Meaning Without God - Page 2

The Banned

11:44a, 2/12/24

kurt vonnegut said:
Pro Sandy said:
That view point works while life is good. What happens when it doesn't?

What happens when your father in law gets schizophrenia and commits suicide? What a wonderful gift, right?

Yet somehow, at his funeral, we still sang Because He Lives.

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow...

Not the words that come to kind at the funeral for someone who committed suicide, but we could sing it because our existence is more than just the physical world around us. If it is just what's around me, for the very fortunate few, like you, it is grand. For the vast majority, it is a hard life and often tragic. God gives me hope in the midst of tragedy that a sunny day on the golf course can't.

I am beginning to worry that my original post has been construed as a threat or challenge to Christians. Let me just say - I am truly happy that your faith gives you hope and happiness. I've never asked you to abandon your faith or your worldview. My views give me hope and happiness. You can choose to be happy for me or you can choose to **** on my views. Based on the responses here, maybe I know what you all have chosen.

And I am sorry about your father in law. I'm happy to explain my views when life is not good, but I don't think that is why you wrote what you wrote.

Is the existence of someone else on this planet that doesn't believe in your God really that threatening to you all?

To be fair, you open with saying Christians don't actually believe all of our meaning come from God. Seems like a bit of a challenge from the start.

Atheists on this board often state something like "if you had been born elsewhere, you'd be a Muslim, Buddhist, etc". I'd turn that right back around and say had you been born in some 3rd world country, you'd likely still be a theist (which statistics back up). When you have nothing in this life and no prospects of better, it's much harder to derive meaning from life in the way you've described. We're seeing it even more now as America is losing its belief in God. We see a rise in socialistic leanings from younger generations who don't have the material wealth they want and believe the system is set up in a way to prevent them from ever attaining it. This combined with lack of belief is leading to a massive mental health crisis, drug crisis, mass shootings, suicide rates rising, etc. It's not a world view conducive to happiness when you don't have the material possessions you desire.

You can say it's an argument of utility if you want, but I don't think the point of this thread was to debate the existence of God. On the whole, everyone everywhere believes in something eternal. Religious believe in an eternal God who provides purposes to our lives. Atheists believe in an inanimate eternal force that provides us with nothing more than materials to work with. This world view lacks an objective meaning. I'm glad you still have happiness and meaning in your life, but I don't think you can extrapolate that to the wider population.

kurt vonnegut

11:50a, 2/12/24

In reply to Bob Lee

Bob Lee said:
Aggrad08 said:
It's curious people seem completely unwilling to even engage with the hypothetical.

The entire premise is that you like all the non believers on this board become convinced that Christianity or theism no long offers truth, only comfort. What then?

The OP is basically saying that even absent eternity, we still have a temporal purpose, right? So what is that supposed to be? Accrual of wealth? What is man's ultimate end?

Once you answer that question you can start to see why the hypothetical is problematic. It's actually self defeating. Because it's the atheist who doesn't behave the way you expect him to if he were utterly convinced of the non existence of God, which is good evidence in itself in support of the existence of God.

Human well being, emotional fulfillment, intellectual fulfillment, ethical living, positive impact on future generations. These are some of the purposes that I find meaning in, but I only get to speak for myself.

How would you expect the atheist to act? Human beings are social creatures. We flourish when we have community and security and stability and acceptance and cooperation. And these are things that humans hardly have a monopoly of. Like so many other animals, we evolved with a general need for these things.

Bob Lee

12:00p, 2/12/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
Bob Lee said:
Aggrad08 said:
It's curious people seem completely unwilling to even engage with the hypothetical.

The entire premise is that you like all the non believers on this board become convinced that Christianity or theism no long offers truth, only comfort. What then?

The OP is basically saying that even absent eternity, we still have a temporal purpose, right? So what is that supposed to be? Accrual of wealth? What is man's ultimate end?

Once you answer that question you can start to see why the hypothetical is problematic. It's actually self defeating. Because it's the atheist who doesn't behave the way you expect him to if he were utterly convinced of the non existence of God, which is good evidence in itself in support of the existence of God.

Human well being, emotional fulfillment, intellectual fulfillment, ethical living, positive impact on future generations. These are some of the purposes that I find meaning in, but I only get to speak for myself.

How would you expect the atheist to act? Human beings are social creatures. We flourish when we have community and security and stability and acceptance and cooperation. And these are things that humans hardly have a monopoly of. Like so many other animals, we evolved with a general need for these things.

