101 replies to this topic

[Twinrova]

Something a little different than the '5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer' topic.

So a friend of mine (oldbies would know her as Jasi ) posted a note on Facebook about something that bothers her about religion, and it's something that baffles me too, and I thought I could get both of us some answers here. I'll copy-paste what she wrote, 'cause she's better with words than I am.

This bothers me more than anything else.
Today at 2:57pm

There are many issues an atheist could take up with Christianity, but this one really hits home with me. I guess I should elaborate that this could easily apply to someone of any religion, but of course given my cultural position, I have witnessed this primarily in Christians. I'm not trying to pick a fight with those of you whom I tagged--I probably tagged you because I value your opinion as a Christian (and in general!) and I hate to feel like I haven't heard both sides of an argument out fairly. I really want to know what you think.

I was browsing the Xanga starting page, where they feature different blogs/posts, and I came across an entry called "I can't prove my faith". I could respect most of what it had to say--basically it just that even though this person can't offer empirical evidence for their faith, she still chose to be Christian.

Fine, I can't argue with that. But what bothered me so much was this:
"I have faith because my faith is all I've got, and no one can take it away from me.
If I give up my faith, I have nothing to live for.
If I live up my faith, I would see no point in love."

I think it's sad when people say that without their faith they would have nothing to live for. My father said this to me in reference to some suicidal thoughts he had had, and I felt very offended and betrayed--what about me, and my brothers too? How can you say that you have nothing to live for when you have parents, children, siblings, lovers, friends, whatever? Any kind of human relationship is something to live for. Love is its own cause. Love is a beautiful phenomenon of human existence that atheists and theists of all creeds share and experience just the same. How can you say that it is meaningless without faith in some kind of hereafter?

(Obviously, this whole argument is nullified if this person has literally no friends or family, but let's be honest--most people have at least one person on whom they are dependent, or who depends on them, at least. I'm assuming that because this person mentioned "love", she is capable of loving, and/or is loved.)

I have to disagree with this element of this girl's post, fundamentally. Does this person honestly believe that her faith faith is the only reason that she lives, and loves? That if, hypothetically, religion were somehow completely proven false, that she would want to simply kill herself, because life is now meaningless? I think that is a horrible thing to say, regardless of your religion. And yet, it is clearly a very real feeling to some theists.

Someone please explain this to me.

(Here's the post: http://www.revelife....prove-my-faith/ )

Thanks guys.

[Jasi]

Also, I am making a triumphant return to join in the discussion.

"Welcome back. Your last visit was November 30th, 2006." =P

[Ember]

I am a christian, but I'm going to look at it from a logical perspective.


There is a saying, you don't know what you have until it's gone. A lot of the time, they'll think of what might happen if they had lost their religion. They might fail to think the same way with loved ones and the good things in life.

I think she would say what she said because her religious faith is such a big part of her life. Some people are probably so dependent on their faith and what it stands for that they forget the other parts of their life such as thier loved ones and the things they do. They fail to realize that life can still be good outside of their religion.

Also, a lot of the time, I think they're working their entire life in order to reach a point where they can finally live in peace with the god of their religion and enjoy what was promised after a good life. They work and aim for that and once it's gone, that target, too is gone. What do they work for now? Where is the meaning of life for them now if it doesn't mean heaven or hell?

And that's my say on things.

Edited by Ember, 14 July 2009 - 05:52 PM.

[Showsni]

I guess I do kind of feel that if I'm going to die and stop existing permanently, with no thoughts, memories or anything, then my existence, and all of our existences, would be pointless. Just typing that sentence almost gave me a mild panic attack... That thought terrifies me. I suppose part of the reason I cling to my faith is because I want to be assured of an eternal life.

[Jasi]

But don't you think that's terrible? To say that you're only being good and enjoying life because of a carrot on a stick? You're only being good so that you can get a treat?

I think it's infinitely more honorable to love life and enjoy the company you're in without an ulterior motive. It doesn't have to be so nihilistic to not believe in the afterlife.
I used to be very afraid of dying when I was a Christian, because there was always that thought of "What if I'm not good enough for heaven?" Ironically, I'm not as afraid anymore as I used to be. As Mark Twain said, "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit." I believe that there is nothing after this, and I think that makes life even more precious than it would if I thought I was going to heaven afterward. This is all I've got, and I'm going to make the best of it.
And again, I think it's terrible to devalue your family and friends so much as to say that life is worthless without your prize for being a good girl.

