Religions?

[Kaymyth]

I guess I've just never been able to wrap my head around the notion that "worthiness" is judged on standards that we were basically designed to never be able to achieve.  It just seems bizarre to me, and like the system is skewed towards only rewarding the people who shower attention on the "correct" deity.

 

Then again, I also don't subscribe to the idea that all sin is equal, or even that some things that certain religions consider to be sins are sinful at all.

[navybrandt]

You are not alone. One way of looking at it is that we're not worthy and can never live up to the standard set by God (He has the right to set the standard and choose what is or isn't sin because He's...God after-all).

 

Another (maybe better) way of looking at it is that we're all equal. No one is too poor or classless or sinful to be accepted by a loving God.

[Kaymyth]

You are not alone. One way of looking at it is that we're not worthy and can never live up to the standard set by God (He has the right to set the standard and choose what is or isn't sin because He's...God after-all).

 

Another (maybe better) way of looking at it is that we're all equal. No one is too poor or classless or sinful to be accepted by a loving God.

 

But by that logic, God essentially set up billions of people to fail by designing them to be imperfect and then letting all sorts of "false" religions pop up everywhere.  It doesn't matter how good at being a human you are, if you aren't lucky enough to choose the "right" religion, you're up the proverbial creek.  Why is having faith in X more important than making a genuine effort to live a good life? 

 

I'm sorry, I really need to let this drop.  I don't think I can maintain this line of conversation and keep things civil.

[Kipper]

@Blaze A brief response to that article.

Numbers 1-6 I don't have a problem with.

Number 7 is vague at best, and just pushes the problem to unidentified, unnacountable aliens, who have not been observed to exist. How did the aliens come into being?

Numbers 8-10 are fine, but I might do some research on 10

Number 11, I'd have to do some serious research on, as it sounds vague. The second paragraph is basically saying that there is a TON of doubt.

Number 12, again, I'd have to do some research on that single experiment. Does refusing to breed with mean new species?

Number 13, I have no comment on. Nobody will ever come to an agreement on this one, because of different confirmation biases, and I'm amazed that both groups haven't realized that.

Number 14 doesn't really address the comment, and turns to attacking creationists, so I can't really address that one.

Number 15, I am currently discussing with Voidus, I think.

The afterword:

A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

The whole of this section can also be applied to evolution in regards to the origin of life. It's interesting to note that evolutionists also believe in life from inanimate matter, just not with a Designer. Can they observe it or test it, as they say must be done with Intelligent Design theory? No, but they can put the blame on aliens. Who can also not be observed or tested. The aliens thing almost makes me laugh, every time. Seriously. ? Aliens? Really? They would have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM with the origin of life. Where does it end?

As for "unconstrained abilities," I don't really know what that means.

I have some opinions on the faith/works issue, but not now...

[Kipper]

But by that logic, God essentially set up billions of people to fail by designing them to be imperfect and then letting all sorts of "false" religions pop up everywhere.  It doesn't matter how good at being a human you are, if you aren't lucky enough to choose the "right" religion, you're up the proverbial creek.  Why is having faith in X more important than making a genuine effort to live a good life? 

 

I'm sorry, I really need to let this drop.  I don't think I can maintain this line of conversation and keep things civil.

I completely understand. I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you and navy in a PM, if you guys want?

[navybrandt]

You can be as uncivil as you want in a PM to me. I don't have all the answers either, but I promise I'll let you know if you offend me (I've got pretty thick skin). I'm going offline until tomorrow though.

[Matrim Bloody Cauthon]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

some of my favorite hymns are How Firm a Foundation, The Spirit of God, High on the Mountain Top, and See the Mighty Priesthood Gathered.

if you are LDS and haven't heard of See the Mighty Priesthood Gathered, its okay I hadn't heard it either until the priesthood sung it in sacrament meeting on fathers day. you should look it up its a really good song.

 

I recently found out when I hiked ensign peak that the song High on the Mountain Top was written by my great-great-great-great uncle(Grunkle as I prefer to say it) when he saw Brigham Young atop ensign peak in Salt Lake City for the first time.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Arsenal

[Moonskin]

I guess I've just never been able to wrap my head around the notion that "worthiness" is judged on standards that we were basically designed to never be able to achieve.  It just seems bizarre to me, and like the system is skewed towards only rewarding the people who shower attention on the "correct" deity.

 

Then again, I also don't subscribe to the idea that all sin is equal, or even that some things that certain religions consider to be sins are sinful at all.