Can you define your terms so we can know who is acting contrary to their nature and who isn't? Do you subscribe to a naturalistic view of humanity wherein humans are merely their biological selves? Why does it make sense to say that some people are acting contrary to their humanity while others are fulfilling their purpose?

Eta: it's circular to say we find fulfillment in and through fulfillment. You have to think about fulfillment as acting in accord with our humanity and harming ourselves as acting contrary to it. So you end up having to answer the question about what is the nature of the human person to know if we're acting "good" or "well" or "justly", etc. which is why materialism leads to relativism. We all act differently. Either we're all acting in furtherance of our ultimate end or we aren't. If we are, then everything is permissible.

Pro Sandy

2:52p, 2/12/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
Pro Sandy said:
That view point works while life is good. What happens when it doesn't?

What happens when your father in law gets schizophrenia and commits suicide? What a wonderful gift, right?

Yet somehow, at his funeral, we still sang Because He Lives.

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow...

Not the words that come to kind at the funeral for someone who committed suicide, but we could sing it because our existence is more than just the physical world around us. If it is just what's around me, for the very fortunate few, like you, it is grand. For the vast majority, it is a hard life and often tragic. God gives me hope in the midst of tragedy that a sunny day on the golf course can't.

I am beginning to worry that my original post has been construed as a threat or challenge to Christians. Let me just say - I am truly happy that your faith gives you hope and happiness. I've never asked you to abandon your faith or your worldview. My views give me hope and happiness. You can choose to be happy for me or you can choose to **** on my views. Based on the responses here, maybe I know what you all have chosen.

And I am sorry about your father in law. I'm happy to explain my views when life is not good, but I don't think that is why you wrote what you wrote.

Is the existence of someone else on this planet that doesn't believe in your God really that threatening to you all?

I didn't say you were a threat. I said your world view is nice when things are great. But not everyone gets to go golfing and reflect on how easy life is.

kurt vonnegut

3:36p, 2/12/24

In reply to Bob Lee

Bob Lee said:
kurt vonnegut said:

Human well being, emotional fulfillment, intellectual fulfillment, ethical living, positive impact on future generations. These are some of the purposes that I find meaning in, but I only get to speak for myself.

How would you expect the atheist to act? Human beings are social creatures. We flourish when we have community and security and stability and acceptance and cooperation. And these are things that humans hardly have a monopoly of. Like so many other animals, we evolved with a general need for these things.
Can you define your terms so we can know who is acting contrary to their nature and who isn't? Do you subscribe to a naturalistic view of humanity wherein humans are merely their biological selves? Why does it make sense to say that some people are acting contrary to their humanity while others are fulfilling their purpose?

Eta: it's circular to say we find fulfillment in and through fulfillment. You have to think about fulfillment as acting in accord with our humanity and harming ourselves as acting contrary to it. So you end up having to answer the question about what is the nature of the human person to know if we're acting "good" or "well" or "justly", etc. which is why materialism leads to relativism. We all act differently. Either we're all acting in furtherance of our ultimate end or we aren't. If we are, then everything is permissible.

Human nature is complex. Human nature is simply the range of feelings and behaviors and actions that humans take. Love is within human nature. Hate is within human nature. Altruism is within human nature. Violence is within human nature. What I define as meaning and purpose is my own and I don't claim for it to be some universal. Groups of people can come together and collectively agree upon meaning and purpose as well. When I say someone is acting against some purpose, its only in the context of judging it against my opinions or maybe a collective opinion.

I don't think I said we find fulfillment through fulfillment. I think I would restate it as 'I find meaning in pursuing emotional or intellectual fulfillment'.

And then to the remainder of your post, I don't deny the moral relativistic implications of my world view. And I accept the uneasiness that can come with that position. But, I try to take a 'better to accept a hard truth' sorta approach to it.

kurt vonnegut

3:38p, 2/12/24

In reply to Pro Sandy

Pro Sandy said:

I didn't say you were a threat. I said your world view is nice when things are great. But not everyone gets to go golfing and reflect on how easy life is.

And I didn't say life was easy. I said there are things outside of God worth living for.

Bob Lee

4:09p, 2/12/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
Pro Sandy said:

I didn't say you were a threat. I said your world view is nice when things are great. But not everyone gets to go golfing and reflect on how easy life is.