I used to be a Christian, trust me, just ask Rova. I was all into it and everything--I was at church three or four times a week. But even then, when I was at my most pious, I didn't really think that my religion was more important to me than the people I loved--my dad, my brothers, my boyfriend, etc. My religion came after all that. And maybe that just means I was a bad Christian, but I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe some other people feel that way too and don't want to admit it, because it's "wrong". Do you honestly think that if there were no god, you would feel completely purposeless and want to simply die? It wouldn't be enough to have your family and friends and good food and things to learn? Don't you think that fact would be what's truly depressing? I think you should be depressed anyway, if that's really what you think.

[Goose]

I'm a christian, but I havn't always been so. Back before I was a christian, I didn't feel completely purposeless, nor did I want to die.

For me, my faith adds enjoyment to life. I loved life anyway, but now I get to love life more. It doesn't exactly make sense, but the love that I get from my faith, while it doesn't cheapen the love I get from others, is something different, and even more powerful. To have that taken away would suck, but I'd still live and make the most of the time I got.

This is my flawed way of looking at faith. Imagine we are all on the Titanic, and realise by now that its going to sink. This dude who thinks he's God comes by and says he's got some lifevests and life rafts, and says to follow him. I choose to do so. If it turns out to be a lie and him just a madman, I still enjoy the little time I"ve got left. Either way, the ship is going down and we are going to die. I"d rather trust the potential madman, because he may be right.

[Poore]

But don't you think that's terrible? To say that you're only being good and enjoying life because of a carrot on a stick? You're only being good so that you can get a treat?

I think it's infinitely more honorable to love life and enjoy the company you're in without an ulterior motive. It doesn't have to be so nihilistic to not believe in the afterlife.
I used to be very afraid of dying when I was a Christian, because there was always that thought of "What if I'm not good enough for heaven?" Ironically, I'm not as afraid anymore as I used to be. As Mark Twain said, "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit." I believe that there is nothing after this, and I think that makes life even more precious than it would if I thought I was going to heaven afterward. This is all I've got, and I'm going to make the best of it.
And again, I think it's terrible to devalue your family and friends so much as to say that life is worthless without your prize for being a good girl.

I used to be a Christian, trust me, just ask Rova. I was all into it and everything--I was at church three or four times a week. But even then, when I was at my most pious, I didn't really think that my religion was more important to me than the people I loved--my dad, my brothers, my boyfriend, etc. My religion came after all that. And maybe that just means I was a bad Christian, but I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe some other people feel that way too and don't want to admit it, because it's "wrong". Do you honestly think that if there were no god, you would feel completely purposeless and want to simply die? It wouldn't be enough to have your family and friends and good food and things to learn? Don't you think that fact would be what's truly depressing? I think you should be depressed anyway, if that's really what you think.

If there is no objective standard of value for a life, then both the faithful and the faithless are equally justified in their beliefs. If there is an objective standard, then we as subjective beings are incapable of truly understanding or knowing it, and every individual's lifestyle is an act of faith. Either we're all right, or we're alright.

Don't get so stressed out about differing opinions.

[Jasi]

That sounds like taking the easy way out via a Philosophy 101 course to me. If we can't agree on the basic ideas at stake here, we can hardly have a debate. The point is that people are extremely misguided in saying something like this.

On a side note, I have to disagree with the second half of your statement. We're talking about the enjoyment of life--a man-made creation, right? Therefore, if there is an "objective standard" for enjoying life, we made that standard. So we can surely figure it out.

Edited by Jasi, 14 July 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[Poore]

That sounds like taking the easy way out via a Philosophy 101 course to me. If we can't agree on the basic ideas at stake here, we can hardly have a debate. The point is that people are extremely misguided in saying something like this.

On a side note, I have to disagree with the second half of your statement. We're talking about the enjoyment of life--a man-made creation, right? Therefore, if there is an "objective standard" for enjoying life, we made that standard. So we can surely figure it out.

If man made it, it's not objective, because it relies on the limited scope of human experience. Mutual respect, or agreeing to disagree, isn't a cop-out; it's a reasonable way to deal with asinine, sacrosanct arguments.

Why do we have to debate this? I understand the need to explore one's one ideas, and to pit them against the ideas of another, but this seems like an attempt to mock the extremist of the opposing position in order to solidify one's own beliefs, which is wrong whatever you happen to have faith in (atheism is a form of faith, FWIW).

