The bright side of Atheism

[dgirl1986]

temporarily

Regards

Temporarily how?

A Brit atheist in a forum once mentioned that his two young daughters liked him to take them to visit the alpacas (small llamas) at a local wildlife park and that they wanted to "adopt" one, but that the adoption fees were too high for him.
So I said "no problem mate, I know a few Christian groups who'd be happy to chip in and cover the cost, how much do you need, will 100 GB pounds (160 US dollars) be enough?"
But to my surprise he never gave me a straight answer, he waffled something like "you don't mean it" blah blah, so I let it drop and forgot it.
Perhaps his atheist principles wouldn't let him accept cash from Christians, I dunno. What would other atheists have said to the offer?
So as far as I know his daughters never did get their alpaca..

Take your preconception of atheism out of the picture and what you have is the possibility that this is another man that cannot bring himself to accept help from others.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Take your preconception of atheism out of the picture and what you have is the possibility that this is another man that cannot bring himself to accept help from others.

Yeah, people can take some figgering out sometimes, for example a young motorcyclist had a crash in town earlier this year, he wasn't hurt much, and me and a few bystanders had a whipround and raised 20 GB pounds (33 US dollars) for him to help repair his bike, but to our surprise he said "no thanks" and wouldn't accept it..

 

[dgirl1986]

Yeah, people can take some figgering out sometimes, for example a young motorcyclist had a crash in town earlier this year, he wasn't hurt much, and me and a few bystanders had a whipround and raised 20 GB pounds (33 US dollars) for him to help repair his bike, but to our surprise he said "no thanks" and wouldn't accept it..

My step dad is to proud to accept money from people. Except if it is his mum.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

My nieces are not too proud to take money, I never see or hear from them for months at a time until they need cash from me..

 

[1robin]

I'll take such a bet, 1robin. Won't you?

You will take it in what way exactly? You mean you will take your chances? Or what?

 

[1robin]

I'll take that bet too.

You mean you will take your chances? For the sake of retaining something you do not have you will risk everything you could have had? Or what exactly?

 

[1robin]

well..you must be Protestant.
If your conscience is clean, you don't need any God because you don't need to be saved. If you are a good and altruistic person, you are already saved by your merits.
all right. These are Pelagian beliefs and I don't expect you to believe in them,
But when Catholicism becomes entirely Pelagian (because it will, I assure you that it will), Protestantism will remain alone in its beliefs

and one more little thing; autonomy is not temporary. Even in the afterlife we will be autonomous from God. wait and see..

Our conscience is not what determines whether we dwell with God or without him eternally. Moral facts are. God demands moral perfection and no matter how good you may be you are not morally perfect. Many people sear their consciences into numbness by immorality. The most secure people on earth are in insane asylums. They don't believe in Christ they know they are Christ. The most morally secure people are psychopaths.

No one is perfect, and if God exists no one is without need of salvation. No one is born spiritually united with God. That is why the whole Christ had to die thing.

Catholicism and Protestantism do not differ in this fact. Both require Christ to
be united with God. Catholics make the irrational addition of suggesting what we got by grace needs to be maintained by merit but we both agree on the first part and can debate the second.

By Pelagius do you mean the Roman that denied original sin? I care not what label is stuck on it but I do not see even the Catholics adopting any world view that does not require Christ for us to be united with God and saved. Given their history I do not really care much about what most of Catholics say but can not see them doing what you suggest and it does not matter. Christ and the apostles mandated it even if every catholic on earth denied it, which is not even close to the fact.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, I don't understand; what is the bet? Please

Regards

It is the word atheists use to turn something which no argument exists to contend with into something that could be. I never suggested any wager of any kind. I said if your illusory autonomy costs you everything, it was the wrong choice which is without question.

 

[1robin]

Apparently 1robin expects us to somehow attempt to become believers in God's existence so that we do not end in "hot water" (Hell, I assume) after we die.

Assuming that is indeed what he means, it is a non-issue. That argument, the unfortunately named "Pascal's Wager", is not worth worrying about. At all.

Please allow 1Robin to explain what 1Robin meant.

