free of evil?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

MSD

I love my family, help others in need, give of myself, and try to do the right thing because I don't believe in God. For a bit of background on my personal philosophy, look at my avatar and title; they're a very bland, simple, unstylized version of a tattoo I plan to get. The all-seeing eye ("Eye of God") has been a mark symbolizing the idea that nothing happens that cannot be seen by God. Non Serviam, Latin for "I will not serve," in conjunction with the all-seeing eye, represents that I answer to no authority or higher power. I am just me; when I die, I cease to be me.

I feel no need to explain my love for my family. In the simplest terms it's a bunch of chemical reactions in my brain releasing certain chemicals in response to certain stimuli, but those associations were made over a long period of time because those people did a lot of good for me, not because a supreme being made me think that way. I help others in need because there is no higher power to help them, and if I don't, there is no assurance that others will do the same. I give to others because many are in situations where the dollar I probably would have otherwise spent on beer could be paying for their only meal that day, because there sure as hell isn't going to be manna from heaven on the sidewalk tomorrow morning. I try to do the right thing because the "evils" of men can only be countered by the good deeds of good men, and if we do nothing, people in trouble are going to suffer or die because even if there is an invisible man in the sky, he isn't doing jack shit to help them.

If you consider my actions proof of belief in God, then you're talking about a concept of divinity wildly different from the one that was pounded into my head as a child. In the same way that I wanted to do good to serve God when I did believe in his existence, I feel that my lack of belief compels me to do good as strongly as my desire to get into heaven used to. As ironic as it is that I would agree with a philosopher who wrote of the necessity of God's existence, I believe that Kant said it best, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

MSD

What happened to this discussion? I know someone out there disagrees with me or wants to say more on the subject. Come on out and say it, this is a hot issue recently

ShaniFaye

I have to agree with DaveMatrix. When it comes to this specific kind of discussion, dissecting posts proves (and disproves) nothing.

Any point/counterpoint is unproductive because as much as a believer/non believer can dissect and state their points its not going to affect the person that made the post. Non believers are just as adamant about their "no proof" as we believers are about faith.

Not one single thing I've read that a non believer has posted on this board or any other I have been on has given me cause to "re think" my belief". It wont happen, my faith is too strong...and its still strong when "bad" things happen as well. I dont see that as saying "shut up" I see that as saying, you're welcome to say anything you want...I DO read, it helps me to understand the way others think...so no don't shut up....just dont think anything you say is going to sway me to the other side.

Example...when my ex husband broke my arm two summers ago I refused to "blame" God. I chose, and still choose, to see it as evil for the greater good. My ex broke my arm, but it was also the same day he ever used crack. He took one of the hardest drugs to quit and stopped cold turkey because he'd hurt me. A non believer can say what they will and it wont change my mind, God was indeed working that day and to this day I will tell anyone that it was worth the broken arm for him to turn back into a responsible person.

If anyone has read my most recent journal here, they will see that no matter how many names I get called for believing, no matter how many other things I get told I should believe in as well....it wont matter.

The God/No God debate is never going to the "won" by either side. You may have people that switch sides at some point in their life, but its not going be because someone dissected every line someone wrote in a message board.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

DaveOrion

Thanks Shani, I'm basically a slow typist, after years I still dont type the correct way and was to lazy to say what you just did, and it seemed pointless...... but ditto!

Some idiot writes a book, people read it, it becomes a fad, and being an atheist in the newest 'in' thing. Good luck with that.....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

ShaniFaye

lol it will be pointless.....if only in the nature of the discussion, the only thing it serves (in my opinion) is letting people know if you're a believer or not so that when they "question" things on either side, they know who they can talk to (or not talk to...there are most certainly some atheists I wouldn't want to discuss this with....ever). If all I do in life is hang a sign on myself that says...I have faith and I'm not ashamed...inquire within if you wish, then I have accomplished something I think God wants.

Contrary to what the OP said, the only 2nd chance you get is here on earth....not when you die. (My belief says..)When you die you will have to account for all you have done and you will be judged, that includes closing the door to a non believer. Lead the horse to water so to speak, but its not your fault if they dont drink.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

politicophile

two characters

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

ShaniFaye

I have been alive many years....nothing an atheist says to me is "new" news, it does not prove, at least in my case, that I am uncomfortable in the slightest with my beliefs. There are many things that have happened in my almost 39 years that I attribute to God, the broken arm is not the first, nor is it the last.

