Sexual Abuse and the Reduction in the Belief in God (page 6)

caliber

That is a wonderful answer thanks... so each gets to decide .. this was a sincere comment to..
When they are answered to your satisfaction

Who do you know that is upset by this thought besides your father ??

VampireDCLXV

Do you mean it is safer to hedge your bets and believe in God, just in case he happens to exist?

Yep. Just my thing though, CD.

If we're just animals, we're still at the pinacle of the animal kingdom. We are set square above all other species and we should be acting more like it. Of course organized religion has proved to be a miserable failure in that regard...

V665

cognizant dissident

Caliber:

I think most of the people in this world, men and women, who look outside themselves, to other humans (who come replete with all sorts of agendas, both hidden and apparent) as an absolute authority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for anarchy, or no social rules whatsoever. I"m not advocating survival of the fittest. I have noticed that when I say I'm an atheist, my father and many others on this forum, automatically assume that's what atheism entails.

Sometimes, someone is more experienced than us, has more knowledge of a subject, and it would be wise to listen to them and give due weight to their advice. But never stop questioning and accept someone else as absolute authority, religious or political, or personally. Because therein lies the slippery slope to atrocities, in my opinion.

Always ask yourself, is this action harmful to myself or others? Is it helpful? Go further and define harm, define helpful. Question even those definitions. If it can be both, then does the ends justify the means? How do we reconcile that as we will have to take responsibility? No saying my commander told me to do it, or God told me to do it, or my parent told me to do it, or my friends told me to do it. Decide and take responsibility for that. Don't give away that power to others. So few people do though, in my observation. It really is much easier to be a follower in life. Not to mention safer!

cognizant dissident

OK, Vamp: I just wanted to check which side of Pascal's wager you were taking before I commented.

Pascal's wager presupposes that there is an alternative to believing in God that carries some sort of negative punishment or occurrence. No doubt this supposition was based upon the Christian concept of going to hell if you don't believe.

But if I were a human being raised by atheists, and had no prior knowledge of any God concept or religious concept, would I come to that conclusion?

Let us say, I did come to the conclusion that there was some God-like creator of all things, out there somewhere. Why would I then automatically assume that he had instituted a punishment for not believing in him/her/it? Why would I assume there was an after-life? Why would I assume the Bible was its word?

That is the false dilemma in Pascal's wager. The entire argument is predicated on there only being two alternatives: not believing in God, or believing in the God of the Christians and the prevailing Christian theology of the time. When in fact, there are dozens if not hundreds of other permutations.

If I came to the conclusion that God exists, why would I conclude that any of the stories told about him by other humans are true? If I concluded one must surely be true, which one would it be? What if I choose the wrong story? Will I still be punished by all the other permutations of God that exists? If I choose Jehovah, will I be destroyed by Allah? If I choose Allah, will I be destroyed by Vishnu?

Wouldn't an all-knowing creator know I didn't truly believe but was only saying I did just so I didn't become eternal toast? How do I sincerely convince myself beyond all doubt, when in fact, I do have strong doubts? is it even possible to knowingly delude oneself?

Surely you can see the dilemma of a sincere atheist who wishes a death bed conversion just to hedge my bets?

caliber

But never stop questioning and accept someone else as absolute authority

So I pretty much agree with your summary here , indeed questions are good ... but in the above quote I can not include God as just someone,

but that's just me as I said before let each one choose or decide . I may come across strongly because of certain convictions I have , but I am totally against force.. free choice does not freak me out !!

VampireDCLXV

Okay, CD.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever. I'm leaning toward more of a Deist slant in belief. A belief that God doesn't write holy books and no human can really describe him (her?) adequately. Really if there is any way we can learn about him (her?), it can only be found in the study of nature/science. I only believe that if there is anyone to be venerated, it would be a singular creator that has existed for an eternity outside of the space/ time continuum and anything that is created is not worthy of worship. A creator who knows the wisdom of non-interference. I despise almost any human who claims to speak on God's behalf.

I'm not telling you what to believe...

Good night sweetie.

V665

cognizant dissident

Caliber: I grant you, God is not just someone. However, if you were taught anything about God by another person, or a book written by another person, (which is really the same thing), and you follow that as authority, then there is always that possibility that it is not God but that person who is truly being the absolute authority over you.

Unless, God personally opens up the sky, and says to you, "Caliber, my son, please listen and obey the apostle Paul over there, and all he has written, or listen to Shelby, my servant over there on JWN", you can't really know that you aren't giving your power and authority to that person who claims to speak for God. It is just another person claiming to have God's authority over you. Why would God give the apostle Paul or Shelby authority over you? You seem much smarter to me than both of them put together.

But then if God were to personally open up the sky to talk to you, why would he tell you to listen to some other human? Why wouldn't he just tell you what he wanted you to know himself?

Now if someone wants to sit and commune with any great spirits they believe are out there, through prayer or meditation or whatever, and they feel they get some direct insight from that, then I'm all for that and very respectful of that even if I'm not convinced. I just don't understand the use of the other human, also imperfect middleman as an essential prerequisite in the equation. It doesn't make sense to me.

cognizant dissident

Vamp: I know you're not telling me what to believe and neither is Caliber and I'm really enjoying the respectful way this discussion is going, I might add.

There might very well be a deity out there who doesn't write holy books and can't be described. It is really difficult for humans to worship something they can't describe or share that worship with others without writing or describing it, though.

To just sit in silence, and in solitude, with that experience of feeling interconnected to all things in the universe, is probably as close to my concept of what a God experience might be like. I have had those experiences, as I said to LL, with the baby and with art, and meditating alone in nature. I can't go so far as to layer extra meanings and extrapolations on it though even to imbue the cause with a consciousness. If there is a God that created everything, my describing it would probably be limiting it in some unforgivable way anyway. Never mind trying to tell anyone else they should believe my particular construct.

I can be content to just say, I don't know, and until I do know, which will probably be never, I'm content to call myself an atheist.

I just don't get any sense of fear or punishment out of that, though, for myself or others. This world is full enough of suffering. Do we even really need a god to add more of it?

I do agree with what you said about us being the higher level of animals though if only by virtue of having the biggest brains, if not the biggest morality. Belief in God and religion and political social systems are just rungs on the ladder of our evolution imo. Hopefully they won't be the last rung, but I fear they will. I like to believe we can transcend even the need for them and develop morality for its own sake. I know a few people who have done that.

cognizant dissident

On a lighter note, my current theory is that vegetarians might just be the highest form of current human evolution as they do no harm to animals by eating them and wearing their skins (assuming they are non-violent in other ways, also).

However, apparently some meta-physicists postulated a theory that plants can feel pain (even though they don't have a nervous system?) and that blew my theory all to hell! We are all screwed and going to hell for eating the plants now!

Broken Promises

Hitler was a vegetarian, lol.

Sexual Abuse and the Reduction in the Belief in God

Share this