 

Same problem here, and although I studied different religions very attentively, it is still a concept that passes way above my head

[ljósmóður]

But by that logic, God essentially set up billions of people to fail by designing them to be imperfect and then letting all sorts of "false" religions pop up everywhere.  It doesn't matter how good at being a human you are, if you aren't lucky enough to choose the "right" religion, you're up the proverbial creek.  Why is having faith in X more important than making a genuine effort to live a good life? 

 

I'm sorry, I really need to let this drop.  I don't think I can maintain this line of conversation and keep things civil.

 

I'm going to try and tread very carefully because my faith is very personal to me and I try, wherever possible to avoid causing offense to other people. But I wanted to try and explain this a little. If this upsets or offends you, please let me know and I'll delete it.

 

My perspective (and I'm also from a 'faith alone' version of Christianity) is that God didn't set up humanity to fail - rather He intended humanity to be perfect and to live in a loving, cherished relationship with Him, just as He, himself, is a relationship (I believe that God is a Trinity - God, the Father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Spirit). But, a true relationship cannot be formed from a position of coercion so God's greatest gift to us was free will: the ability to consider Him and then reject or accept Him. Humans have had a mixed reaction to free will over the years - we have, as a species, been responsible for some of the most sublime acts of self-sacrifice. We have also been guilty of heinous crimes. Which is why works do matter to a Christian. As someone here has said, faith without works is merely lip-service. "Works" alone can't save but no Christian should be affirming their belief in a loving, compassionate God and not trying to act out a representation of that.

 

I have a very personal reason for not believing that works alone can grant entrance to an afterlife. It's sensitive and personal so I'll put in spoiler tags so people can choose not to read it, if they don't like to be confronted by sensitive topics (and please be gentle in responding to this - I'm risking it because the discussion has been so respectful so far). Also, I recognise that I'm moving far, far away from some of the empirical discussions that have been occurring on this thread. I'm sorry for that but, for me, faith is as much a feeling and a compulsion as it a rational weighing of the evidence around me:

 

In 2008, my third child was stillborn. She died seven minutes before she was born, due to complications from my labour. She was completely healthy and should have been born alive ... but, she wasn't. She died before she ever opened her eyes on this world. If she is being admitted to an afterlife on the basis of works alone, she can't be there because she never had a chance to perform any good works, I suppose by the same argument, she never had a chance to profess faith either but I trust a compassionate and loving God to accept her soul anyway. She's the reason I can't be an atheist either. I tried very hard to be one after she died, I wanted to believe that the world was just random and not confront the issues of why God "let" my baby die. But, in the end, I seem to "be" a believer - I can't NOT believe and the fact that I believe I am going to be reunited with her again has kept me functioning through some of my darkest times after we lost her.

[+Slowswift]

I'm going to try and tread very carefully because my faith is very personal to me and I try, wherever possible to avoid causing offense to other people. But I wanted to try and explain this a little. If this upsets or offends you, please let me know and I'll delete it.

 

My perspective (and I'm also from a 'faith alone' version of Christianity) is that God didn't set up humanity to fail - rather He intended humanity to be perfect and to live in a loving, cherished relationship with Him, just as He, himself, is a relationship (I believe that God is a Trinity - God, the Father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Spirit). But, a true relationship cannot be formed from a position of coercion so God's greatest gift to us was free will: the ability to consider Him and then reject or accept Him. Humans have had a mixed reaction to free will over the years - we have, as a species, been responsible for some of the most sublime acts of self-sacrifice. We have also been guilty of heinous crimes. Which is why works do matter to a Christian. As someone here has said, faith without works is merely lip-service. "Works" alone can't save but no Christian should be affirming their belief in a loving, compassionate God and not trying to act out a representation of that.

 

I have a very personal reason for not believing that works alone can grant entrance to an afterlife. It's sensitive and personal so I'll put in spoiler tags so people can choose not to read it, if they don't like to be confronted by sensitive topics (and please be gentle in responding to this - I'm risking it because the discussion has been so respectful so far). Also, I recognise that I'm moving far, far away from some of the empirical discussions that have been occurring on this thread. I'm sorry for that but, for me, faith is as much a feeling and a compulsion as it a rational weighing of the evidence around me:

 

In 2008, my third child was stillborn. She died seven minutes before she was born, due to complications from my labour. She was completely healthy and should have been born alive ... but, she wasn't. She died before she ever opened her eyes on this world. If she is being admitted to an afterlife on the basis of works alone, she can't be there because she never had a chance to perform any good works, I suppose by the same argument, she never had a chance to profess faith either but I trust a compassionate and loving God to accept her soul anyway. She's the reason I can't be an atheist either. I tried very hard to be one after she died, I wanted to believe that the world was just random and not confront the issues of why God "let" my baby die. But, in the end, I seem to "be" a believer - I can't NOT believe and the fact that I believe I am going to be reunited with her again has kept me functioning through some of my darkest times after we lost her.

