Printable View
hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"
looking at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and the Romans and even before that , they all didn't have an idea about "God"and so they created their own...
my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?
i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....
I like the antithesis of Voltaire's dictum: "If God did exist, it would be necessary to kill it."
Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean not believing in ANYTHING, it means not believing in a higher power that governs it, it means believing that we control our own destiny, there is no fate, anything that happens to us, good or bad, is a result of our actions.
The Voltaire quote suggests that humans need to feel like they can justify the world somehow....whatever they don't understand they say "it's becasue of God", thus, they become the inventors of God for their own purpose.
To a certain extent, I agree with Charles. Everyone pass out, a preacher just agreed with an Atheist! But it is a fact. Just because you cannot conceive the existence of “God” doesn’t mean you do not believe that man is the highest form of life that can possibly exist. We know so very little for all of our research, and we don’t even know everything that exists right here on Earth. And we are one planet orbiting a backwater star in a big universe. What could possibly lie out there? We don’t really know.
I’m not one of these UFO kooks. When the UFO craze when on in this area, (it made National Headlines), I saw the thing myself. I knew what I was seeing: an experimental aircraft. Later, when the Stealth came out, I knew that was what I had seen. We also have refueling flights go over here, and they can be strange.
No I am just saying we know so little about this universe, that one must believe in something, and if it isn’t God, trust me, they believe in something greater than man. Maybe they don’t want to be controlled by anything, but something is out there to be discovered. Otherwise, why look?
God bless
Pen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
You calling me an atheist? Not that I have anything against Atheism, but I'm not an atheist. I don't beleive in God in the traditional sense (one being who created the world in seven days etc), but I do believe that there is a power greater than humans.
This dictum presents flawed logic: if God exists, there is no "killing" Him (by very nature of the definition of the word "God") - there is only accepting Him or rejecting Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbeliever
Exactly. The way Alan Watts put it, theism is believing that there is a boss of the universe (a personal god separate from the universe) and pantheism, monism, and atheism all refer to not believing in such an idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I see ZERO evidence of a boss, thus I fall into the pantheism/monism/atheism category.
OTOH, many theists believe they actually get messages from the boss, or believe by "faith" that others have (No further comment of that idea.) Other theists claim to just believe in the boss on "faith" because without a boss, they would fear being depressed and hopeless. (This is what Christopher Hitchens calls wish-thinking.).
Of course; the very nature of naturalism automatically eliminates God as a possibility from the beginning, thereby negating any evidence that you might be able to consider. A shame, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I think the real "wishful thinking" in the world is the wish that we are in control of ourselves and that we only answer to ourselves. Such an idea is immensely comforting because it allows one to live a fairly irresponsible life with no worry about the ramifications of one's actions - whether good or evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Exactly-- opponents of Christianity (and other faiths) often claim we are hoping to comfort ourselves with some kindly man in the sky-- nothing could be further from the truth. Even Nietzsche (a bitter, anti-God man if ever there was) admitted the inherent difficulties and hardships of Christianity (I refer you to "Also Sprach Zaruthustra," specifically the essay called "The Three Transformations of the Spirit"). Christianity is hard. It calls for denial of many desires, and for the hard way over the easy ninety-nine times out of a hundred.
Based on the evidence, I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
No different, e.g., from Buddhism - except Buddhism precepts and rules tend to make more sense to me - at least the ones for lay people (i.e., not monastics).Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Counsel, are you prepared to present your evidence to the court?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Very different, because Buddhism is essentially atheistic in its thrust - so the "harder path" ultimately has nothing beneath it in terms of accountability. If one chooses to ignore the Noble Eightfold Path, so what? But if a Christian ignores what Christ has asked of us, there is an ultimate accountability. Employee performance changes when there is and is not a supervisor on duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Most religions emphasize the exact same moral points as Christianity-- mercy, love, compassion, justice, friendship, charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Agreed. Then what need for christianity - particularly?Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
And BTW - I am asking only you for an answer - and NO ONE ELSE.
wouldn't you consider the fact that Christianity was one of the first most widely spread religions that came up with these values, and many religions were influenced by it.....Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
but that is not our topic. doesn't everyone have that curiosity about our existence and our mission, who created us and why, the reasonable answer in this case is the easiest one ,and that is the existence of a higher power not necessarily governing us because we have the choice of rejecting and accepting.
