Atheists and Agnostics - you're missing all the fun!!

[Falvlun]

Believing that God saves mankind is only rewarding to those who already believe that God needs to save mankind. How exactly is such a belief rewarding to those who either don't believe that mankind needs saving

You cannot see all the pain, suffering, death, and unhappiness in the world? Just google how many people have to take anti-depressants, there are many things that need salvation in this world.

And you cannot see all the joy, life, enjoyment, goodness and happiness in the world? This is actually a rather interesting commentary on many religious mindsets, and points to another reason why your claim that religion brings out the best in life falls flat. Religions often demand that you see the worst in this life, the worst in humanity, rather than the good parts.

And even if everything is all bleak and dismal as your religious picture presents: Why must salvation for our problems come from some outside force? Could not humans be the solution to our own problems? Isn't that, ultimately, a much more optimistic and motivating worldview, than the belief that humans are doomed and cannot lift a finger to change their lot, but must depend upon something else to save them?

Remember, we are discussing your claim that belief in salvation makes humans, and human life, better.

or look around and think "Dang. God didn't do a really good job of saving mankind if that's what ya'll claim he did."

It's a work in progress, don't judge it until it's completed.

I can only judge based upon what I see, not based upon what will be. As of right now, you claim that God has saved mankind, but then you point out that there is a whole lot of death and suffering going on. The two do not compute. If belief that God has saved mankind is supposed to be inspiring, motivating, comforting, or whatever you claim it to be, then this current form of salvation markedly fails.

There's the other side of the coin too. If we must withhold judgement of God's salvation until the end, then should not we also withhold judgement of humanity's ability to fix its problems until the end? If God needs more time, if God's work is still a "work in progress", then why are you so hasty to deny humans their time?

 

[Hufflechuff]

It seems to me the fun of religion is the happy-clappy-sunbeam-for-jesus kind that comes with a self-centred belief of being saved because you're somehow special. This ignores the misery of guilt, sin, of having to be broken to earn god's love. Personally, living without the fear of Hell, knowing that I am responsible for my life, makes life more fun. The day I no longer see people being killed or oppressed for other peoples' religious beliefs will be even more fun.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There once was a fish that lived in a lovely pond. He had plenty of food, had many friends, enjoyed the beauty of it, and considered it to be so big.

As all the fish in the pond knew, there was a stream that connected the pond to other waters where other fish lived. Some of the pond fish occasionally ventured into the stream a little ways, but they rarely went far. They felt like they had everything they wanted right where they were.

But one day, this fish decided to do something different. He decided that he would swim all the way down the stream. He wanted to invite everyone to his pond so that he could give them a better place to live. He was so excited to share his abundance with everyone else that was lacking.

As he swam down the stream, he realized it was a lot longer than he thought, and it constantly branched into multiple directions. He eventually came to something he was unfamiliar with. The vastness and diversity were incredible- blue waters stretched as far as the eye could see, and there were more fish than he'd ever seen. There were also sharks, eels, crabs, octopi, and even whales that have traveled great distances.

Undeterred, the fish was excited at how many creatures he could tell about the pond. He started telling other fish how lovely this pond was, but saw that many of them were uninterested. Some of them were polite and listened to what he had to say, but then swam onto other adventures in the vastness. Some of them tried to explain that they had visited many ponds, including his, as part of their adventures.

The fish insisted to a whale that he was missing out, that the pond could offer him so much more. "Little fish", the whale explained (having seen this many times before), "why would I visit a pond when I'm right here in the ocean?"

Awesome......:yes:

 

[Watchmen]

I've not really had much experience of critiques of the Mormon belief system beyond that one South Park episode, so I'm not really informed enough there to say one way or the other.

I, as an LDS member, think every Mormon should watch that episode and get some perspective!

 

[Katzpur]

I, as an LDS member, think every Mormon should watch that episode and get some perspective!

I've seen it. I wouldn't say I was "offended," because I think it was just intended as good-natured satire. On the other hand, I get a little bit disgusted when people actually take what they saw on that episode as a serious attempt to explain Mormonism. And I've talked to a surprising number of people who actually feel that they understand LDS doctine after watching it.

 

[dawny0826]

[FONT=&quot]One-night-stand vs. experiencing an eternal soul mate[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]drugs and alcohol trips vs. spiritual awakening[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]superficial materialistic understanding vs. seeing beyond the physical[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]death vs. eternal life[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]meaning and purpose vs. Meaning and Purpose (capital M and P)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]temporary joy and happiness vs. eternal Joy and Happiness (capital J and H)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]seeing others as they are vs. Seeing others as they can eternally become[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]potential vs. Potential (capital P)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]theists out there, care to add onto the list?[/FONT]

Truthfully, I think it's unfair to judge those who don't embrace the same brand of sprituality that you might or choose to reject spirituality altogether.

We all interpret the value of these experiences, ourselves. You can't define the meaning of the aforementioned for another person. It's rather moot to argue it.

 

[Sunstone]

Truthfully, I think it's unfair to judge those who don't embrace the same brand of sprituality that you might or choose to reject spirituality altogether.

We all interpret the value of these experiences, ourselves. You can't define the meaning of the aforementioned for another person. It's rather moot to argue it.

Spot on!

 

[Watchmen]

I've seen it. I wouldn't say I was "offended," because I think it was just intended as good-natured satire. On the other hand, I get a little bit disgusted when people actually take what they saw on that episode as a serious attempt to explain Mormonism. And I've talked to a surprising number of people who actually feel that they understand LDS doctine after watching it.

I should clarify, I don't watch South Park, but I believe I've seen the episode in question. It's the one where the Mormon family moves in next door and there's some explanation of Martin Harris and the lost pages. Are we talking about the same episode?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I do believe that sometimes atheists are not sincere and reject religion on the account of rejecting one religion. They believe god is seen only through one pair of eyes.
I try welcoming atheist to open theism or deism as much as I can because I fear that perhaps they have no tried anything else. BUT if an atheist is sincere and has indeed tried religions and lack of religion then that is all that can be done for them and they must be happy.
Believing in God does not make people happy although it can. Believing in yourself can do just the same as well if you are confident enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do believe that sometimes atheists are not sincere and reject religion on the account of rejecting one religion. They believe god is seen only through one pair of eyes.

I smell a straw man here.
You haven't described a single atheist I know...& I do know a vast herd of them....er, us.
The problem with religion is not the failings of one particular religion, but rather the
foundation for them all, ie, faith in the supernatural &/or gods.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I smell a straw man here.
You haven't described a single atheist I know...& I do know a vast herd of them....er, us.
The problem with religion is not the failings of one particular religion, but rather the
foundation for them all, ie, faith in the supernatural &/or gods.

I would not call faith in the supernatural a failing. Also I would not call it faith but belief. I am not having faith that God exist and I am just under the belief he does.
I have known atheists in real life who have told me how can I believe in god and the only thing they did was rant about Jesus all to find out that I was not a Christian.
It is not the belief in god but the nature of god that I think makes atheist reject religion party or just general theism. But I also acknowledge that another major contributing factor is the see no reason for accepting one and are under the belief that god does not exist. No different than how I am under the belief that god exist.
But at the end of the day I find it to be irrelevant if someone does or doesn't believe in god. Both parties cannot prove the other party wrong unless the theist believe in a religion that ascribes to a dogma which can be proven wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would not call faith in the supernatural a failing.

Hmmm....you just might not be an atheist then.

Also I would not call it faith but belief.

Belief is broader than faith.
There is belief because of objective evidence.
And there is belief based on feelings, but without objective evidence.
Faith is the latter.

I am not having faith that God exist and I am just under the belief he does.
I have known atheists in real life who have told me how can I believe in god and the only thing they did was rant about Jesus all to find out that I was not a Christian.
It is not the belief in god but the nature of god that I think makes atheist reject religion party or just general theism. But I also acknowledge that another major contributing factor is the see no reason for accepting one and are under the belief that god does not exist. No different than how I am under the belief that god exist.
But at the end of the day I find it to be irrelevant if someone does or doesn't believe in god. Both parties cannot prove the other party wrong unless the theist believe in a religion that ascribes to a dogma which can be proven wrong.

Since I wasn't privy to your conversations about Jesus, I don't know exactly where the atheists stood.
Conversations, especially rancorous ones, will meander in ways which obscure the real beliefs of the participants.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hmmm....you just might not be an atheist then.

Who said I was an atheist :sarcastic

Belief is broader than faith.
There is belief because of objective evidence.
And there is belief based on feelings, but without objective evidence.
Faith is the latter.

I would not call that the proper definition of belief. Faith is the belief of the nature of a being, actions or character. Christians have faith that god will save them from hell, resurrect them before armageddon and answer their prayers. They have faith in god(character,actions and future deeds). I do not have faith, as I do not believe god will do anything as faith is a belief in the future to be more specific.
Belief is when one is assured of something in the present tense and it is not used in such a verbal manner as faith. I am absolutely certain there is a god and that is my belief. I do not have faith as faith is merely wishing about the future.

Since I wasn't privy to your conversations about Jesus, I don't know exactly where the atheists stood.
Conversations, especially rancorous ones, will meander in ways which obscure the real beliefs of the participants.

I am not positively clear on this but I assume I know what you are saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who said I was an atheist :sarcastic

No one that I know of.
But I suspect that you're not.
That's allowable, btw.

I would not call that the proper definition of belief. Faith is the belief of the nature of a being, actions or character.

My definitions are better than yours.
Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!

Christians have faith that god will save them from hell, resurrect them before armageddon and answer their prayers. They have faith in god(character,actions and future deeds). I do not have faith, as I do not believe god will do anything as faith is a belief in the future to be more specific.
Belief is when one is assured of something in the present tense and it is not used in such a verbal manner as faith. I am absolutely certain there is a god and that is my belief. I do not have faith as faith is merely wishing about the future.

I'd call your belief in unverifiable things "faith'.

I am not positively clear on this but I assume I know what you are saying.

I am an expert on not divining people's beliefs.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'd call your belief in unverifiable things "faith'.

Faith is blind and consist of trust. I am convinced this world is created by a god because of its creation and beautiful synthesis. That is my evidence and that is my belief and it is not faith as I am not placing a trust in the actions of a deity.
I believe a god created this world and that is it. My belief is really more of a hypothesis as it is not as detailed to consider it a theory.

You are over complicating things dramatically. If a scientist believes int he Big Bang concept I doubt you would call that a faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

Faith is blind and consist of trust. I am convinced this world is created by a god because of its creation and beautiful synthesis. That is my evidence and that is my belief and it is not faith as I am not placing a trust in the actions of a deity.
I believe a god created this world and that is it. My belief is really more of a hypothesis as it is not as detailed to consider it a theory.

Your evidence & your beliefs are fine with me, but the evidence is personal rather than objective.
So if you believe something unverifiable to be "true", then you have faith.....IMO.

You are over complicating things dramatically. If a scientist believes int he Big Bang concept I doubt you would call that a faith.

No, I'm about the most simple minded guy here, especially about religion.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Because there is no objective evidence, I don't believe in gods.
I speculate that they don't exist, but I can't prove it, so I qualify as both a weak atheist & as an agnostic.
Can't get much simpler than that, eh?

Regarding the big bang, it is a theory which has aspects which been objectively verified.
(Btw, a Catholic priest came up with the idea. It fit the evidence.)

 

[Sha'irullah]

Your evidence is fine with me, but it just isn't objective.
So if you believe something unverifiable to be "true", then you have faith.....IMO.

I do not believe it can't be verified but I believe we do not have the means to verify it no different than how you cannot verify the creation of the earth.

No, I'm about the most simple minded guy here, especially about religion.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Because there is no objective evidence, I don't believe in gods.
I speculate that they don't exist, but I can't prove it, so I qualify as both a weak atheist & as an agnostic.

I speculate they exist just the same way you speculate they do not exist. This debate is coming down to semantics and that is about it. We are both riding the same river, the issue is that one is going upstream while the other down.
If this is the case then we both have faith.

Can't get much simpler than that, eh?

Never figured you out as highly complex. I myself am a simpleton.
1 bottle of whiskey, 1 cute Nihonese maid, 1 Playstation and 1 copy of Metal Gear and I am ready for World War 3 , 4, 5, Armageddon, the Apocalypse and any hell to follow afterwards. :beach:

 

[sonofdad]

I do not believe it can't be verified but I believe we do not have the means to verify it no different than how you cannot verify the creation of the earth.

That's the same as it not being verifiable, in the present tense. Maybe it will be verifiable at some time in the future, but until then its faith.

The formation of the earth can be verified with pretty good accuracy. We have material evidence telling us when and how it happened, assuming that the laws of physics haven't changed since its formation. We can't verify that there was no sky-wizard involved, but we can't verify that there was one either, rendering him irrelevant outside of people's imagination.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's the same as it not being verifiable, in the present tense. Maybe it will be verifiable at some time in the future, but until then its faith.

Faith is belief in something that cannot be proven. For example how a Christian claims that the trinity of god is a mystery despite how it cannot be logically reasoned.
By no means can the concept be understood thus it is faith. All theory is theory until proven or disproven and this is no different.

The formation of the earth can be verified with pretty good accuracy. We have material evidence telling us when and how it happened, assuming that the laws of physics haven't changed since its formation. We can't verify that there was no sky-wizard involved, but we can't verify that there was one either, rendering him irrelevant outside of people's imagination.

The formation of the earth is not verified or else it would not be addressed as theory. The Big Bang is just the most agreed upon theory and the most scientific theory available hence its wide acceptance. The Big Bang conception fits within the laws of physics and known facts thus it is accepted but just because 99% or 100% of a group accept it does not make it true. Theory is not proven by acceptance, it is proven by evidence and the evidence you speak of does not exist.
There is no evidence for it just a strong 99% chance that is is the most rational, scientific, and plausible answer. I myself accept it also simply because of the odds . Does not make it any more true though since ratios are not definitives

 

[sonofdad]

Your logic is very odd.

You do believe in your god with absolute certainty, right?
Faith is believe in something that cannot be proven. You accept that.
You can't prove the existence of your god, right? (remember we're talking about the present).
Therefor your believe in god is based on faith is it not?

When I say verified, I don't mean its absolute infallible truth, I mean that its based on observable, material evidence. You know those fuzzy things we can see and touch, like cosmic radiation.

The earth did not happen in the big bang, that was way later and its a different theory, but of course an indirect consequence of the creation of the universe. We have lots and lots of evidence for both, else they wouldn't be called theories. A theory in science is a much higher ranking term than the layman's definition.
A theory is never proven, its always a theory no matter if all the evidence in the world supports it, because science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Faith is when you believe something despite there being no observable evidence supporting it or even if the evidence plain contradicts it.
If some new indisputable data was discovered that contradicts the big bang theory, then scientist would stop believing the big bang and come up with a new theory. That's pretty much the opposite of faith.