You can agree with Socrates all you want, Im not the one living an unexamined life. If you think believers dont "question" you're wrong....I question things each and everyday. And since you are going to say Im using the "shut up" card when I already explained Im more than willing to see what you have to say....I dont see how that is furthering my part of the discussion, believe it not, I'm not one of the believers who feels they have to prove anything to a non believer, there are plenty of others that will get caught in that vicious cycle if thats what you want.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

DaveOrion

Here we go again Shani.....remember..Pearls before swine....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

politicophile

two characters

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

DaveOrion

Flamebait??? Are you kidding??? I was addressing Shani, in fact I'm pretty sure I mentioned her by name....lets see....Yes!! I did mention her by name! I consider ripping apart somebodies post and analyzing it line by line, flamebait, what other purpose could that serve??? On other boards where I post that is against the rules, and people are banned all the time for it. I consider that a great rule. Perhaps you might try simply voicing your opinion without attacking another members position.....just a thought.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

filtherton

I understand what penn's saying, and i don't necessarily disagree to a certain extent. He falls into that common trap that so many proselytizing atheists do whereby they mistakenly think that they understand and can speak accurately of the breadth and personal implications of all forms of theistic belief.

I hope that someday atheism becomes widespread and agreeable to the general public; then we can stop having these discussions every time somebody notable feels the need to make a bold, overstated proclamation about the supremacy of atheism over other belief systems.

FoolThemAll

Critical analysis.

Odd rule. Glad it's not a rule here, I'm too fond of nuanced debate and line-by-line can help me get a hold on a multi-faceted subject. But hey, different strokes...

Far as I can tell, he's entitled to do either. If you don't like posters attacking flawed statements like "I think that Penn has had some tragedy in his life and now wants to dismiss God, because God didnt help", you can always use the ignore function on such posters. Or even just ignore them.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Jennifer

This is a very interesting topic I have several replies in mind, so forgive me if this post rambles a bit

As Gilda pointed out, I think Penn was confusing agnosticism and atheism.

I'm agnostic myself. I cannot see a way to reconcile the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God with the existence of innocent suffering in the world. I'm not saying that the two things are mutually exclusive, but at the very least I'm not smart enough to figure out how they can coexist. I do not find reasons like, "God works in mysterious ways" or "It was for the greater good" to be very satisfying. The free will explanation does not sit well with me either because in the case where innocent victims were slaughtered, what free will did they have? They were born into circumstances beyond their control and subjected to the evil that other people inflicted upon them with no chance to avoid it.

I do have very strong moral beliefs, but I tend to be very skeptical and critical of everything. I haven't found the "perfect" religion (if such a thing exists) because any religion can be misinterpretted or used for evil if the wrong people get into positions of authority. Because of this, I have trouble deciphering what's actually part of the religion and what's just someone's interpretation of the religion. I've sort of come to my own understandings on some of the more important issues that aren't in line with any religion I'm aware of. They mainly take the form of conditional statements (for example, "If God is all good, and I try to be a good person, than that should be acceptable to God even if I'm not following an external set of rules that claim to be from God. If my internal set of rules are vastly different from God's set of rules, then I'm pretty much screwed anyway so I may as well do what I think is right.")

In a theology class I took, we read a passage from Justin Martyr in which he said that it's not merely claiming to be Christian that makes a person so. Rather, it's their actions that matter. He probably meant it as a way to distance himself from people who claimed to be Christian but did not follow the Christian ideals. However, in the class we had a really interesting discussion about whether people who acted in accord with Jesus' teachings were Christian even if they did not claim to be. This is one of the instances where I felt some reassurance in my belief that what matters is trying to be good, not going through the motions of being religious. Before I sound too negative, I just want to say that some people aren't just "going through the motions" and being religious really matters to them and helps them to be good people. I'm definitely in favor of that It's just not what works for me, at least for now.

I had one final point to make. I'm the sort of person who tries to examine everything before making a decision, but once I've made a decision I tend to go all the way supporting and defending it. That's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to commit myself to a particular religion. If I did, I might find myself in the position of defending everything about the religion, even some of the faults or ways in which it was misused. I don't ever want to do that. However, I do enjoy reading point-by-point discussions about these issues. Even if no one manages to convince me, there's usually at least one thing that sparks an idea and gets me thinking about what makes the most sense.