Exactly. When something is out of our reach and knowledge, we can easily say ''God wants it to be like that, there must be a reason'' and we can stop thinking about that. When something bad or unexpected happens, blame God; it will be easier to accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
The message of the Gospel is NOT just to be a good person-- it offers salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Grace and Peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stella
Stella, I don't believe Christianity was the first widely spread religion that came up with these values: in fact, it's one of the last....
Any, I believe that some people (a great many people) are not concerned about the "mission" as you call it, about what put us on this Earth, but rather, now that we are here what do we do? How do we make our lives better for the sake of making our lives better, not to appease some higher being. How can we help people only for the goal of helping people not some reward in the afterlife? Of course, I'm generalizing: I'm not ssaying all theists care only about pleasing God and getting into Heaven, and that all atheists are selfless people...far from it. You have jerks on both side of the fence
Indeed. Once he was cured of his testicular cancer, Lance Armstrong was asked if he thanked God for his cure, and he said no, because then he'd have to blame God for giving it to him in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
All this christianity taken literally is just assumption founded on assumption. Why, particularly, must I share in your assumptions, when your assumptions don't fit the facts. There are far better assumptions available. You are unaware? I suggest you travel a bit, and read a few books - other than a KJV.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Hinduism is 5,000 years old - christianity about two. If either influenced the other, then what are the odds the latter influenced the former the most?Quote:
Originally Posted by stella
The rest of the questions that so concern you - they are the creations of a monotheistic assumption. Think outside the box. Pantheism solves your alleged questions by dissolving them.
And have a nice day.
Pantheism reduces the questions of life to naught. If all is God, all is divine, and any choice also is holy. So choose what you want, and frolick willy-nilly through the world, punching babies in the throat and stealing their lollipops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Fun as that sounds (maybe not the punching part), Pantheism states that God is in everything, so yes, everything is divine, but ethical codes don't enter into it. In fact, punching babies and stealing lollipops = punching God and stealing his lollipops, and I may not believe in "God" in that sene, but if I did, I sure wouldnt want to steal his lollipop.
There are several billion pantheists in the world and, as a general rule, they are better behaved than the billions of theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Apparently there is some problem with your logic.
'as a general rule,' Now that'll be a rule of your own then. Funny things these general rules. There's always lots of them. And they are always so personal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Well, then, are you saying that pantheists have murdered more people, or as many people, per capita, in the history of the world than theists?
References, please.
Am I? Where did I pass any comment about that. As a general rule I prefer not to make up general rules. 'As many people per capita'?? How many have I murdered and how come no one has noticed. This is a bit like saying there's a man knocked down by a car every day in Watford .... and he's getting dashed fed up of it.
Quite a lot of atheist self congratulation is based on fantasy
That's a lot of words. What do they mean - if anything? What do they have to do with theists vs. pantheists and their relative merits?Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Any student of history - world comparative history - would see that theists don't impress, in terms of morals and ethics, as compared to pantheists.
If you doubt this so much, then please tell us why. Put up or....be very, very quiet.
And i think there's several billions people who doesn't know world population.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
First of all, I read an NIV (joking... but I really do). Secondly, I have read more than you think-- for instance, most people would assume that a Christian would not read Nietzsche, but I have-- I did find it to be bilge, but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I was joking about the baby-punching thing, but my point is that if God is in everything, well then, God is in war, cancer, famine, etc. And so God is not good, He is either balanced-morality or He is non-moral. And I cannot worship a God that is not good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Not all who claim faith actually HAVE it. You cannot therefore prove that theists are worse behaved than pantheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
There are not several billion pantheists, and there are not several billion theists: there are a billion plus agnostics, millions of atheists, about a billion combined believers of the three major monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), and maybe a billion followers of some sort of pantheist belief, be it the quasi-Buddhist faiths that have emerged from distortion of Siddartha Gautama's teaching or Hindus, or some of the quasi-Neo-Pagans.