 

I agree, salvation isn't guaranteed by works alone.

 

I think these links might help me to explain: 2 Nephi 25:23, and "The Gift of Grace" by President Uchtdorf.

 

The first one, as I understand it, is saying that leading a good life with good works is important, but alone is not enough to save us. The second is a marvelous talk from the most recent LDS General Conference, and talks about God's grace.

 

About your stillborn child -- Moroni 8:8, if it helps.

 

Moroni 9:26 is another that I would just like to share, because I found it while I was looking up the others.

[ljósmóður]

 

 

About your stillborn child -- Moroni 8:8, if it helps.

 

Moroni 9:26 is another that I would just like to share, because I found it while I was looking up the others.

 

Thank you, it does help.

[+Slowswift]

Thank you, it does help.

 

You're welcome! I'm glad. 

[Renarin_Kholin]

Just stumbled onto this discussion and wow 10 pages is impressive. I marked atheist/agnostic. If someone came up to me and asked if I believed in a god or gods, I would say maybe. There may be a higher power but I have no desire to worship it. you could say I am a Jasnatheist  thats a Jasnah Atheist... In that i have the same reasoning and beliefs as Jasnah...

Edited July 6, 2015 by Renarin_Kholin

[navybrandt]

I like to group things, so just like I can group Christians into categories, I also group atheists/agnostics into two groups.

 

The first group genuinely have searched for truth and have come to a conclusion that there is no God (or aren't sure, etc - I know there's subtle differences). I have a friend that says he wishes he believed in a god but just can't. They disagree agreeably. I respect these people and their opinions however misguided, in my view, they are. I share my faith regularly with these types of people until they tell me to stop or until I find out they are really in the second group.

 

The second group are the God haters or religion haters. Someone earlier called them Hate-theists. These are the people that want every nativity scene removed at Christmas. That just call Christians stupid and ignorant. That want to ban Bibles and genuine discussion. I can't talk to these people, because they are irrationally spiteful and hateful. No one on this discussion board has been like that.

[Voidus]

Just thought I'd pop back in really quick to say that anyone who wants to discuss evolution specifically or religion in general is more than welcome to PM me, I don't even mind if you just want to share a few verses, after all I still have my own favourites. Anyway I've been in religious arguments for a few years now so whatever you feel like talking about you're not going to offend me

[Argent]

I like to group things, so just like I can group Christians into categories, I also group atheists/agnostics into two groups.

 

The first group genuinely have searched for truth and have come to a conclusion that there is no God (or aren't sure, etc - I know there's subtle differences). I have a friend that says he wishes he believed in a god but just can't. They disagree agreeably. I respect these people and their opinions however misguided, in my view, they are. I share my faith regularly with these types of people until they tell me to stop or until I find out they are really in the second group.

 

The second group are the God haters or religion haters. Someone earlier called them Hate-theists. These are the people that want every nativity scene removed at Christmas. That just call Christians stupid and ignorant. That want to ban Bibles and genuine discussion. I can't talk to these people, because they are irrationally spiteful and hateful. No one on this discussion board has been like that.

 

No. I am sorry to be blunt, but this is both wrong and offensive, and I feel bluntness is a solid way to get this point across with the gravitas I feel it requires. 