And I didn't say life was easy. I said there are things outside of God worth living for.

But the problem with the hypothetical is the contention in the first place is that "without God, life is meaningless". That's different from saying "without belief in God, life is meaningless."

Christians believe life is meaningful, and it doesn't hinge on belief in God. Because God's existence is not contingent on anything.

Pro Sandy

4:27p, 2/12/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
Pro Sandy said:

I didn't say you were a threat. I said your world view is nice when things are great. But not everyone gets to go golfing and reflect on how easy life is.

And I didn't say life was easy. I said there are things outside of God worth living for.

" I know that the feeling I have now getting ready to take my son golfing is a feeling you all experience in life too."

What do you do when you can't take your son golfing? Is all meaning lost? I love my family, we have a wonderful time. And bad things still happen.

Even in the bad times, life in a Christian context has meaning and value. Job's life, even when he lost everything, had meaning and value, because life is more than the pleasure of golf.

If life is just be this and will probably end in tragedy, then we should seek out all worldly pleasures and live for ourselves. But the Christian has found that the highest pleasure is found in worshiping God, so that there isn't anything in life outside of God, because He is the creator.

My joy isn't found in flerting worldly things that will end, but in faith, family, and friends. Faith is first, because without it, I am selfish. With it, life is great, because I can stand even in the face of death and know that it doesn't win. Where you might see tragedy in death, I know that Christ has already won. That gives me greater joy than golf with my son and not just because I hate golf!

The Banned

7:04p, 2/12/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
Bob Lee said:
kurt vonnegut said:

Human well being, emotional fulfillment, intellectual fulfillment, ethical living, positive impact on future generations. These are some of the purposes that I find meaning in, but I only get to speak for myself.

How would you expect the atheist to act? Human beings are social creatures. We flourish when we have community and security and stability and acceptance and cooperation. And these are things that humans hardly have a monopoly of. Like so many other animals, we evolved with a general need for these things.
Can you define your terms so we can know who is acting contrary to their nature and who isn't? Do you subscribe to a naturalistic view of humanity wherein humans are merely their biological selves? Why does it make sense to say that some people are acting contrary to their humanity while others are fulfilling their purpose?

Eta: it's circular to say we find fulfillment in and through fulfillment. You have to think about fulfillment as acting in accord with our humanity and harming ourselves as acting contrary to it. So you end up having to answer the question about what is the nature of the human person to know if we're acting "good" or "well" or "justly", etc. which is why materialism leads to relativism. We all act differently. Either we're all acting in furtherance of our ultimate end or we aren't. If we are, then everything is permissible.

Human nature is complex. Human nature is simply the range of feelings and behaviors and actions that humans take. Love is within human nature. Hate is within human nature. Altruism is within human nature. Violence is within human nature. What I define as meaning and purpose is my own and I don't claim for it to be some universal. Groups of people can come together and collectively agree upon meaning and purpose as well. When I say someone is acting against some purpose, its only in the context of judging it against my opinions or maybe a collective opinion.

I don't think I said we find fulfillment through fulfillment. I think I would restate it as 'I find meaning in pursuing emotional or intellectual fulfillment'.

And then to the remainder of your post, I don't deny the moral relativistic implications of my world view. And I accept the uneasiness that can come with that position. But, I try to take a 'better to accept a hard truth' sorta approach to it.

To your last paragraph, I have to say I appreciate how consistent you are. You don't shy away from your view of reality and I respect that.

kurt vonnegut

8:12a, 2/13/24

In reply to Pro Sandy

Pro Sandy said:

" I know that the feeling I have now getting ready to take my son golfing is a feeling you all experience in life too."

What do you do when you can't take your son golfing? Is all meaning lost? I love my family, we have a wonderful time. And bad things still happen.

Even in the bad times, life in a Christian context has meaning and value. Job's life, even when he lost everything, had meaning and value, because life is more than the pleasure of golf.

No, playing golf with my son is not my sole source of meaning. Nor is my job or house or car or hobbies or wife or kids or parents or anything else. I feel like I have listed multiple things in this thread that give my life meaning and purpose and I don't understand the suggestion that I derive my life's meaning from a game.

Life is more than the pleasure of golf? Yes, of course. Why do you think I was excited to play golf on Friday. It had very little to do with the pleasure of golf and almost everything to do with spending 2 hours alone with my teenage son on the golf course watching him practice something he is passionate about. He's at the age in his life where he wants to try to retreat into his room all day and talk with his friends. And golf is something we have always had and I hope will always have. Getting time alone with him, outside on a nice day, to talk about his school and his friends and whatever. . . . its hard to beat that.