There are many philosophers. Have your ever read James, Heidegger, Kant, Locke, Spinoza? How about the ancient Greeks like Lucretius? Any existentialists – Sartre, de Unamuno, Kierkegaard?Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Ever read any Eastern wisdom traditional sutras – the scriptures of the Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists?
I thought not.
Why are you so hung up on “worshipping a god”? What does that get you, exactly? Maybe if you cut out all the worshipping you might actually do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Well, if you want to wax pedantic – I classify Hindus, Buddhists, and Taoists as pantheists. Perhaps a better word for many of them would be monists, or panmonists. In any case, there a billion people there who are not monotheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
And the last count I saw of monotheists – mainly christians and muslims – was over two billion.
As for who is sincere about being theists and who is lying – I suppose you would classify the sincere as those who do good and those who do bad things as liars. Heads god wins, tails atheism loses. Right.
Some people say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
I also saw people talking about "pleasing God." As I understand it, we are saved by grace, and not by our actions. We cannot 'earn' our way into heaven. I thought that was fundamental. It's sort of a contradiction - one on hand, we are supposed to do good to please God, and if we don't, on a large scale, our cities and nations will be wiped out (if all are sinful, etc.), and on the other hand, we cannot earn our way, etc.
Anyway, because any sin is forgiven if we forgive with honest hearts, or because of that doctrine, some people say that Christianity is immoral, etc, because it allows you to what you want and then be forgiven, or do whatever you want because you are saved and chosen and special.
Don't forget that some sects of Christianity believe there is a set number of people who are going to heaven, and it's already decided, and some believe that we can never know WHO is going to heaven (Puritans, I believe?) or perhaps that we'll be able to see who's chosen, going to heaven, saved, etc, by their wealth and success on Earth. Kind of an interesting view. Those people also believe that our success is based off our own efforts, etc. That gives rise to a wicked work ethic.
Anyway, if you don't want people insulting Christianity by their ignorance, as you might define it, and saying that it allows immorality, please don't do the same for other religions. One reason pantheism is an ethical religion is because correct belief in pantheism is to believe that others are the same as yourself, so when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. Or if they don't believe that others are the same as yourself (Cognizant Ontology) then they believe hurting others hurts you in a general way. Another way pantheists are ethical is by their religious scriptures (the Bhagavad-Gita), and those have strict moral disciplines (be vegetarian, meditate for an hour every day, eat in moderation). And of course, there are both psychopathic (no conscience or empathy) and kind, empathetic people in all religions. But, like J said, pantheists are well behaved. All of my masters are empathetic, good people, and I don't mind taking examples from any religion.
Oh, and to the original question I would say that labels such as atheist or deist or pantheist do not have any bearing on reality. That is my idea. The only things that matter are life, ideas, and how they apply to life. Give me literature over anything else. Give me learning.
Nietzsche is well worth reading and loving, lots of people do.
Just because I still want to convince you that Nietzsche was a good guy, here's a warm quote by him he wrote to his friend. He was a wonderful person. Not bitter. And he had reason to be, if anyone ever did.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
My dear friend, what is this our life? A boat that swims in the sea, and all one knows for certain about it is that one day it will capsize. Here we are, two good old boats that have been faithful neighbors, and above all your hand has done its best to keep me from "capsizing"! Let us then continue our voyage—each for the other's sake, for a long time yet, a long time! We should miss each other so much! Tolerably calm seas and good winds and above all sun—what I wish for myself, I wish for you, too, and am sorry that my gratitude can find expression only in such a wish and has no influence at all on wind or weather!
— Letter to Franz Overbeck: November 14, 1881.
And this, a paragraph from a biography, to show what I meant about his having cause to be bitter.
"Between 1879 and 1889, Nietzsche lived mostly in Switzerland and Italy, subsisting on a small university pension and writing furiously despite his declining health. He suffered constant migraines, insomnia, and indigestion, such that he could only read and write for a few hours each day, and his eyesight became so poor that he was partially blind. Despite these setbacks, Nietzsche wrote eleven books and thousands of pages of notebook jottings in the next ten years.