The alcohol coursing through my veins encourages me to further my own causes, but the iota of slf-control floating through my consciousness encourages me to maintain a civil discourse, so I'll end here.

Edited by Poore, 14 July 2009 - 09:40 PM.

[Selena]

Why do we have to debate this?

Nobody HAS to debate anything here. Don't think the thread is worth it, don't bother with it and let other posters take up the debate torch if they're interested.







Also, wb Jasi! Shame you're a few months late. DP was around a little while ago bragging about how he stole your pants and brought them back to LoD.

[Steel Samurai]

For the sake of this discussion I'm going to limit the possible options for eternal life to none or heaven.

I am a christian. I believe that when I die, I'll be in heaven. I'll quite readily admit that when I first became a christian, my main motivation was to not have to go to hell. But, as I've grown and matured, the motivation has changed. Heaven isn't really about golden streets or living forever, not in and of itself. It's about spending eternity with God. Which, will likely make no sense to those who have never experienced what it's like to really believe that your best friend is an all-powerful being, who still loves you absolutely, despite your flaws. I say all that to let me answer the actual question.

Let's say I suddenly decide that God doesn't exist, and go with a purely naturalistic philosophy, that there is nothing outside of the realm of nature. Where once every action I took could have ultimate meaning and purpose, now they're simply that. Actions. Actions mostly determined by behavioristic patterns developed through millions of years of evolution. My standards for beauty, ugliness, deliciousness? All determined by my upbringing and genes. Even love has been reduced to a series of complex chemical reactions and learned behaviors developed by social evolution. Similarly with friendships. They're merely associations built upon an evolutionary mandate that you are more likely to pass on your genes if you have allies to help defend yourself. And for what good? You pass on your genes, you die, and are, in the end, no better than the animals. There is nothing that particularly sets humanity apart from the animals save a more advanced brain and opposable thumbs. I kill another human, the only thing I really need to worry about is getting caught. He's an animal just like a cow would be. Just like I am.

I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, this is honestly the way I would view the world if I didn't believe in God. I don't know that I'd kill myself, but I certainly wouldn't care much about myself or others.

Now, let's contrast that rather bleak outlook with the way I think things -actually- are. Humans are NOT just brain cells interacting on a molecular state. There's another aspect to them, the aspect of the soul. Every action I take has an impact on my soul and the souls around me. Beauty is not simply something developed over millions of years of evolution; although it has differing forms in each culture, ultimately the standard was shaped and molded by God, who created each human individually, and each human on a higher plane than the animals, just as God is on a higher plane than us. Love is not JUST a series of chemical reactions in the brain (though some of that may be involved) it is ultimately a divine emotion and action that comes from God himself. And the knowledge that God (being all powerful) is constantly working in the world around us causes me, at least, to take a deeper look at things that happen, at what they lead up to, and realize that there is more going on here than just the simple cause and effect that is all science can (and should) see. Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, with God, I can see that there is a purpose to everything. That, again, every event has ultimate meaning, and so do the choices I make. Without God, choice is an illusion, something our brains have tricked us into thinking we have, because every "choice" we make is predetermined by our heredity, our upbringing, and the pressures laid upon us at that exact moment. But with God, free will, the ability to choose something ourselves becomes reality. At least, to my way of thinking.

My views, as stated above, are not really there to be discussed (though, inevitably someone will) I'm just trying to explain why I feel life would be so much less worth living without God and faith.

[Nevermind]

Faith doesn't give me something to live, nor to die for. It just gives me something ELSE to live for. Or die for (within reason). Cherishing life is a major factor in my own personal outlook and there would be no point to existence - let alone faith - were life not to be experienced to one's full extent.

[Reflectionist]

Faced with the idea of a meaningless existence without a God to give it purpose, I have only one thing to cite:

If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that can not be surmounted by scorn.

[Goose]

But that there raises the question, would you rather be conscious or unconscious to your fate? If I knew how my life were to turn out, would it be as enjoyable? Or would I rather not know how life was to turn out and enjoy the mystery of it all? I think that even the idea of what happens next is exiting because though we can all believe or disbelieve certain things about what happens next, nobody can say for sure.

