I see it as a privilege or act of grace. I am not sure I see it as an advantage as such. It is a means of understanding rather than a status or value.
Maybe it is just me, sorry
Richard
2 Likes
I’m fine with that phrasing! Definitely it is an an act of grace and an unmerited privilege, but it is also certainly an advantage and of value when dealing with the adversary or my own sin.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus wrote:
First, we can’t be angry at a deity we don’t believe exists.
Logically, you are absolutely correct.
However, we humans are not always logical.
In fact, experiments have shown that we are reasoning creatures, and we often make up the logical-sounding reasons after we have already made our choice (for non-rational reasons).
I personally know a few people who have admitted shutting out the possibility of God after they got mad at him for letting something terrible happen to them. They describe this process only after they returned to the faith (are they making up reasons again? Maybe. But I doubt it; it’s painful for anyone to admit being wrong).
Vonnegut is mad at the person for believing. Vonnegut is not mad at God.
Wikipedia says that Vonnegut called himself “Christ-loving atheist”, but that may have been later in his life, after I saw him. Voltaire, Oscar Wilde, and other atheists have taken the same path as they got older. Something about God being Truth and God being Love has a way of getting through, despite the failings of Christians.
this comes down to the Problem of Pain which is a longstanding theological topic, and is outside of the confines of this thread.
Unfortunately. 
2 Likes
The problem of pain is one that is frequently used to that end, to rationalize a disbelief in God. (Or should I capitalize The Problem of Pain, too? 
)
I am an atheist, and I am always open to changing my mind. It seems that different people have taken different routes through life. There are examples of Christians becoming atheists, atheists becoming Christians, Christians becoming Muslims, and so on. If nothing else, this is a sign of a healthy society that allows people to choose what they believe or not believe. Most importantly, we shouldn’t be using conversion rates as points on a scoreboard.
6 Likes
The fact that people convert is not as important as to the reasons why they convert.
One needs to endure a certain amount of psychological pain in order to reject one world-view for another. What kind of argument can do that?
That is why, when I was trying to decide what the real story was with atheism and Christianity, I read many stories of people lives. The story of Madalyn Murray O’Hair was very interesting, but mostly sad. I mean, it made sense, from her point of view, but from outside, looking at the psychological pressures that she was facing, and looking at the extremely weak logical arguments that she made (even St. Thomas Aquinas made stronger ones) for the non-existence of God, her case was not logically convincing.
The stories of people who struggled with their same-sex attraction while also struggling with their attraction to the Catholic Church are also very interesting: especially Oscar Wilde and Eve Tushnet.
Swerving back to the topic, empirical evidence for God would certainly convince me.
If belief boils down to faith, then I don’t think arguments have much to do with it. Belief is based on personal subjective experience and emotions, and that’s fine. When it comes to the question of religion I am not going to tell anyone what they should believe, or why they should believe it. That’s up to them.
There are many atheists who live fulfilling and meaningful lives and die still not believing in deities. Also, it might be fitting for you to do a bit of research on Darwin’s beliefs as he went through life, given the subject matter of this forum.
3 Likes
For me the opposite is the case. Empirical evidence for the God of the Bible would convince me that the Biblical stories do not come from anything I would call God but comes instead from an alien manipulating human history. It contradicts one of the reasons I believe and thus the whole point of God for me in the first place.
All knowledge ultimately rests on faith including science because the methods of science do not come from objective evidence. Religious belief is definitely in the realm of personal subjective experience. Its diversity is a clear sign of this. When it comes to the question of religion I am not going to tell anyone what they should believe, or why they should believe it. That’s up to them. However, I when such belief contradicts the findings of science then it is not reasonable and they should be corrected.
Indeed! Their reasons for what they believe are much the same – a search for the honest truth in agreement with their experience of life and what makes for the greatest morality in human life as well.
I think that is often true, but not necessarily. Some Christians have been taken to the depths prior to their conversion but others not so much. From what I recall about C.S. Lewis’ conversion account, it was fairly matter-of-fact and not really distressing. Sometimes it can just be something startling, like one or more co-instants that are infused with meaning.
There are some among us (me being one) that say those don’t happen, that the individuals deconverting or converting to something else had not ever been transformed into new creations in the first place. It is not merely an intellectual exercise.
The Christian’s Confidence
‘Meaningful’ is a relative term. Meaningful, with respect to eternity, maybe not so much?
Are you claiming, as Calvinists do, that it is impossible for someone who is not a Christian to do anything good or righteous? Or even unselfish?
If so, you need to get out more.
As for Eternity. It is not supposed to be anything to do with works, be they good or bad. The fact that most, if not every religion except Christianity, relies on good works and behaviour is symptomatic of human values, not God’s
Richard
Hardly, except maybe for the ‘righteous’ part. The ungodly can certainly do good works. We were designed to and it makes us feel good – that’s why volunteerism is so big, and of course there are many vocations directly involved with helping others unselfishly in medicine and as first responders, for instance.
As for eternity and anything to with good works, review our discussion above, starting at about 10.
As it took me to my own quote, perhaps there is nothing more for me to say?
Richard
I referred to our discussion, meaning your own post, of course, but also subsequent ones. So maybe you are correct, nothing more needs to be said.
How would this apply to watching Jesus perform miracles firsthand?
You have to stretch the word “faith” beyond all extremes for it to cover the most basic axioms of reality, and in doing so the word loses any meaning. “I have faith in God” is not the same as “I have faith that the universe is real”.
I don’t see why you would need to have a belief in the eternal in order to find meaning in your life. Atheists and theists both find meaning in helping out in their community, rewarding occupations, time spent with family and friends, loving relationships, and learning new and interesting things. We all share a lot more in common than we sometimes admit.
I don’t feel comfortable with armchair mind reading. If someone said they believed or didn’t believe, then I take them at their word unless there is something obvious that would indicate otherwise.
For myself, I grew up in the church and believed in God in the same way that all other children do. It was when I got into my teenage and young adult years that I drifted away. Going to church became more about friendships with other kids I had grown up with and making my family happy. I’m not sure where that puts me on your spectrum of belief, but that was my experience.
I didn’t say you did, but the meaning you find is only going to be on a temporal scale and dies with you.
Yep, that much is true. It is still meaningful to me.