"Throughout this time, Nietzsche’s books sold very poorly, and he had only a handful of admirers.
In January 1889, Nietzsche saw a man beating his horse on the street in Turin and rushed to intervene. He collapsed in the street and never regained his sanity. He spent the last eleven years of his life as a vegetable, oblivious to his surroundings, and died in August 1900."
From http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...e/context.html
I think I read that he would write ten hours a day, or something..I don't know which is true.
My humble apologies. I did read you right on believing there was a power greater than humans. Very sorry if I insulted you by calling you an "Atheist." Perhaps it was the way that your post was worded, but I had no right to jump to conclusions. Forgive me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
If a man cannot admit it when he has done wrong and make recompense, he gives a poor example as a Minister. Again, I am truly sorry.
God bless you richly.
Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...ies/GiveUp.gif
First of all, how a man treats his friends is no indication of his moral fiber-- unless he happens to abuse/extort/insult them. The true indication of a man's heart is his treatment of his enemies. And Nietzsche HATED people like me (Christians, if you've lost count). Did you know he claimed to be the anti-Christ? Little crazy... And that was well before 1889 if I remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
I think the Anti-Christ was the last book he wrote. I have it in "Basic Writings of Nietzsche" by Walter Kauffman. It has four of his books complete. I've only read the first part of it, that was one book I had in mind when I said you shouldn't read more of him, you wouldn't like it. It starts out criticizing Christianity. I believe somewhere Kauffman wrote that it might better be translated "the Anti-Christian".Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
I don't think Nietzsche hated anyone except anti-semites and...lol, I don't know. I haven't read it, but one chapter in Ecce Homo is titled "Why I am a Destiny". Nietzsche predicted that in future years he would be considered a saint, among other things, a title which he didn't want.
I'm not a Nietzsche expert. I'm only getting into this with you because I love him so much. I really look forward to reading him.
Oh, and if you have any further questions about Nietzsche's character, let me assure you, he was a good man. He was polite and very quiet in others' company. He was a virtuous man and polite. He was bound by his physical frailty to eat and drink very carefully. He didn't smoke or drink coffee, and certainly not alcohol. If he did drink alcohol it made him very sick.
Anyhow, those comments were mostly not my writings,- and off topic- I am interested in what you have to say to the comment I did write, the one before it about religion.
Thanks,
Nicolai
I don't know whether vegetarianism is a moral or immoral choice in and of itself-- same thing for eating in moderation (gluttony is not good, but you can eat heartily and not be a glutton). I did not intend my little baby-punching scenario to be an ethical commentary on pantheism, but rather a theological-- if all is God, then God is not good. I'm afraid that I find myself forced to be a little more "narrow minded" in that Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me."Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Well, Grace and Peace.
It depends. If you are a growing child, you eat one way, and if you are an adult, it's best to eat another. Also it depends completely on the individual, and I think the same can be said for Vegetarianism. For me, it's right, but it may not be right for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
You keep ignoring my points. God made creation and called it good. Doesn't that mean it is good?
I think your argument has flaws in it. You say if God is nature, then God is not good, because nature itself is not good or evil? But isn't your stance that creation is good - because there are good and evil?
Or is Earth completely neutral, or completely balanced, or swaying towards evil?
Please answer.
Yes unfortunately we are not sure whether he was slightly mad when he started writing that, or he got completely insane after writing that.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
War is war. Saying that God IS war for a pantheist is no worse than saying that God IS THE CAUSE of war for a theist. If you wantto go that route than, yes, God is not good - theist or pantheist - but it's really not that simpleQuote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Right, that was my point. God made nature and called it good. Etc., etc. Either he made nature or he is equal to nature, the question of whether nature is good. But if there were no nature there would be no us, so it basically depends on whether our lives are good. And whether life is more good or more evil. I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
That may well be the case, but if I die and find out there really is a God (like the one portrayed in the Bible), I intend to spend the rest of eternity trying to kill it. Sure, it's not likely to be easy, but at least I'll never get bored!Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
How can God not be all, if God is omnipresent?Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman