There is if you actually care about being right.
Well, maybe that’s the difference between you and me. I care about what is right for me. I don’t particularly care what is right for you…but I assume that you will take care of worrying about that.
I suspect that, if at least some of these people didn’t believe in God, they’d find some other scapegoat to blame their problems on instead of trying to solve them. Some people are just lazy and unmotivated, whatever their religious beliefs might be.
Because it’s easier than actually having morals and responsibility to society. Those things require you to actually think and maybe even do stuff that might be hard.
Do you suppose that the same people actually believe that prayer will bring about change? Is the goal to beseech God to step in and change a person’s circumstance?
One of the things that I hear frequently is “It is in God’s hands.” If Christians believe (in predetermination) that they are powerless to change circumstance- then what is the point and purpose of prayer? Or the point and purpose of this life, for that matter?
Good for you Sarah. It’s a little more than that too. I’ve responded to Der Trihs in much the same way. I’m not out to convince anyone that my way is the right way for them so I don’t feel the need to provide proof for anything concerning spiritual beliefs. I happen to think proof in the subjective sense that Der Trihs refers to doesn’t even apply to spiritual beliefs. They are internal and subjective.
In the case of belief in God we simply don’t know with certainty if God is or the nature of God {which is probably beyond our present ability to comprehend}Each person must follow whatever is in their heart for reasons they may or may not be consciously aware of. The atheist and the believer may both equally care about being right {what is true} and both being true to themselves at this point in their journey. It’s not about proving something to someone else. It’s about discovering the truth for yourself in your own way and time.
IOW **Der Trihs ** snarky response is empty BS.
God either exists or he does not; he can’t be real for you and fictional for me. One of us is right, not both.
Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that it will so they won’t have to deal with their problems in a more concrete way. They may not admit (or they may not even know) that that’s what they’re doing, though. People are good at rationalizing things.
Or maybe they do believe that prayer will bring about change, and since praying and asking God to solve a problem is easier than most other things you could do about it, that’s what they do.
I think that objection is based on a faulty premise. Predestination does not mean that every single event in a person’s life is laid out. Philosophers and theologians may argue – in fact, do argue – about the precise nature and extent of predestination, but few would say that every single event and decision was predetermined by God.
And neither of us has conclusive proof either way.
You are free to come to your own conclusions. You are even free to ridicule those who disagree with you. That doesn’t make you right , nor does it require me to provide evidence for my beliefs, unless I seek to prove something to you. I don’t. I humbly admit that I can’t. I simply claim that I do indeed care about the truth and am seeking it in my own way.
If it is you trying to prove that you are the right one {because you care so deeply} then let’s have the proof. Please don’t mention Occam’s Razor again. It’s interesting and all but hardly qualifies as proof.
The reason that atheists get bent out of shape on this issue is that you and Sarahfeena have uncommon opinions on this matter. As far as I can tell, you both believe it is a personal thing, and act that way. The majority of Christians (and Muslims, I think) make this leap from “I can believe without evidence, since it only matters to me” to “God exists, so here are some rules he wants you to follow.” Evidence: opposition to gay marriage in the US, and laws against conversion etc in Islamic states.
This sleight of hand goes on all the time. Now, as for the argument that why shouldn’t legislators vote their morals, how would you feel about one who was convinced the little green men were all around, and pushed for mandatory tinfoil helmets for all. No, we expect better reasons for laws than “I feel like it.” Compare also to tribal religions, like Judaism, which never try to impose religiously backed laws on anyone not in the club.
So, DerTrihs may be out of line for the two of you, but his point is very valid for the majority of Republicans in Congress.
I’ve never had that kind of faith, to not only be certain that my views on religion are right for me, but that everyone else should believe what I do. I’ve always wondered what it’s like to have that kind of certainty.
But the sleight of hand usually goes on in the opposite direction - legislators taking things that they decide are true, and then using their faith to try and build a case to prove it.
Gay marriage isn’t being opposed because preachers read the Bible, saw the “Thou shalt not allow people who fuck each other up the butt to get married” commandment, and are therefore fighting it. Gay marriage is being opposed because cultural conservatives in this country find the idea of sanctioned gay relationships disturbing, and they’ve scoured the Bible to find a few specious pieces of scripture they can pretend are the real answer.
Politicians did the same thing when it came to slavery, with both sides shouting out the passages they determinde would support their cause; they’ve done it with wars and with civil rights.
Thank you very much! 
I have no idea how uncommon my opinions on the matter are. The religious people I know pretty much all think as I do on this subject.
My original purpose in this thread was to compare atheist and Christian morals. Christians find atheists amoral; I find following Christian convictions amoral; or at least insufficient and impractical. I think it may have been a surprise or insult to some Christians here that some atheists find many Christian attitudes amoral. But I can’t make that kind of slanderous statement without backing it up with example: There is a point where almost all of my wards of the Christian faith hold up their hands, look heavenward, and shrug “God will take care of it.”
It is very hard to pose a question in this thread without offending someone or putting them on the defensive. That is not my intent and I keep providing real life examples in order to divert some of the tension.
I don’t feel that my question is based on faulty premise. The nature and extent of predestination or predetermination isn’t a factor in asking a person of faith to elaborate on the general belief that God is in charge; and how this applies to modern life. I can toss about philosophical conundrums with the best brains on the board; or I can shortcut my position: If Christians have a cosmic get out of jail free card, then how can they be expected to respect the laws and mores of modern society?
At the risk of offending; I will simplify again: If God is in control; then why bother to employ morals at all? Christians cannot trust me to behave since I have no hope of Heaven or fear of Hell. I cannot trust Christians to behave since they have no control over their ultimate destiny; and the Book they derive morality from is full of hate and discrimination.
This exercise isn’t designed to help me choose a team. I am a confirmed atheist, with no qualms or doubts about the Big Questions or the afterlife (or lack thereof). I have no agenda to test the faith of another or make them defend it. I am simply asking the other team to provide insight; and giving examples (not strawmen) as a shortcut.
Note the exchanges between me and **Anne Neville **. Anne Neville is a person of faith. I am directing some questions at her because I am making the assumption that she is exposed to a wider range of believers than I am. (as I have not attended a religious service other than midnight mass for 27 years) She is providing insight as to how a Christian (or a person of the Jewish faith) might reconcile the daily motivations of the individual Christian with regards to 2,000 year old tenet and a preordained end.
John Corrado , you have just succinctly explained why and how I lost my faith as a child. Christians refer to the Bible when it conveniently endorses their political position. The Bible can be distorted and perverted to support most any claim- but those who employ the fear factor (Hell and OT God) always win the war.
Do Christians find the use of the Bible as a pitch tool objectionable?
I can appreciate that.
IMHO it is the very act of interaction that helps us to sort things out. That interaction needs some foundation in mutual respect. One of the beautiful things I find in our own founding documents is the concept that in order to claim rights for myself I have to support and defend those rights for others. Free speech. Freedom to worship, or not. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can claim these things best by supporting others rights to them. So, concerning religion, I can worship as I choose {not harming others} while supporting others rights to choose their own path. I want them to respect mine so I respect theirs. It just resonates as true to me. It nurtures our connection as cohabitants of a society and allows us to move forward. It’s also the reason that separation of church and state is a good idea.
I think it’s impossible for our beliefs religious and otherwise to not spill over into our government. In our nation that’s where part of the interaction occurs. We get to have a voice if we are willing to work to claim that right. It has always been so hasn’t it?
I’m curious as to how you think Der Trihs’ point relates to congress.
I would say that when someone decides for whatever reason to pass a law {or withhold one} that affects the lives of others then we have a right and an obligation to speak up. We have every right when others beliefs step over into our lives to react. In that sense we have every right to demand that others justify their beliefs.
Wouldn’t you say that someones beliefs have just as good a chance of being a positive force in congress as a negative?
IMHO the term God, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Humanist whatever, are secondary. Whatever our individual belief system is it translates into real actions that effect the lives of others. If belief in God is the path I use to seek to be a better person for myself and others and you as an atheist use philosophy then it should be the actions we respond to, not the label on the path.
Here is the real beauty of it IMHO. In many cases we cannot know. Still, we must go forward based on what we believe. We have faith that something is right and choose accordingly. In the choosing and in interacting with the choices of others we constantly add new information and experiences to our belief system. I think that’s part of what Christ meant in seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened.
We may not know the outcome of our choices but we can be certain that we will learn something if that is our desire.
I think part of faith is understanding that we don’t know with a certainty but moving forward based on faith that we can continue to learn. An important question is
“What is it I am seeking?” or “What is it I value?” which certainly affects what we seek. These are questions we can only answer for ourselves. The statement I am a Christian or I am an atheist, doesn’t really answer either of these questions.
I often think the people who seem to be the most certain are the ones least likely to use the experience life brings their way.
I don’t doubt it - you obviously hang out with a better class of people. I was certainly not implying that the two of you felt this way. But can you explain the opposition to gay marriage in any other fashion?
There have been a few threads about this, and IIRC people opposing gay marriage, and not driven exclusively by religon, acknowledged that they could find no secular reason to oppose it. One, I think, changed his mind.
Let me summarize where I thought things were going. He said it was improper in some sense to believe without adequate justification, in other words on faith alone. You guys said that it was not, since your belief was personal.
He seems to have a problem distinguishing between classes of theistic belief. My point was that some in Congress belief on faith (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt - maybe some believe creationism has been proven) yet make legislation based only on that faith. Now, I’m not objecting to having an opinion based on faith, and then going out to find supporting secular evidence for that opinion, and introducing legislation on that basis. I brought up gay marriage because as far as I can tell, there is no secular evidence for why it should be banned. The closest I’ve heard is that “we’ve always done it that way” - a poor reason, and “it will destroy the family” which is crap.
So, to summarize, I’d say that it is improper to accept a belief on faith alone if you are going to use that belief to adversely affect other people. (I say adversely, but it is kind of true even for things to benefit people. There is always justification for those outside of faith, so it isn’t relevant.)
And this comes directly from the Constitution, as you mentioned at the beginning of your post. The purpose of the establishment clause, or the benefit, is to force a secular justification. That was why the attempts to teach creationism failed - the proponents failed to show a secular reason to do so. Creation “science” exists to try to develop this secular justification, and has failed miserably, of course.
Not in this Congress, alas. But I thought John Kerry’s statement on abortion during the third debate was a textbook case of how this should be handled. He had an opinion, out of faith, but did not wish to impose it on others.