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and I believe that he is real. When faced with the choice of Do I listen to this religious nut and what he has to say? I was curious and decided to listen, and it was the prospect that there was something more to life, something more than what we see that drew me in. I've had a pretty awesome life, not without its challenges, but I can't complain, I didn't choose a life of faith to escape, I wanted more of life. More of the essence of life. More than just the thrills and frills that we see everyday, but something underneath. Something deeper. Now that through faith I've discovered that, to have that taken away from me would like having a part of me removed from my body.

Think of a persons faith like access to magic in fiction. In Robert Jordan (Bless his soul) series of books "The wheel of time" what we call magic is called the source, and there are certain men and women who can access the source and weave it to their will. These people describe their moments filled with the source as something else entirely, full, powerful, ,like fire, like waterfalls, different for everybody but in the novels, people can have their aqccess to the source cut off by 13 people weaving a spell, and their lives are left empty and unforfilling.

My faith is a part of me. Life without it would still be full of beauty and joy, but it would also be somewhat empty compared to the love of God on top of that. Imagine the loss of a loved one. Life is still wonderful and miraculous without them, but you also miss them and wish they could be back with you. My Gran meant the world to me. Life without her is still wondrous, but I wish she could be with me in it.

Can you see the comparison?

[Jasi]

Why do we have to debate this? I understand the need to explore one's one ideas, and to pit them against the ideas of another, but this seems like an attempt to mock the extremist of the opposing position in order to solidify one's own beliefs, which is wrong whatever you happen to have faith in (atheism is a form of faith, FWIW).

I am exploring my ideas--I can't believe a human being would actually mean what this girl said. I'm not "mocking" anyone; I'm asking if people have really considered the meaning of the words "Without my faith, I have nothing to live for". Especially when you put it in the context of the whole entry--the text preceding it discusses how she recognizes that her faith is unprovable and she doesn't care. Which, standing on its own, is a reasonable position to take, as religion is not really about logic. But when you couple that with saying that this unprovable faith that I believe in against all odds is something that I would die without--yes, that is extremist, I think, but it's exactly what was said.

And now for the idea of atheism as a form of faith. Atheism is technically an incorrect term, as no (intelligent) atheist actually believes that there absolutely is no god and could never be one. Every (intelligent) atheist recognizes that there is a minute possibility of a god, and if given enough proof, most atheists would believe in said god. Atheists say they are atheists because they do not have proof for a god and therefore find it illogical and unbelievable. Here we can apply the argument of "do you have faith that there are no unicorns and leprechauns?" That doesn't sound exactly right, does it? I mean, you can't KNOW there are no leprechauns, but...

But I digress.

As Selena wisely said, if you don't want to debate it, no one's making you. But I kind of thought that was the point of the Contro forum.

Faith doesn't give me something to live, nor to die for. It just gives me something ELSE to live for. Or die for (within reason). Cherishing life is a major factor in my own personal outlook and there would be no point to existence - let alone faith - were life not to be experienced to one's full extent.

This is, so far, the best response that I've seen, but maybe that's just because I feel I can understand it the best.
I can accept the idea of faith as sort of a magnifier for your life.

I kill another human, the only thing I really need to worry about is getting caught. ... I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, this is honestly the way I would view the world if I didn't believe in God.

Right, okay, so this is what I have a problem with. I know you said you didn't want to discuss your views, so don't feel obligated to reply, but this is exactly what I'm trying to point out. Don't you think that's rather...immoral to say the only thing keeping you from killing a person is the idea of God watching your every move? Isn't "getting caught" basically all you're worried about now, then? What about your own conscience? Or would that just fly out the window without the Bible? Why, then, do atheists not run rampant killing people now? A person does not need religion to have a moral code, and regardless of whether that moral code comes from divine inspiration or from biology, it doesn't make your conscience any more or less real.

Edited by Jasi, 15 July 2009 - 07:37 AM.

[Nevermind]

Faith doesn't give me something to live, nor to die for. It just gives me something ELSE to live for. Or die for (within reason). Cherishing life is a major factor in my own personal outlook and there would be no point to existence - let alone faith - were life not to be experienced to one's full extent.

This is, so far, the best response that I've seen, but maybe that's just because I feel I can understand it the best.
I can accept the idea of faith as sort of a magnifier for your life.

Real Christians would be ashamed of me and my accursed open mind
The ones I know at least. In real life.


And Steel, mate, I gotta take Jasi's stance on that one. I know the main thing holding me back from killing someone is not God but more the idea that...if I was that person, I really would not be having a very good time. It's not my place to make others have a not-good time. The fighting and stuff we were just talking about, though, is different; when they're asking for it, it's consentual

[Jasi]

Real Christians would be ashamed of me and my accursed open mind
The ones I know at least. In real life.

