Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[TD1]

Any jackass with modern healing knowledge and equipment might qualify as Jesus.

The point being, people give their deities extraordinary powers. For example, Jesus curing leprosy is an unbelievable power which we now have.

[Bohandas]

On the subject of uncharitable theists, though, do note that a lot of religions are squrrelly as hell about that particular subject. Can't speak well of other countries, but it's an actual legitimate problem here in the US, churches abusing charitable status (and, among other things, funneling a lot of their charity resources into things of significantly questionable charitableness) and desultory donations to the church (instead of actual charitable works or whathaveyou) to half-heartedly fulfill tenets of charity being misappropriated, misused, etc., etc. And that's not even getting into nasty stuff like prosperity gospel, ugh. On the face of things, religious individuals are more charitable by the numbers, iirc, but it's a more questionable statement that it seems. Among other things, a lot of that charity just goes right back in to the religion, or is more about ministry than physical aid.

George Carlin had a great comedy bit on this subject:

"He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"

[Harry Baldman]

I agree that it's easy not to think about it (god knows modern life has plenty of distractions to make even it easier) but for your latter statement, if atheists do not believe in an afterlife but in a "grounded after-life" (i.e a material one, instead of an immaterial one) they must still cope with the inevitable fact that the universe will come to an end at some point and their actions (far as they may ripple) will eventually be dissipated by time. In other words, it won't endure.

This is why (in my humble opinion) religions seem to turn away from the material. Buddhism and Hinduism would argue that the material is subject to transience and therefore is not something one should ground themselves on, Abrahamic religions would probably say something similar, adding that the only ground is God. In any case, the point is religions tend to ground on what they perceive as the absolute (change, God, whatever it may be), are you then saying that Atheists perceive the Earth, familial connections etc. to be absolute?

It doesn't matter if it won't endure. What matters is that it endures a bit longer than you do, or that it endures for a long time on a human-relatable timescale, which I'd gauge at about the length of your specific lifespan. If we go into evolutionary (10E4 to 10E5 years) scales, the human race is about 100 000 to 200 000 years old (note, hominids as a whole are older), which just about corresponds to the average lifespan for a species before it goes extinct, so more likely than not we're living past when we could be expected to already. On geological scales (10E6-10E8), the world itself will experience vast climate change and no longer resemble what we know in any respect. Organic life as a whole might not live past a billion more years from now. And on cosmological scales (10E9-10E11) the universe itself will become chaos. These are of minimal concern to me, because in the next 30 years after my death the world will already be vastly different from what I once knew. My time will be a fun little novelty amongst that day's youth, and they will appear in hilariously inaccurate period dress to parties. So even if my works and other remnants are destined to all be ruined by the inexorable march of time, even if they (whatever they were) last a mere 20 years after I am dead, I will be satisfied, because they will have already seen a world I will never be able to know.

With all that in mind, it helps that after a sufficiently long period of time all the people I don't like will also be dead like me or at the very least horribly decrepit, and that as my legacy will be erased, so will everyone else's in due time, and there's nothing I can do about it.

[bahihs]

I agree that it's easy not to think about it (god knows modern life has plenty of distractions to make even it easier) but for your latter statement, if atheists do not believe in an afterlife but in a "grounded after-life" (i.e a material one, instead of an immaterial one) they must still cope with the inevitable fact that the universe will come to an end at some point and their actions (far as they may ripple) will eventually be dissipated by time. In other words, it won't endure.

This is why (in my humble opinion) religions seem to turn away from the material. Buddhism and Hinduism would argue that the material is subject to transience and therefore is not something one should ground themselves on, Abrahamic religions would probably say something similar, adding that the only ground is God. In any case, the point is religions tend to ground on what they perceive as the absolute (change, God, whatever it may be), are you then saying that Atheists perceive the Earth, familial connections etc. to be absolute?

It doesn't matter if it won't endure. What matters is that it endures a bit longer than you do, or that it endures for a long time on a human-relatable timescale, which I'd gauge at about the length of your specific lifespan. If we go into evolutionary (10E4 to 10E5 years) scales, the human race is about 100 000 to 200 000 years old (note, hominids as a whole are older), which just about corresponds to the average lifespan for a species before it goes extinct, so more likely than not we're living past when we could be expected to already. On geological scales (10E6-10E8), the world itself will experience vast climate change and no longer resemble what we know in any respect. Organic life as a whole might not live past a billion more years from now. And on cosmological scales (10E9-10E11) the universe itself will become chaos. These are of minimal concern to me, because in the next 30 years after my death the world will already be vastly different from what I once knew. My time will be a fun little novelty amongst that day's youth, and they will appear in hilariously inaccurate period dress to parties. So even if my works and other remnants are destined to all be ruined by the inexorable march of time, even if they (whatever they were) last a mere 20 years after I am dead, I will be satisfied, because they will have already seen a world I will never be able to know.

With all that in mind, it helps that after a sufficiently long period of time all the people I don't like will also be dead like me or at the very least horribly decrepit, and that as my legacy will be erased, so will everyone else's in due time, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Interesting...it reminds of Ozymandias: "Look upon my works ye mighty and despair! Nothing beside, remains."

[TD1]

Scratch that. I think I am wrong. The sand bit comes later.

[Biowraith]

Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question and I've only skimmed the answers since (so I may be repeating things, or stating things that have been rebutted), but I'll still try to answer it from my own perspective.