 

The main difference between agnostics and atheists is the level of conviction the two groups share in the belief that there is no higher power. Both groups, however, are ready to change this belief if sufficient evidence presents itself. Atheism is no more about God-hating than feminism is about man-hating. It's a little difficult to clearly differentiate the two groups, but I'll offer you two popular paradigms:

• Richard Dawkins, a famous atheist, uses a 7-point scale to describe belief. In this scale, a 1 is somebody who believes, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is a God; similarly, 7 is somebody who is absolutely certain there is no God. He argues - and I agree with him - that nobody should be a 7, since you can never use science to absolutely prove something, you can only use it to disprove. In other words, it's always possible that everything in our universe points to the lack of a Creator, but one might exist, hidden so well, we have no way of detecting it. So he claims most atheists should be 6, maybe 5. Agnostics are 4s, dead in the middle - the agnostic's motto is "I don't know, but I am equally ready to accept either side". Believers fall between 1 and 3, obviously.
• Another way to look at this issue is to look at what sets agnostics and atheists apart. In essence, agnostics are people who have looked at all the evidence and have decided that there isn't enough information for them to pick a side. Atheists vote in favor of there being a sufficient amount of evidence that points towards the idea that the existence of a higher power is unlikely. It's all about likelihoods here. I, for example, did just that - I looked at a bunch of arguments for and against the existence of a God, and decided that it's just unlikely that one exists. 

So let's not bundle atheists and hatetheists together. Some people will be jerks regardless of their religious belief - or lack of thereof - and we can agree that we shouldn't judge the rest of their respective groups by their behavior. Christmas has become very much a cultural holiday, not a religious one. So has the phrase "Bless you!" after somebody sneezes. Arguing that things like that need changing is not quite oppressive, I think, but it's definitely pointless. 

[Blaze1616]

No, Argent, I think he was saying both atheists and agnostics can be placed into either of those groups. Not that agnostics belong to Group 1 while atheists belong to Group 2.

[Orlion Blight]

No, Argent, I think he was saying both atheists and agnostics can be placed into either of those groups. Not that agnostics belong to Group 1 while atheists belong to Group 2.

 

Correct, and the distinction between atheist and agnostic is starting to get blurred nowadays, there are plenty of atheists who seem to believe that agnostics are the same as atheists. I was pretty much raised on the following definition:

 

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

 

Almost an existentialist... except that existentialists have used their philosophy to argue for the existence/belief in God, so not quite. 

 

Of course, the issue gets confused because these debates are usually not about a general Deistic God, but rather a specific God (in the US, the Christian God). So the question can be better formulated: is someone who "knows" that there is no Christian God but is indifferent to the existence of a Deistic God an atheist or an agnostic?

[navybrandt]

Sorry I gave offense. I think you're in group one, meaning that you have legitimately come to a conclusion that there is no God - not that you hate anything to do with God. I was saying that atheists, agnostics, or whatever term is appropriate can be placed into either group. Some people are willing to talk about it and discuss it while other are hostile. If I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry.

[Blaze1616]

 

Correct, and the distinction between atheist and agnostic is starting to get blurred nowadays, there are plenty of atheists who seem to believe that agnostics are the same as atheists. I was pretty much raised on the following definition:

 

 

Almost an existentialist... except that existentialists have used their philosophy to argue for the existence/belief in God, so not quite. 

 

Of course, the issue gets confused because these debates are usually not about a general Deistic God, but rather a specific God (in the US, the Christian God). So the question can be better formulated: is someone who "knows" that there is no Christian God but is indifferent to the existence of a Deistic God an atheist or an agnostic?

 

I would argue the definition you've provided describes agnosticism. And as an atheist, I want people to separate the two terms. I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I have looked into the arguments for both sides, and have decided that there are no gods. Whether we are discussing the Abrahimic God, a pantheon of any sort, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other deity, good or evil.

 

An agnostic, meanwhile, will come to the conclusion that a conclusion cannot be made given the current arguments/evidence. There might be gods, but there also might not be.

 

So someone in the example you've provided, who is confident that the Abrahimic God does not exist, but is open to the Greek pantheon, is still an agnostic, not an atheist.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Blaze1616

[navybrandt]

Well, I believe in the Abrahamic God. I guess I understand the agnostic view as at least being open-minded. I have trouble understanding the pure atheist view. How do you prove a negative? I'm not asking to be contrary or offensive as most atheists I know are actually agnostic or deists. I just want to understand the viewpoint that there is no possibility of some higher or ultimate power.

 

And why is my belief offensive to some atheists (maybe not to you but to some)? I don't like basketball, but I'm not offended that people want to spend their time and money on it. I'm not even bothered that my tax dollars might go to public basketball programs. It's good for society. With the exception of a few fringe religions, Christianity is good for society too. So, why the hostility from some atheists? (not on this site but from other sites and people I've met in person).

[Argent]

Well, I believe in the Abrahamic God. I guess I understand the agnostic view as at least being open-minded. I have trouble understanding the pure atheist view. How do you prove a negative? I'm not asking to be contrary or offensive as most atheists I know are actually agnostic or deists. I just want to understand the viewpoint that there is no possibility of some higher or ultimate power.