Bad times are a part of life. It affects people of all faiths and has affected people for far longer than the advent of Christianity. Do you think that prior to Christianity, all of humanity simple became crippled by despair any time something went wrong? Humanity would not have lasted if we were not equipped with the ability to adapt and cope with change and hardship.

Christians do not own the trademark on hope and meaning. Even in bad times, every other group of peoples and cultures and societies that has ever existed has found meaning and value and hope for better times.

You might point out (rightly) that my worldview does not offer eternal meaning or hope in life after death. But, do you feel that we should choose our worldviews based on the thing that offers us the most hope? If so, I should expect you to be a universalist - because anything less is not maximizing your hope. Or do you choose your worldview based on what you believe to be real - even though it may come with some difficult realities? If yes, then can you fault anyone else for doing the same?

Quote:
If life is just be this and will probably end in tragedy, then we should seek out all worldly pleasures and live for ourselves. But the Christian has found that the highest pleasure is found in worshiping God, so that there isn't anything in life outside of God, because He is the creator.

My joy isn't found in flerting worldly things that will end, but in faith, family, and friends. Faith is first, because without it, I am selfish. With it, life is great, because I can stand even in the face of death and know that it doesn't win. Where you might see tragedy in death, I know that Christ has already won. That gives me greater joy than golf with my son and not just because I hate golf!

Speaking as someone who thinks that this is the only life I have, I don't understand what worldly pleasures you think I ought to be seeking? I don't wan to kill anyone. I prefer the relationship and friendship and trust I have with my wife over sleeping around. Recognizing that I am part of society and that my well being requires social cooperation and stability, I don't seek a society that normalizes theft or lying or rape.

Its been said on this board before, but if the only thing keeping you from murder, rape, and theft is fear of God, then I wonder if you all even believe the things you say. If, in the absence of God, you would do all of those things, then is that not an admission on your part that you would prefer those things? That you would like to do those things and that they are good. But, that you restrain yourself because of God? I don't consider this argument against secular morality to be serious, because I don't think any of the Christians here would turn to a life of all out sex, violence, and hate. Even without God, I think you all would agree to the opinion that society is better off with stability, cooperation, and mutual respect.

I do not have any problem with anyone who disagrees with my worldview or who finds it to be less meaningful than Christianity. But, if we are to have a meaningful discussion about it, I think it will require more than strawman arguments about the value I place on golf or cliche arguments about atheists as selfish hedonists. I think you know that I don't receive all my life's meaning from golf and that I do not wish to pursue a selfish hedonistic lifestyle. So, why bring it up? Are we having a discussion or are you trying to win a debate?

That you find pleasure in worshipping God is wonderful. I do not. And just as it would be silly for me to tell you that your life is empty and wrong for not finding pleasure in golf, I find it silly to be told that my life is empty and wrong for not finding pleasure in worshipping God (Not that anyone as said that directly).

Agilaw

8:42a, 2/13/24

In reply to Rex Racer

Well said!

AGC

9:23a, 2/13/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

Kurt I think you're viewing this through an upper middle class privileged lens (golf is a bit of a tip off). The ability to find your own meaning in life is a luxury good the poor and downtrodden don't have. When we talk about rape or murder the argument isn't that privileged people will start plundering their neighborhood; we want and enjoy stability as much as the next person. We're looking at other parts of society too. You can no longer tell a starving person it's wrong to kill because for them it's existential. That's going to crash your privileged world down real quick.

The Banned

11:14a, 2/13/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

I'm probably annoying the crap out of you, but I've yet to see you respond to the following:

1. YOU don't desire a life of hedonism and violence. You have a comfort level in your family and income that you don't see the point. Many people who are in much worse situations frequently do have a desire to sleep around, hurt people, etc. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the crime rates vs poverty rates or out of wedlock children vs poverty rates. Can you be certain that if you were 28, unattractive/bad with the ladies with no wife prospects, had terrible parents, making 35k a year with no prospects of bettering your career, born into a family with rage issues, alcoholism, etc. that you for sure would feel the same? There's a reason why religion was called "the opiate of the masses" by Marx. People wouldn't get pissed off enough to revolt when they believed that God was calling them to live a certain way regardless of their status in life. It's why communism/socialism/marxism was an atheist movement and not a religious one.