Basically I don't think I do reconcile the difference and I don't really see a need to reconcile it.  It's just the way things are, and based on the characteristics of the world, life, and human nature, it's pretty much inevitable.  I, relatively speaking, lucked out.  A lot of other people got shafted.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  Now, I didn't cause the situation so I don't feel guilty about it per se, but I don't think it's right and it does bother me when I think about it.  I don't think anything is going to correct this situation besides the efforts of good people, and I don't think that will ever be enough to actually eliminate the inequity, merely mitigate it for fraction of those unfortunate people (though we should still put that effort in - improving the situation for some is still better than for none).  I should probably note that in practice I tend towards laziness and apathy so don't do nearly as much as I believe I should in that regard, but that's true of most of my life (I'm a chronic underachiever) not just when dealing with the awful unfairness of human existence on Earth.

Ultimately it's a big, cold, unfair and uncaring universe, and (outside of our minds and beliefs) it doesn't matter if things are fair or not.  And ultimately each of us will die and (I believe) cease to exist and while our suffering and/or enjoyment matters in the here and now, once we're dead none of it will matter at all because there will no longer be a 'we' for it to matter to.  To paraphrase one of our departed: there is no justice, just death. 

It's not a terribly satisfying or comforting belief, but I believe based on what I think is most likely, not on what makes me feel better about things.

[scrdest]

I'm definitely a hard atheist, yeah.

Anyway, bahihs, I don't think you're using "cognitive dissonance" well. The fact that I'm better off than 95% of the world's population can be explained by chance of birth etc, etc. There is no cognitive dissonance here, it's just a fact. Now, I do try to make things better, but that's just because I believe one should do so, not out of some kind of desire to resolve an hypothetical "cognitive resonnance".

He IS using it correctly, the problem is he has an unstated assumption. Of equality/justice, specifically.

And you do, actually (also, consonance if anything - heil terminology!). You even said so yourself - you believe you should do so, therefore you do so. If you believed you should, but didn't, you'd have a cognitive dissonance - you could resolve it by, say, saying you were busy with more important things or whatever; or the other way round, believing that you shouldn't, but you did - same situation, again you either need to find an excuse or otherwise alter your beliefs in a way that resolves that dilemma.

[Sheb]

Oh, yeah, then that make sense. So yeah, we deal with it by doing something about it. :p

[Rolan7]

"Nothing happens in contradiction with nature.  Only with what we know of it." - Agent Scully, The X-Files

I've never understood the concept of supernatural events which defy science, but affect our world.  If we can observe it, we can test it.  Even if it's hiding, even if it's beyond our current understanding of the world.

This is from a guy who believes in weather spirits and wants to believe in fairies.  They're only "supernatural" because we don't understand them *yet*.  If they effect our existence at all.  And if they don't, they practically don't exist.

[Bohandas]

That's why Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies. Of all the films I've seen that posit on what things might be like if ghosts were real I think that Ghostbusters is the most realistic because the ghosts can be studied and understood well enough for Egon and Ray to build devices that can manipulate and contain them, from scratch, out of parts with known and documented functions.

[wierd]

necessity is the mother of invention.

If you can just wiggle your nose and shit happens, why wrack your brain trying to design a technological solution?

THAT is why worlds with magic need to have magic be something that only SOME people have, otherwise the world produced does not resemble anything we are familiar with, and is too alien for the player/reader to relate to. It is also why technology does not advance very quickly-- people can go see Mr Magician, and "Get shit fixed literally with magic", even if they themselves are incapable of magic. You see that sorta today with people pawning broken tech onto their tech savvy brother in law to get it fixed on the cheap. They are tech-tarded themselves, but know somebody that isnt, and can fix their blunders.

Same basic thing--- Different setting. 

---back on topic:

In the case of "supernatural", simply look up the definition of the word.

supernatural
adj. adjective

    1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
    2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
    3. Of or relating to a deity.
    4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
    5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Science deals with nature. It has no traction with things outside of nature. (Even things we consider "unnatural", like say assisted fertility--if you are right wing wacko enough-- still deal with natural forces and natural consequences. They are not "supernatural".)

Thus, by definition-- supernatural things are not verifiable using empirical methodologies. I did not misuse the word. The very concept of having true knowledge of the supernatural would necessitate that the individual in question themselves be supernatural. For anyone else, who would be shackled to the natural world, and natural processes as the only available tools to establish veracity of a claim, the very idea of having genuine true knowledge of a supernatural thing is a non-sequitur.

[Sheb]

Also, do you think the Mage Guild would approve of those pesky people trying to make them irrelevant? I suspect a lot of would-be engineers ends up having "accidents", when they lathes "spontaneously" explodes.

There is actually a funny Russian book, which present the whole Lord of the Ring war as a war created by the Council of Mages to prevent the fledging state of Mordor from developing modern science.

[UXLZ]

Question: Does anyone know where the phrase/expression "Fear of God" comes from (at least the one in relation to the Christian God)? It seems illogical thinking about it further, because the Bible (apparently) dictates Him as all-loving and forgiving and so forth. Why should He be feared? It's not like He's even the one who punishes sinners when they die, it's technically Satan/Hell who does that. It seems more like "Fear of the Devil" would make more sense, but I could be missing something.

[wierd]

From the old testament.  There are many direct references stating that the person in good standing with god, fears god, because god has the power to destroy the soul.

Give me a few minutes to get references.

[Arx]

It's not like He's even the one who punishes sinners when they die, it's technically Satan/Hell who does that.

"It's not my mom that spanks me, it's the spoon she uses that does that."

Question: Does anyone know where the phrase/expression "Fear of God" comes from (at least the one in relation to the Christian God)?

It's fear as in respect. I'm God-fearing because I 'fear' Him enough to keep His commands, but it's a lot more like I respect Him enough.