A Poll for Christians on Three Beliefs that Infuriate Atheists

I don't quite understand this concept.
To make this into a consistent principle, I can only determine that doing good for a cause larger than oneself without any thought for consequences is good.
I think that ignoring consequences can just as likely lead to evil as good, depending on what the higher cause is. And certainly different people seem to have different takes on God's will or higher causes.

While you may choose what direction to go in, it's not really possible to decide which set of data make more sense to you. You'll choose the data set that seems closest to reality.
Not choosing that set would seem to be lying to oneself.

 

Say you're a drug addict living in a country with a zero tolerance policy for drug addiction. On being convicted, you're offered a choice between rehabilitation and permanent exile to a country of your choice. Because of your addiction, you choose to be exiled to Mexico, knowing you will end up as either a victim or a victimizer, but preferring that to the inability to indulge your habit. The cruelty of your punishment, then, is chosen by you and carried into effect by Mexicans. The country you left has nothing to do with it.

Same for the choice between Heaven and Hell.

 

But what makes them right? Surely not just God saying so. I am always willing to do good. But I am not willingly to blindly follow anyone, including God.

Ignoring the nonexistent is not an action. I am asking for a reason to act.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, other than blaming me for God's failures.

Yes. God is an excuse.

 

Ever heard of Sophie's Choice?

A Nazi offers a mother the choice to select one of her children to live or lose them both. "It's your choice!" the Nazi says...

 

For the record, this is actually a really lousy policy idea (and as such I'd expect better of God).

I don't see how lack of faith can be an addictive behavior. It's faith that creates chemical reactions in the brain that give good feelings, a large part of how addiction comes to be.

And, anyway, the way to cure someone of addiction involves giving them a stable base and support system, not just telling them "quit now or go to Mexico!"

 

I would simply say that IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE BIT whether a good act has an element of selfishness or not. It was still a good act. The end.

Only if you have the tools to tell the difference. If you don't have the tools to figure out whihc is true and which is lie, then, no, it is not up to you. It's up to a coin flip.

But....I don't believe in the Holy Spirit. The ball is in his court.

 

Well I would say that you need the support and guidence of the divine to over come one natural tendency to do things to glorify one self. It is not so much not thinking, it is more that you need to think of Gods glory and not your self. At the same time I dont think God wants us to do things that leads to harm so God would not lead us in that direction.

As to your second point that is realy a matter of faith. The Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth. But a person still must decide to take that guidence.

 

Well see and that is why we will not agree we have two very differant outlooks on life and the universe.

 

If one of the children is Gage Creed, fresh from the Micmac burying ground, it's not such a difficult choice for any mother worthy of the name.

Not really, but it's rather off topic.

It's not a behavior at all. It's the result of rejecting faith in God in favor of doubt in God, which amounts to faith in the father of lies; and once you make an egotistical investment in a lie, you become addicted to lies.

 

Maybe we won't see. If death really is the end, as I suspect it is, you die with your ignorance. Game over.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to make sense.

 

Oh, it really is. Using substance abuse treatment as a prerequisite for other improvements in life is disasterous.

This makes no sense from the standpoint of one who doesn't come to the table with the binary assumption that everything is from either God or Satan.
Since everyone does not come to the table with this view, it's impossible to suggest that everyone is making this choice. And, no, I can tell you there's nothnig really addictive about atheism.
Earlier it was mentioned that even atheists sometimes pray, and I've mentioned that most people engage in some superstition, whether it matches their beliefs or not. If anything atheists relapse into the world of religion (which offers far more of a chemical buzz).

 

But see it does make sense if you believe in a higher power that helps guide your life. It makes perfect sense if you have faith. With out it the world is empty and all you have to look forward to is the snuffing of a candal that you call life. Now that is a dismal thought.

 

There's an old saying neither atheists nor agnostics want to hear:

EITHER YOU'RE FOR GOD, OR YOU'RE AGAINST HIM. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

I tend to think that's true.

 

No, it really isn't, but people who have no understanding of human nature can be expected to think otherwise.

That is a fact, not an assumption.

First, I didn't say that. Second, since there is no necessary connection between what anyone may affirm intellectually and what what he knows, your assertion is a non sequitur anyway.

So?

 

I agree. My point was that many of the issues (stealing, lying, killing, fidelity to spouse) are just good things to do to keep a community going. Resting on the Sabbath (or one day a week) is good for us to keep us from burning out. Most religious proscriptions (besides those specifically tied to God, like no God before me, etc.) just make sense anyway. For example, the kosher laws make sense for people living in a desert environment (pigs are not a good thing to have). Right and wrong have a lot to do with God. They don't require God.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is any difference in "goodness" between an atheist who donates to help his fellow man and a Christian who donates to help his fellow man. Both are superior to a Christian who donates merely because he thinks its keeping him from hell. (and all three are superior to a Christian who doesn't donate at all) As Christ said (paraphrased), whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you are doing for me.

 

On what do you base your expertise on human nature?
I can assure you it is not on the basis of empirical evidence or industry best practices.

"Facts" stated without the backing of empirical evidence are assumptions.

Then what are you saying exactly? If everybody doesn't make that "choice", then how is it a choice we can all be held accountable for?
You do seem to be suggesting we all "know" this, which is demonstrably false.
We'd need to have some intellectual reasoning for coming to that conclusion.