2. Many people struggle with all sorts of issues. Drug addictions. Alcoholism. Rage issues. Lust. There are plenty of good people I know that fight against some very bad desires because they believe in God. Do you think these are inherently bad people since they need outside motivation to act decent? Is something wrong with them? These people would say they are "born this way". They fight against those impulses, and it's not "for the good of society". It's because they believe it to be objectively good as ordained by God. The way you casually dismiss the reality that some people truly do desire to do bad things and refrain because of faith is interesting to me.

3. Does everyone have to turn into a rapist in order for society to be worse? How many people are kinder than they want to be because of their faith? How many people try to be better parents because of their faith? How many people are more honest in their business dealings because of their faith? Again, YOU may not struggle with any of these things, but there are plenty of studies showing that people will cheat if there are no ramifications. They will steal. They will do other bad things that don't involve all out hedonism or violence and all of these things would worsen our society. So I'd ask again: does that mean these are just bad people?

People who consider themselves religious already do bad things, even when they know it is wrong. They know they shouldn't do it but fall to temptation, anger, greed, etc. because it makes them feel good for a moment. Why should one expect their behavior to not become worse when the idea of eternity is erased? It doesn't add up to me. You don't need to believe in religion because of its utility, but I do think it's beneficial to recognize its importance in society. You obviously have deeply considered whether God is or isn't real, so I doubt it's worth us going through that debate.

one MEEN Ag

2:19p, 2/13/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

Look, your hedonism isn't benders, extramarital sex, luxury jets and Mediterranean yacht cruises with supermodels. But its still just a suburban dad, professional flavor of hedonism. Your life is still just a pursuit of happiness for happiness's sake. You've stripped the source of good out of good things, declared consequentialism your god, and reduced life down to just a movie. Enjoy it while it lasts, the credits will roll, for everyone, always. What happens when sin and death start to creep in?

And a million years from now, what does it even matter to have golfed on a tuesday and pick your kids early from school after a nooner with the wife? What about the kid who lived in poverty and died early? The drug addict? The murdered? Where is there justice? What is even is justice? Tomorrow you wake up, decide to kill yourself and take someone out with you (please dont do either) - its all equally the same ending, what does it even matter? Veritasium and Kurgestat have this same la de dah nihilism on their youtube channels.

This is just a morality that focuses on the good, ignores the bad, and dies anyway. What a waste.

Kurt, we've discussed this a bit before. This all comes down immutable worldviews. You see yourself as above religion and the buffet line health inspector of religions. Anyone who asserts an absolutists worldview eventually bristles you to the point of anger that someone else could know something so surely while you clearly see it as unknowable.

And then you, sapper, and aggrad08 just have an atheist-off railing about the watered down, cultural backwash version of (mostly protestant) christianity that christians who take Jesus seriously despise as well. Sprinkle in some catholic coverup posts as well as an admonition of what the heck is orthodoxy and this is just a roll up of the R&P board.

And this is why I've stated that it all comes down to miracles. Can you believe in miracles? Can you accept testimony of those who have seen? Do you require Jesus to appear to you, individually, and directly answer your questions? What are the presuppositions that make miracles an impasse?

Because I've seen miraculous things, I've talked to priests who has seen miraculous things, I read the lives of the saints who performed miraculous things - glory to God (and not just in antiquity, but the modern age).

And when you see, read, and hear about this miracles that are associated with God, these fights about 'can we know' just seem trivial.

If you're in Houston, Divine Liturgy is at 10 this sunday. Everyone is invited. Promise we won't talk about Texags. Might talk about miracles.

kurt vonnegut

5:59p, 2/13/24

Well, I can honestly say that I never really expected a bunch of conservative Christians to tell me to check my privilege or criticize me for spending time with my son and being so wealthy as to be able to afford the afternoon rates at the muni course.

I'll respond more tomorrow.

kurt vonnegut

7:17a, 2/14/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
Kurt I think you're viewing this through an upper middle class privileged lens (golf is a bit of a tip off). The ability to find your own meaning in life is a luxury good the poor and downtrodden don't have. When we talk about rape or murder the argument isn't that privileged people will start plundering their neighborhood; we want and enjoy stability as much as the next person. We're looking at other parts of society too. You can no longer tell a starving person it's wrong to kill because for them it's existential. That's going to crash your privileged world down real quick.