Yeah. I really think that "without faith, life is purposeless" is a phrase that Christians toss around without really knowing the meaning of it, and it becomes admirable to say things like that. I think anyone who uses their mind would come to agree that there are other things keeping you going.

[Egann]

There are other problems to be sure, but the real problem here is that you (Jasi) are judging one faith from the perspective of another...and then forgetting that it is a faith-perspective that you are judging it from rather than an objective one.

To make things more clear, I will replace "faith" with "philosophical persuasion." In this day and age, the two are essentially one and the same because the agnostic "we can't possibly know" is so taken for granted. Ergo "faith" is regarded as the "proof without proof" of what is properly speaking, a philosophical persuasion.

Repeat-of-what-anyone-who-has-read-anything-I-have-ever-written-knows-I-think within spoilers:

Anyone who has read any three posts of mine has probably heard me poach agnosticism to death on this account, but it bears repeating. IF THE AGNOSTIC ASSERTION WERE TRUE, THERE IS NO WAY IT COULD POSSIBLY BE PROVEN. In Christianity proper, faith applies to the justification in salvation, and not cognitive knowledge of "what is."

"Believing in God" is actually a false idiom. There are those who see a need for God, and those who don't. To quote Gandhi, "The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom." In this sense, God's existence is objective, but oddly, only to those who see the need.

To return to the issue, the problem is that Jasi's position that we "ought to value life as life" which is the very crux of the argument here is, in fact, a philosophical persuasion that life HAS value regardless of whatever its origin may be. The very idea that life must be infused with value from another source before it has any true value is not only offensive to this persuasion, it's outright blasphemous.

Conversely, from the other way around, once it becomes clear where life's vaule comes from [EDIT: as with this particular Christian], the idea that someone would just assume life has value without questioning it's source is not only intellectually cavalier, it is -again- outright blasphemous.

Well, there's your problem.

Edited by Egann, 15 July 2009 - 08:44 AM.

[Jasi]

Conversely, from the other way around, once it becomes clear where life's vaule comes from [EDIT: as with this particular Christian], the idea that someone would just assume life has value without questioning it's source is not only intellectually cavalier, it is -again- outright blasphemous.

I'm not sure that it is blasphemous to assume that life has value regardless of its source. Why would it be? I would think that God would want you to respect all living things, even if he hadn't made all of them. But this is a hypothetical situation, so it's hard to say. Isn't it.

And I really want to bring it back to the idea that we all have a conscience, and almost everyone's conscience, regardless of religion or upbringing, tells them that killing another person is wrong. Man thought killing another man was wrong before man conceived of religion. Of course, it still happened, out of things like self-defense and protection, but nobody killed without what they considered just cause. So despite what a religion may consider blasphemous, is it not evident that human life universally has value to other human beings? Does its value really have to come from a certain source, then, if all of these human beings believe in vastly different metaphysical ideas?

[Steel Samurai]

I kill another human, the only thing I really need to worry about is getting caught. ... I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, this is honestly the way I would view the world if I didn't believe in God.

Right, okay, so this is what I have a problem with. I know you said you didn't want to discuss your views, so don't feel obligated to reply, but this is exactly what I'm trying to point out. Don't you think that's rather...immoral to say the only thing keeping you from killing a person is the idea of God watching your every move? Isn't "getting caught" basically all you're worried about now, then? What about your own conscience? Or would that just fly out the window without the Bible? Why, then, do atheists not run rampant killing people now? A person does not need religion to have a moral code, and regardless of whether that moral code comes from divine inspiration or from biology, it doesn't make your conscience any more or less real.

I completely agree that atheists have consciences and moral codes. What I don't agree upon is that they have any reason other than a biological one to follow it. Speaking from a strictly moral sense, it's a lot easier to ignore your conscience when you realize it's just a product of evolution. Atheists (well, most atheists, there are a few exceptions) don't run rampant killing people now because it's against the law, and they aren't placed in a situation where such is necessary. Without some sort've higher law, existence becomes (or, would become for me) purely pragmatic. Make friends with those who will help you the most. Weigh whether an action will be worth it. Today, murder would rarely be worth it, because murderers get caught, and have little payoff for doing such. But if it came down to it, there would be no reason to hold back. End a life to gain something.

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no wish to ever take another human's life. The thought of ending the awareness of someone who thinks and feels like I do is not something I ever wish to do. But that's only because I think they are something more than just animals, a being which exists on a deeper level. Perhaps this isn't the question you're asking. I've strayed more from "faith" to worldview. Which, for me, are about the same thing. My view on God and his nature affects my outlook on pretty much everything, from the nature of art to . So, what I'm getting at, is if you take God away (from my picture, at least) it changes everything. Which is possibly a little different from the faith of the girl you talked about earlier.

Again, a world in which morals stem only from evolution is a world in which those with no morals can prey on those with morals without guilt. Dog eat dog, climb the ladder pushing everyone else down. That is not a world in which I wish to live, nor the kind of person I wish to be. From what you've said, I don't think you would either. But I do have a question for you. What is it that keeps you going? Love and friendships? Unless you have an alternate explanation, they're merely a chemical reaction going on in your head. What good are they going to do, aside from giving you endorphins every so often? What reason do you have to help others except to fulfill a biological imperative or (in a round about fashion) release more pleasurable chemicals into your bloodstream? Yes, those are fairly leading questions, and you're welcome to call me out on it, but I'm interested to know what you think.

[Jasi]

Again, a world in which morals stem only from evolution is a world in which those with no morals can prey on those with morals without guilt. Dog eat dog, climb the ladder pushing everyone else down. That is not a world in which I wish to live, nor the kind of person I wish to be. From what you've said, I don't think you would either. But I do have a question for you. What is it that keeps you going? Love and friendships? Unless you have an alternate explanation, they're merely a chemical reaction going on in your head. What good are they going to do, aside from giving you endorphins every so often? What reason do you have to help others except to fulfill a biological imperative or (in a round about fashion) release more pleasurable chemicals into your bloodstream? Yes, those are fairly leading questions, and you're welcome to call me out on it, but I'm interested to know what you think.

A person with no morals can prey on others without guilt regardless of the origin of these morals. They have no morals anyway, so the origin of the nonexistent morals is irrelevant. Atheists do not kill people because they feel that it is wrong based on their moral code, not just because there are laws against it. That only the law deters them is an offensive thing to say, don't you think? I don't kill people because it would break my heart to do so. I wouldn't kill people if there were prizes for doing it. And yet, I think my morals are all explainable by evolution.

And wouldn't you feel bad for killing animals anyway? I understand if you were in a situation where you had to kill animals for food, but I think I would probably try to avoid it regardless. If God only blessed humans with this soul that makes the human life valuable, why do we feel compassion for dogs and cats and other cute furry mammals? It is because those furry animals remind us of our fellow humans, and therefore easily evoke sympathy with us, which is a result of evolution.

The fact that love and friendships and morals and my conscience are just chemical reactions resulting from evolution does not make them any less real. I still love and I still feel compassion for other living things, even though I believe it's all biological. Why is that so impossible?

Edited by Jasi, 15 July 2009 - 09:25 AM.

[Reflectionist]

So let's see how this conversation has gone.

Jasi (paraphrased): "This person asked: 'Does faith mean so much to some people that if religion were proven false, there would be mass suicide?' And this question was in response to someone who said they couldn't prove their faith. Not that that's important, I'm simply agreeing with the question at hand."

Everyone else: "They can't prove their faith? That's a lie! I'll show you!"

1. Assume Christianity is true / For the sake of discussion, let's say I'm right. Oh, and that's not up for discussion. / covertly Pascal's Wager / obviously Pascal's Wager / Egann's redundant, self-assuming argument that I'm not allowed to address directly anymore because then it's an "attack" and I get banned.
2. Therefore, Christianity is true. Period. How can you deny this logic? Pwned, silly atheist!

See? Just did it. Proved Christianity ri-- Oh, what was the question?

Jasi, there's the answer to your question. People have a knack for missing the most important detail. I can't really give you a reason other than that, but yes. Without God, the faith-heads would be hopeless and probably drop all pretense and break out the Kool-Aid.

I'm not a Christian, so I'm really not at liberty to give an answer. But I'm pretty sure you haven't gotten one yet that actually answered the question.

Edited by Reflectionist, 15 July 2009 - 10:26 AM.

[Jasi]

To sum it up, Jasi.

1. Christianity is true.
2. Therefore, you are wrong.

The logic is indeniable! Jasi, THERE'S your problem!