Your claim seems to be that disobeying God is an addiction.
It's not.

 

I'm catholic (well in the strange irish sense of the word) and I don't believe any of those things. Where have you got this from?

 

Past conversations with Christians on internet forums.
Mostly evangelical protestants.

 

Hell is other people - J.P. Sartre

 

Common sense.

Assuming you refer to the mental health "industry", why would a reasonable person find noteworthy the "best practice" of practioners who by and large have demonstrated no particular competence, other than maybe as drug pushers?

If you think it's a fact that it's wrong to kill a child for fun, I await your "empircal evidence" in support of that fact. If not, you lack the requisite intelligence to continue the conversation.

I didn't say that either.

Know what?

Your claim was about atheism, not disobeying God.

It most certainly is.

 

I don't think you understand what faith is, any work good or bad...when intent on the outcome, requires faith. In other words if you have an idea and you put that idea to work, you used faith. If you didn't use faith you'd have never tried that idea. Because by definition you didn't believe your own idea, why would you try something you didn't believe? To have faith is simply...to be open minded, courageous, and benevolent.

So in order to achieve good, while intending to do good, yes requires faith. But the same is true for achieving malicious outcomes. A thief requires faith that he can steal something (and probably that he wont get caught too).

So you might say faith is a double edged sword, which is really no different from freedom.

But here's the catch: the more you entertain your ideas, the more ideas you will have and the better they will be. Further, through trial and error and the use of faith...One will find that non-malicious faith is more powerful and holds more rewards for both the actor and all participants in *all* cases.

An example would be that I could earn my bread or I could bake it or I could steal it. If we have 3 people, one person doing each, infinitely. The thief will eventually get caught and be punished or lose trust or even be killed. The earner and baker however, have no such problem, didn't waste time and energy, probably learned where to get cheaper bread, and maybe even made a profit on their once dire situation. If they made more bread than they could eat, and/or sold it.

There is no situation where the malicious win over the benevolent, in terms of infinite time. Malicious behavior gets you ahead in the short term but behind in the long term. One should learn this after practicing faith long enough. There is no other rational reason to have faith than to learn. This is why it "requires" faith to do good. And why faith is so admired by any spiritual person culture or religion.

 

God is the fantasy of idiots.

RA

 

I've come to see "common sense" as a euphemism for "what seems most convenient."

Not so much the mental health industry. I'm thinking more along the lines of services (substance abuse services, organizations that work against homelessness) and not necessarily what they do-- what studies have shown actually work best.
For instance, in work for the homeless, the best practice is something called "Housing First." It's been found that once people are in housing, they have an easier time eventually solving other problems, as compared to trying to "fix" them first. Overall it saves money and leads to better results.
But of course, it's hard to implement, mostly because funders and voters are often the sorts who choose "common sense" over evidence.

I wouldn't refer to that as a "fact" without a shared definition of exactly what "wrong" is.
Since your definition seems hinged on what God says, and I'm not so sure God is always against this (certain sections of the OT are at odds with this), I can't call that a fact.

The claim of God existing and his wants being known is something that can only be called a "fact" if you have some direct evidence.
Your analogy of a moral claim is completely off, because morals and ethics are based on shared understandings rather than empirical facts.

You could have gone with the idea that one can't state God's nonexistence as a fact. That would have been correct. And much more appropriate.

Your bad analogy failed to prove that.
Though I may lack the interest if it continues in this direction.

You really need to be clearer in your explanations. Is atheism or is it not disobedience against God? Is God something we all somehow "know" or not? Your explanations are not clear on this. You imply these things then deny saying them.

I suppose there is more than one word we lack a shared definition of.

 

Fair enough.
I think the specific "faith" used in the statement concerns the more specific "faith in God."

I'm not so sure either of these is true.
Since you expand on the latter below, I'll tackle the former here: Having more ideas does not necessarily mean they will be better over time.
A lot of people try the same things over and over again. Magical thinking and superstitious behavior (not religion, but stuff like "lucky numbers" and fishing rituals) are common in humans. A lot of people stick to core beliefs even when evidence is against them; often they double-down in the face of evidence to the contrary.

But evil can often win in the long-enough-term.
More importantly good can lose in the long term even if evil also loses.

Think about a gang of marauders that move around, attacking weaker societies opportunistically. In the long run, they will run out of people to conquer and rob from (of course, this will likely be well after the lives of the originals are over, thus they got nothing but good in their lifetimes). But all those weaker peoples, even if responsible and peaceful societies will be destroyed. Permanently.

The same thing occurs in the behaviors of some of the less responsible corporations (or those subject to the weakest regulations and least fear of government/consumer/local reactions) in existence today. They might destroy the environment of a country and just move along, facing no consequences. They can do the same to the economies of some countries, use them for what they need and then move along, leaving behind chaos. What consequences do they face? Apparently none so great as to outdo the profit motive.
In the long run, the companies like this will likely be destroyed. But the people profiting get nothing but good; in fact, even if the company is destroyed in their lifetimes, they will have enough good for themselves to live out the rest of their lives in luxury.

I see no evidence of karma or of good being stronger than evil.
True, good makes a better society.
But evil can destroy a good society unless that society is given the tools to fight evil (which are usually lesser evils: military violence, restrictive laws, etc.)

And really, if you look at nature, at how evolution works, I don't see how you can come away expecting good to always come out on top.