I would like to first point out that I have not advocated that others abandon religion nor do I proselytize my atheism to the 'poor and downtrodden' nor do I suggest anyone else should. Until you can point out where I am doing those things, you are responding to a whole bunch of stuff that is not applicable to my views or anything I've said. And that is fine, as long as you recognize that you are offering your own thoughts rather than responding to me.

Yes, I do have a middle class lens. And I can see why you would call atheism a luxury good, although, I would link it more to education and access to education - which I understand correlates closely to wealth, but I think its a worthwhile distinction. Now, let me be crystal clear. . . . I am not saying that atheists are smarter or have better information. Rather, I am saying that I think atheism often has a higher base understanding level for entry. I don't particularly like Dawkins, but I think I like his quote about how Darwin made it possible to an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Pro Sandy

7:57a, 2/14/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

Whether your meaning is found in pleasure or intellect, you will find it vanish when hard times come and you can't explain it. Job stood strong because he found his meaning in God, not his intellect or possessions.

kurt vonnegut

8:05a, 2/14/24

In reply to The Banned

The Banned said:
I'm probably annoying the crap out of you, but I've yet to see you respond to the following:

1. YOU don't desire a life of hedonism and violence. You have a comfort level in your family and income that you don't see the point. Many people who are in much worse situations frequently do have a desire to sleep around, hurt people, etc. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the crime rates vs poverty rates or out of wedlock children vs poverty rates. Can you be certain that if you were 28, unattractive/bad with the ladies with no wife prospects, had terrible parents, making 35k a year with no prospects of bettering your career, born into a family with rage issues, alcoholism, etc. that you for sure would feel the same? There's a reason why religion was called "the opiate of the masses" by Marx. People wouldn't get pissed off enough to revolt when they believed that God was calling them to live a certain way regardless of their status in life. It's why communism/socialism/marxism was an atheist movement and not a religious one.

2. Many people struggle with all sorts of issues. Drug addictions. Alcoholism. Rage issues. Lust. There are plenty of good people I know that fight against some very bad desires because they believe in God. Do you think these are inherently bad people since they need outside motivation to act decent? Is something wrong with them? These people would say they are "born this way". They fight against those impulses, and it's not "for the good of society". It's because they believe it to be objectively good as ordained by God. The way you casually dismiss the reality that some people truly do desire to do bad things and refrain because of faith is interesting to me.

3. Does everyone have to turn into a rapist in order for society to be worse? How many people are kinder than they want to be because of their faith? How many people try to be better parents because of their faith? How many people are more honest in their business dealings because of their faith? Again, YOU may not struggle with any of these things, but there are plenty of studies showing that people will cheat if there are no ramifications. They will steal. They will do other bad things that don't involve all out hedonism or violence and all of these things would worsen our society. So I'd ask again: does that mean these are just bad people?

I would like to again point out that I have not advocated that others abandon religion nor do I proselytize my atheism to the 'poor and downtrodden' nor do I suggest anyone else should. Until you can point out where I am doing those things, you are responding to a whole bunch of stuff that is not applicable to my views or anything I've said. And that is fine, as long as you recognize that you are offering your own thoughts rather than responding to me.

When a child gets in trouble for hitting someone at school, you correct them. One way to correct them is to punish them. Another way is to offer them a reward to act correctly next time. And another way is to explain to them what they did wrong, why its wrong, and why behaving differently is better. The first two options train the child to respond based on fear or selfish interest. The third options increases their understanding and allows them to make decisions based on empathy for the other child at school. The third option requires you to trust the child to be capable of understanding these concepts - which is why option three doesn't work for very young children. But, as they get older, they develop the ability to understand.

I do not agree with the idea that people need religion because they cannot behave nicely without it. And I do not agree that people need to be threatened with the stick of hell or enticed by the carrot of Heaven in order to behave nicely. There is a utility in those things in getting people to fall in line, but they are not the only tools that can be used to give people meaning and purpose and hope. And they are not the only tools that can encourage people to act with kindness and empathy. I think that it would be condescending to suggest that these tools cannot be applied to those that have health struggles and financial struggles and drug addictions - as though they are those very young children that only respond to carrots and sticks and are not yet capable of understanding things on deeper levels. And yes, I recognize that religion offers deeper meaning that carrots and sticks, but that isn't what you are offering in your post above.

1. No, I cannot be certain that I would have the same views had I been born a completely different person. Can you?

2. No, people are not bad if they struggle with those things and I do not think less of them for needing help from religion. Did I say anything to the contrary? No, there is nothing wrong with them. And, I do not casually dismiss these people's reality. Literally nothing in this paragraph reflects anything I've said. I don't want to call it a strawman, rather, I think you are being outright dishonest.

3. Yes, lots of people are 'nicer' because of their faith. Did I say anything to the contrary? And yes, some people are more honest. Did I say anything to the contrary? And when did I say that I don't struggle with moral questions? I've already recognized that I have been fortunate in parts of my life, that doesn't mean I am immune to temptation to do things I think are immoral or wrong. Everyone alive struggles with these questions. I am not saying any of them are 'bad'. And unless you can point out somewhere where I said something to the contrary, I'm afraid that I think this paragraph is again just outright dishonest.

Quote:
People who consider themselves religious already do bad things, even when they know it is wrong. They know they shouldn't do it but fall to temptation, anger, greed, etc. because it makes them feel good for a moment. Why should one expect their behavior to not become worse when the idea of eternity is erased? It doesn't add up to me. You don't need to believe in religion because of its utility, but I do think it's beneficial to recognize its importance in society. You obviously have deeply considered whether God is or isn't real, so I doubt it's worth us going through that debate.

To answering the question in there: Because I believe people can be motivated by more than just the carrot or the stick. Yes, society has benefitted from religion. But, it doesn't mean that it is the only motivation and source of hope by which people can decide to act nicely. And again, I have not advocated that my views be forced on anyone else. Or even proselytized to anyone else. All I did was give my perspective and invite you to take a look. If you've interpreted this as a threat to your worldview or as a suggestion that I want to do around de-converting the masses, then all of that is on you. Thats your stuff. I didn't say any of that.

kurt vonnegut

8:34a, 2/14/24

In reply to one MEEN Ag

one MEEN Ag said:
Look, your hedonism isn't benders, extramarital sex, luxury jets and Mediterranean yacht cruises with supermodels. But its still just a suburban dad, professional flavor of hedonism. Your life is still just a pursuit of happiness for happiness's sake. You've stripped the source of good out of good things, declared consequentialism your god, and reduced life down to just a movie. Enjoy it while it lasts, the credits will roll, for everyone, always. What happens when sin and death start to creep in?

Here is the difference between you and me: I look at you and see someone who has a meaningful faith and worldview that gives them hope and purpose and I say: "Good for you, as long as your faith doesn't interfere with me, then you do you! Fantastic, happy for you!" You look at me and see someone who as a life where I find meaning and purpose using a different worldview and you say: "Your life is shallow and empty and soon you will die and pay the price."

I'm not asking you approve of my life or my worldview. There are many things within Christianity that I think are wonderful and beautiful. The propensity to encourage self righteousness and judgement is not one of them.

Quote:
And a million years from now, what does it even matter to have golfed on a tuesday and pick your kids early from school after a nooner with the wife? What about the kid who lived in poverty and died early? The drug addict? The murdered? Where is there justice? What is even is justice? Tomorrow you wake up, decide to kill yourself and take someone out with you (please dont do either) - its all equally the same ending, what does it even matter? Veritasium and Kurgestat have this same la de dah nihilism on their youtube channels.

This is just a morality that focuses on the good, ignores the bad, and dies anyway. What a waste.

I struggle with how to respond to this part of the post. I fear that no matter how I describe myself, you will always think that my life is empty and pointless. It could be my failing to find the right language or it could be that you simply think differently than I do. Either way is fine. Please understand that my goal here is not to convince you that I'm right, or superior, or better. If you are interested in what I believe and why, I am happy to share. If your only goal here is to mis-represent what I believe, reduce it to caricatures that reflect your own bias, and smirk at the idea that someday my privilege and mortality will all end, then I don't feel much inclined to engage further.

Quote:
Kurt, we've discussed this a bit before. This all comes down immutable worldviews. You see yourself as above religion and the buffet line health inspector of religions. Anyone who asserts an absolutists worldview eventually bristles you to the point of anger that someone else could know something so surely while you clearly see it as unknowable.

No, I do not see myself above religion. I disagree with you on a great many things. But, I don't think religious people are stupid or insincere or nave. I am comfortable with the fact that we look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions. You seem to be the one that is triggered by the fact that I have the balls to dare disagree your infallible knowledge of what is true and false.