Unfortunately, that seems to be the basis of most of the arguments...

[Ransom]

Sorry but i just do not get your previous post in reference to Steel's.
However i will assume it is from misunderstanding not ignorance.

That only the law deters them is an offensive thing to say, don't you think? I don't kill people because it would break my heart to do so. I wouldn't kill people if there were prizes for doing it. And yet, I think my morals are all explainable by evolution.

He is not saying that the law is the only thing preventing you from killing someone. He is saying that the law is the only Objective standard that exists for you other than your purely emotional convictions. (objective as relative to you. as Poore said, i would agree that no objective standard exists that is man-made.)
Emotional convictions vary enormously, so i think all Steel is trying to say is how can you live with your worldview, knowing it is based completely on your own emotional and subjective standard.

or as Steel i had put it in a past discussion i had with him:
"If you realize that your morals are based only on evolutionary paradigms that exist solely in your head, why do you pay any more attention to them than, say, the instinctive fear you might get from bungee jumping?"

So my emotions and bodily reactions are telling me to stay the shit away from the ledge. Should bungee jumping be labeled an immoral activity?
"But Ransom, conscience is different!"
Not if you don't have an objective standard to back it up. Your Conscience is the same as all your other bodily urges and capacities for emotion.

Steel's beliefs do not represent mine, but i can really see where he is going with this.

And wouldn't you feel bad for killing animals anyway?

Based on what? What if my evolutionary formed moral standards glorify the killing of animals in my head? What if I "feel bad" when I don't kill animals?

I understand if you were in a situation where you had to kill animals for food, but I think I would probably try to avoid it regardless.

So you're a vegetarian?

If God only blessed humans with this soul that makes the human life valuable, why do we feel compassion for dogs and cats and other cute furry mammals? It is because those furry animals remind us of our fellow humans, and therefore easily evoke sympathy with us, which is a result of evolution.

I find this statement very contradictory of itself. Seems like the last part is supporting what Steel said rather than arguing it?

Edited by Ransom, 15 July 2009 - 10:24 AM.

[Nevermind]

Jasi, there's the answer to your question. People have a knack for missing the most important detail. I can't really give you a reason other than that, but yes. Without God, the faith-heads would be hopeless and probably drop all pretense and break out the Kool-Aid.

No more than two lines after calling Egann 'self-assuming', are you now trying to imply.....no imply isn't strong enough....state that were God to be proven non-existant, I - being a "faith-head" - would find myself in no other position than to off myself in despair? I generally agree with a fair amount of views you put forth but....wow.

I'm not a Christian, so I'm really not at liberty to give an answer. But I'm pretty sure you haven't gotten one yet that actually answered the question.

Was the question not a request for an insight into what kind of reasoning a person could have for believing that without faith they would have nothing? An answer which happens to be completely - COMPLETELY - dependant upon personal worldviews and ethical standards and comprehension (also from a purely personal point of view)?

[Reflectionist]

Jasi, there's the answer to your question. People have a knack for missing the most important detail. I can't really give you a reason other than that, but yes. Without God, the faith-heads would be hopeless and probably drop all pretense and break out the Kool-Aid.

No more than two lines after calling Egann 'self-assuming', are you now trying to imply.....no imply isn't strong enough....state that were God to be proven non-existant, I - being a "faith-head" - would find myself in no other position than to off myself in despair? I generally agree with a fair amount of views you put forth but....wow.

Oh, come on. Even you should know that Egann has had this one argument and it's appeared in every thread that's so much as breathed of religion in the past year and a half (with varying shades of condescension) and it's still circular. If that's not what self-assuming means, then I'm sorry, and I just don't understand the colloquialism. And I didn't say that you would. I know you wouldn't, man. I didn't link to your post. You didn't answer a personal question with an apologetic argument. Hence the 'probably.' Sorry to have offended you. And faith-head isn't an insult, Laz.

I'm not a Christian, so I'm really not at liberty to give an answer. But I'm pretty sure you haven't gotten one yet that actually answered the question.

Was the question not a request for an insight into what kind of reasoning a person could have for believing that without faith they would have nothing? An answer which happens to be completely - COMPLETELY - dependant upon personal worldviews and ethical standards and comprehension (also from a purely personal point of view)?

That's what the question was indeed. But an apologetic argument is not an answer to it. Apologetics is cold, impersonal. That's not what the question was asking for...