There was no wager or bet proposed by me. I said that the autonomy atheist think they are retaining by refusing to grant transcendent authority does not even exist and if it turns out to cost them eternal contentment it was the wrong choice.

My faith was not a wager and I think Pascal's wager a horrendous argument. I tried denying God for 27 years and things did not seem to work out to well. I gave several other things a chance including Christianity. I became convinced it was true and one night I gave up my resistance and met Christ. I did not bet on anything, I did not wager anything, I used a map and found what it offered. I have it, I am not as almost every other faith in history has hoping to have it at some point. Which by the way only comes when it is to late to correct the mistake.

Those are two distinct points.

The first was concerning my original claim and the fact it contained no bet or wager but an if then statement that is true.

The second was about the nature of Christian faith. It is not an intellectual consent to an idea but an actual experience with proof of the proposition.

 

[LuisDantas]

You will take it in what way exactly? You mean you will take your chances? Or what?

"Choosing" not to believe in God is definitely a risk worth taking, that is what I mean.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is the word atheists use to turn something which no argument exists to contend with into something that could be. I never suggested any wager of any kind. I said if your illusory autonomy costs you everything, it was the wrong choice which is without question.

Wait, what are you talking about again? I'm sorry, but I am having trouble parsing this you just said.

 

[idav]

"Choosing" not to believe in God is definitely a risk worth taking, that is what I mean.

It must be some sort of test in filtering through deception and trickery to come to a correct guess. That is a heck of a game show. I think the atheist is safer not choosing the wrong god.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please allow 1Robin to explain what 1Robin meant.

Of course!

There was no wager or bet proposed by me. I said that the autonomy atheist think they are retaining by refusing to grant transcendent authority does not even exist and if it turns out to cost them eternal contentment it was the wrong choice.

"Refusing to grant transcendent authority"?

In order to "retain an autonomy that does not exist"?

At the price of "eternal contentment"?

I thought we were talking about atheism. You seem to be talking about... I don't know really. Some sort of Satanism, perhaps?

My faith was not a wager and I think Pascal's wager a horrendous argument.

That is nice to know. On that much we can agree.

I tried denying God for 27 years and things did not seem to work out to well.

Really? Why did you? It is such an alien experience to me. I never had to deny God even once. I am not even sure what that would be like.

I gave several other things a chance including Christianity. I became convinced it was true and one night I gave up my resistance and met Christ. I did not bet on anything, I did not wager anything, I used a map and found what it offered. I have it, I am not as almost every other faith in history has hoping to have it at some point. Which by the way only comes when it is to late to correct the mistake.

Good for you, although I can't claim to know what you are talking about.

Those are two distinct points.

The first was concerning my original claim and the fact it contained no bet or wager but an if then statement that is true.

The second was about the nature of Christian faith. It is not an intellectual consent to an idea but an actual experience with proof of the proposition.

Maybe I am just not meant to understand what that is.

 

[Etritonakin]

This thread is almost inspired by another one, recently started.
I didn't even want to post in that thread. Because, experience tells me that Atheism has no dark sides, nor negative aspects.

An atheistic person learns to be autonomous from God. An Atheist is necessarily autonomous, given that they believe in no deity.
But this autonomy is what enables people to trust the human nature and to fight for the development of our mankind.
By rejecting superstition, fatalism, determinism, fear of God and so on.

Atheism is not a prerequisite for fighting for the development of mankind -nor does it ensure that every atheist will do so.

I believe that atheism can result in autonomy from erroneous and harmful religious concepts, practices, attitudes, mindsets, etc., but belief in God is not what causes things to be erroneous or harmful. Unfortunately, the assumed authority from God of some errors make it very difficult for people to allow themselves to see clearly or to be freed from them -but this is true of people under any assumed or imposed false authority -or under false assumptions about true authority.

If one believes theism to be a wrong course, then would not human nature be to blame for the error of theism? One certainly cannot then blame God.

My point is that human nature is not to be "trusted", as such. I would agree that the nature of humans is in need of improvement and development.

Even as a religious person, I would agree that rejecting superstition is desirable. My belief is not without reason or knowledge -but I can see why some would think so.

I also do not see that belief in God necessitates fatalism. From a biblical perspective, God often pleads with man to change their ways so they do not destroy themselves -that it is not enough to expect God to do everything for them.

Biblical study has also -in agreement with observation and experience -taught me that thoughts and actions determine the course of things -and that course can change by decision. Such is the nature of creativity. God is a creator who is creating more creators.

The whole point is that everything can be any way -but that we have to make certain things don't go the wrong way.

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

(With God, however -as it is with man -certain wills and decisions are coupled with greater power and authority -and so have a greater capacity to determine. God determines until we are able to determine without destroying everything -which would be necessary even if man were responsible for the task of determining his own course independent from God).

The fear of God (the Lord) is defined in the bible as the hatred of evil -though it does include a respect for his increased power and authority to determine.

However, I have definitely seen it twisted to be a debilitating mindset which keeps one from rational thought.

Still -it is not the belief in a God which causes this state -but a belief in God can be associated with this state. This fearful mindset is present throughout the human population.

An atheist is just as susceptible to being unwilling, unable, or fearful to question or consider things beyond their comfort zone -because they are also human.

If we assume that there is no God, we are not freed from those negative things associated with religion (and everything else) throughout history -they would simply be associated with whatever we then held as true, because we are human -ignorant of the whole truth, whatever it may be -and have great difficulty improving and developing our nature as a species -especially as our ignorance is constantly refreshed and sometimes renewed*.

(Dark ages -yes -associated with religion -some blame religion for it entirely, but many non-religious [even atheists] have been known to intentionally keep the masses ignorant for various reasons)


We still must learn to hate "evil" and "fear" that which should be respected for what it is -and tremble at the thought of defying it for our own sakes... be it nature or truth.


It is written that the nature of God is apparent in what was made, so an atheist or religious person would both benefit from an open mind.



*(To improve and develop the species requires improving and developing every individual -and we have a hundred or so years -at best -with each individual -then they die.

So.. we try to pass on as much collected knowledge and wisdom to successive generations as possible -but each individual and generation makes their own decisions -which sometimes include rejecting or even destroying previous knowledge and wisdom.

If we could somehow keep what was.... and who was.... already developed, improved and established.... )

 

[Etritonakin]

I would also add that it is God's intent that we eventually become autonomous from him -but as non-destructive members of the population -just as parents raise their children and send them out on their own.

Micro-managing mankind is not something God wants to do for eternity. It is not even something he enjoys overmuch (just as we get on our parents' nerves), so he determined the length of their years as flesh -from hundreds to around 120...

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

...to then end that they eventually be resurrected and sent out into the universe to autonomously create wonderful things -but in an orderly fashion -and with extreme power.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Isa_45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

[Alceste]

You mean you will take your chances? For the sake of retaining something you do not have you will risk everything you could have had? Or what exactly?

I'll live as though there is no possibility of eternal reward or punishment and nobody looking over my shoulder to see which one I deserve. The thing I retain is my autonomy and liberty. A life without those two things is not worth living, Imo. The thing I risk is nothing, since I don't believe in mind-body dualism to begin with.

 

[1robin]

Wait, what are you talking about again? I'm sorry, but I am having trouble parsing this you just said.

Yes that is the type of faith I refer to.

 

[1robin]

"Choosing" not to believe in God is definitely a risk worth taking, that is what I mean.

Well until you knew how it turns out eternally you can't possibly know this. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Exactly what are you risking your soul for. I was going to use my words but as usual the bible said it best. "What will a man exchange for his soul". In this case it would be the potential for the loss of the soul since we do not share the common ground of certainty.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well until you knew how it turns out eternally you can't possibly know this. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Exactly what are you risking your soul for.

You can't seriously expect me to worry about that.

I was going to use my words but as usual the bible said it best. "What will a man exchange for his soul". In this case it would be the potential for the loss of the soul since we do not share the common ground of certainty.

Uh?

 

[Willamena]

Well until you knew how it turns out eternally you can't possibly know this. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. Exactly what are you risking your soul for. I was going to use my words but as usual the bible said it best. "What will a man exchange for his soul". In this case it would be the potential for the loss of the soul since we do not share the common ground of certainty.

You pose "eternally" as sometime in the future. When would that be?