 

You don't prove a negative - and you can't, you are correct. No atheist is (or should be, rather) completely certain that the supernatural doesn't exist. The big distinction here is that atheists find it highly unlikely that it exists, given the evidence at hand. It's about probability, in a way. In other words, for every argument you - or any believer, really - can muster about why you believe in the existence of a God, I can find either a logical flaw, a rational explanation, or a counterargument that says "I find this highly unlikely, here's why."

 

 

And why is my belief offensive to some atheists (maybe not to you but to some)? I don't like basketball, but I'm not offended that people want to spend their time and money on it. I'm not even bothered that my tax dollars might go to public basketball programs. It's good for society. With the exception of a few fringe religions, Christianity is good for society too. So, why the hostility from some atheists? (not on this site but from other sites and people I've met in person).

 

Your belief specifically is probably not offensive to anyone. What some atheists find offensive is when theism is being shoved down their throat - which doesn't happen all the time, but it happens frequently enough to make people speak up. I think a similar idea was addressed earlier in the thread, specifically the belief that if I am a good friend with a strongly religious person, depending on my friend's religion, he or she may feel obligated to try to convert me, lest my soul suffers an eternity or Hell (or some other variation of the same scenario). So from my friend's perspective, they are trying to save me; from my perspective, they are not only disrespecting my personal beliefs, they are also infringing on them. Tough situation. 

 

Another common enough scenario, tangential to this, is the feeling that in certain areas of the US (and I suspect other countries), atheism is somehow associated with evil, lack of morality, disobedience, and other nasty things - the implication being that if I don't believe in a God, I neither know what good is, nor am I willing to do it. Both of which are terribly wrong (I could, in fact, argue that the opposite is true, but that's a strong argument that easily offends people, and I don't really believe in it, so I won't include it). So in certain places, under certain conditions, atheists are actually being actively discriminated against. Examples include, but are not limited to, various forms of punishment against students who refuse to speak the phrase "one nation under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as a quiet kind of discrimination against public officials who are openly atheist (I've seen many polls on this, but here's just one).

 

So, lots of reasons. 

[Blaze1616]

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean close-mindedness. As Argent points out, atheists should be open to new evidence/reasoning from both other atheists and theists. If anything, experience has led me to believe that atheists are more open-minded than theists, at least in regards to religion, as we tend to listen to arguments from all religions, not just one.

 

As for hatheism, it tends to stem from an examination of religion's history. Many theists focus on all the good their religion has done for the world. Hatheists focus on the bad. The crusades are a prime example of Christianity's evils. The current issues in the Middle East serves as an example for Islam. Other examples include how religious governments persecute against those who believe differently, as well as smaller prejudices such as the way US politicians can get criticized for not saying "God Bless America" after speeches, even though US citizens have Freedom of Religion. Hatheists tend to go one step further than just focusing on the bad, though, and actively blame theists for these things. And not just the theists at fault, but any and all theists, even attacking the religions themselves.

[navybrandt]

Sounds reasonable to me. I guess a few overzealous Christians give us all a bad name. Personally, I think shoving it down someone's throat defeats the purpose as becoming a Christian is about submitting to God not submitting to the person trying to "convert" you.

[Kipper]

...which is exactly why I am loving this discussion.

I agree with these classifications. One of my biggest problems with the Church right now is how it ascribes evil motives to atheists, Obama, Islam, whatever.

Basically, we believe that some things accepted by culture now are objectively, morally wrong. But instead of trying to convince people of that through reason, a lot of Christians will write articles and send out letters about the "dark times ahead for America" because of the atheistic agenda, LGBT agenda, Muslim agenda, whatever. And I just look at that and go, "What the heck?! Like these groups are actually sitting down and thinking about what they could do to destroy America and the world?! No! Their "agenda" is just what they say: equality, justice, science, and freedom from perceived religious oppression." That's really it. Conversely, some atheists do the same thing from their worldview. At the root of the whole debate is differing worldviews. Churches attack atheists with arguments based on their Christian beliefs. But it's WRONG. The Bible says you can't do that. Some atheists attack churches and religion in general, ascribing motives of oppression, illogic, and control.

Both groups, I believe, want the best. Do they go about it the wrong way sometimes? Yes. But this discussion, I believe, has been populated with rational people, which is nice.