Edited by Reflectionist, 15 July 2009 - 10:46 AM.

[Jasi]

He is not saying that the law is the only thing preventing you from killing someone. He is saying that the law is the only Objective standard that exists for you other than your purely emotional convictions. (objective as relative to you. as Poore said, i would agree that no objective standard exists that is man-made.)
Emotional convictions vary enormously, so i think all Steel is trying to say is how can you live with your worldview, knowing it is based completely on your own emotional and subjective standard.

Perhaps it can't be technically considered "objective", but you can't deny that not wanting to kill people is a kind of universal truth. Why? Because if we all ran around killing each other, that would be very counterproductive, evolutionarily speaking. I already explained how I can live with my worldview: my conscience is still very real, regardless of its source.

So my emotions and bodily reactions are telling me to stay the shit away from the ledge. Should bungee jumping be labeled an immoral activity?
"But Ransom, conscience is different!"
Not if you don't have an objective standard to back it up. Your Conscience is the same as all your other bodily urges and capacities for emotion.

If you're taking it down to the level of chemical reactions, technically, yes, your conscience would be the same as other urges. However, fear is certainly a different emotion from guilt, and most people would probably make the distinction that your conscience deals with issues of guilt, not fear. But at this point, we're just arguing semantics. The point in my argument here is that we do not need God to be good, as Dawkins would say. Humans are good to other humans because they universally feel it is right, and there are evolutionary causes for this, such as reciprocation and just simply getting a good feeling from it. Why do you need a set of objective rules to do the right thing?

Based on what? What if my evolutionary formed moral standards glorify the killing of animals in my head? What if I "feel bad" when I don't kill animals? ... So you're a vegetarian?

If that occurred, then it would be likely that we would all agree as humans that it is good to kill animals. Unfortunately, that would probably mean that we'd run out of meat pretty quickly, and screw up the ecosystem pretty badly as a whole, and consequently we probably would not survive. So maybe that's why evolution did not preserve that trait. Posing what-ifs like that one really doesn't make a case one way or the other.
Not that my eating habits are really relevant, no, I'm not a strict vegetarian, although I don't really like to eat meat. But what I said was that I would not want to kill animals, because it would make me feel guilty and go against my conscience. I guess what I didn't specify was that I meant I would not like to personally kill them. I understand that I am "killing" animals by ordering a filet, but again, this is erroneous.

I find this statement very contradictory of itself. Seems like the last part is supporting what Steel said rather than arguing it?

Steel said that if he felt humans were just another animal, he would feel no qualms about killing it. I guess it is a bit of a weak point, but I was just saying that we do feel compassion for animals too, even though they don't have "souls".

[Nevermind]

Oh, come on. Even you should know that Egann has had this one argument and it's appeared in every thread that's so much as breathed of religion in the past year and a half (with varying shades of condescension) and it's still circular. If that's not what self-assuming means, then I'm sorry, and I just don't understand the colloquialism. And I didn't say that you would. I know you wouldn't, man. I didn't link to your post. You didn't answer a personal question with an apologetic argument. Hence the 'probably.' Sorry to have offended you. And faith-head isn't an insult, Laz.

No, apologies aren't needed; I wasn't offended. I just saw myself being grouped into a rather large generalisation.

That's what the question was indeed. But an apologetic argument is not an answer to it. Apologetics is cold, impersonal. That's not what the question was asking for...

Still, through the apologetics we see a person's perception of the way things work, which forms the basis of a personal opinion. While they do generate mostly unsolvable arguments, people adhering to a specific stance is an insight into their psyche. Not an overly clear insight but enough to view the beginnings of their own personal perspective. If you can understand that, it's analogous to the subconscious reasoning behind someone preferring to wear only black clothes.

[Ember]

Yeah. I really think that "without faith, life is purposeless" is a phrase that Christians toss around without really knowing the meaning of it, and it becomes admirable to say things like that. I think anyone who uses their mind would come to agree that there are other things keeping you going.

I agree with this. A lot of people say things that they really don't think about until they really have to.

[Poore]

Why do you need a set of objective rules to do the right thing?

Because "right" is an entirely subjective. There is no way to propose an absolute, or even semi-absolute, set of morals or ethics without invoking some sort of objectivity. Unless you are a pure materialist, you are making assumptions about the existence of objective standards of morality whenever invoke the ideas of "right" and "wrong" in reference to any human action.