The arrogance of defining something that is unknowable and beyond our comprehension and then taking the position that you know with absolute certainty that this thing exists and what it wants from us. . . yeah, its a trigger of mine. Once you demonstrate that you know for certain and how you know for certain, I will happily eat all the crow you want me to eat. Until then, its just assertion. You can pretend that its more, but its not.

And again, I don't care if you don't approve of my worldview. I'm happy to share it, but only if you are interested in listening rather than telling me why its empty and wrong.

Besides if you are right and I am living my life poorly and will someday be judged by God - then let him do his job. Its not your job.

AGC

8:40a, 2/14/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
AGC said:
Kurt I think you're viewing this through an upper middle class privileged lens (golf is a bit of a tip off). The ability to find your own meaning in life is a luxury good the poor and downtrodden don't have. When we talk about rape or murder the argument isn't that privileged people will start plundering their neighborhood; we want and enjoy stability as much as the next person. We're looking at other parts of society too. You can no longer tell a starving person it's wrong to kill because for them it's existential. That's going to crash your privileged world down real quick.

I would like to first point out that I have not advocated that others abandon religion nor do I proselytize my atheism to the 'poor and downtrodden' nor do I suggest anyone else should. Until you can point out where I am doing those things, you are responding to a whole bunch of stuff that is not applicable to my views or anything I've said. And that is fine, as long as you recognize that you are offering your own thoughts rather than responding to me.

Yes, I do have a middle class lens. And I can see why you would call atheism a luxury good, although, I would link it more to education and access to education - which I understand correlates closely to wealth, but I think its a worthwhile distinction. Now, let me be crystal clear. . . . I am not saying that atheists are smarter or have better information. Rather, I am saying that I think atheism often has a higher base understanding level for entry. I don't particularly like Dawkins, but I think I like his quote about how Darwin made it possible to an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

You've turned it into a free rider problem. As long as the rest of society doesn't embrace your approach to meaning but uses another, like Christianity, it works out. That doesn't solve the problem.

Atheism's 'base' for understanding isn't higher; it requires far less, nor is atheism the luxury good I'm discussing. Meaning comes after food, water, shelter, and many other things. That's what makes it a luxury good to pick and choose your own; that's why 'golf with my son' is not receiving serious consideration for meaning.

kurt vonnegut

8:40a, 2/14/24

In reply to Pro Sandy

Pro Sandy said:
Whether your meaning is found in pleasure or intellect, you will find it vanish when hard times come and you can't explain it. Job stood strong because he found his meaning in God, not his intellect or possessions.

Cool, thanks. I hope you have a great day. I still respect you and your faith.

kurt vonnegut

8:43a, 2/14/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:

You've turned it into a free rider problem. As long as the rest of society doesn't embrace your approach to meaning but uses another, like Christianity, it works out. That doesn't solve the problem.

No, I haven't. I am tired of having to defend positions that I did not take. Maybe ask me if the above applies before you accuse me of it.

AGC

8:53a, 2/14/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
AGC said:

You've turned it into a free rider problem. As long as the rest of society doesn't embrace your approach to meaning but uses another, like Christianity, it works out. That doesn't solve the problem.

No, I haven't. I am tired of having to defend positions that I did not take. Maybe ask me if the above applies before you accuse me of it.

You're taking this too literally and personally. Part of why it's a luxury good is because everyone else around you doesn't believe that. It's a belief you can have because our social fabric is still fairly whole in your class of society. In the poor areas? Nope, everything's up for grabs and no one cares about Dawkins or God near as much as we do. You want to look at this from an individual perspective. As Christians we see not just an individual benefit and obligation but a societal one; we don't just ask ourselves what happens if we change, but explore the world around us too. It's integral and the boundaries you're putting on the discussion forbid a rigorous intellectual discussion of it.

one MEEN Ag

9:30a, 2/14/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

"Besides if you are right and I am living my life poorly and will someday be judged by God - then let him do his job. Its not your job."

Kurt, think about what is on the line here. How much do I have to hate someone to not even share the reality of the world with them? Christians absolutely have the obligation to share the redemption available through Christ. And the first step of the good news is understanding that there is A) sin and death in this world B) sin and death are not good C) there is a savior out there that overcome sin and death. D) We can overcome sin and death by aligning our will and nature with God.

Do you realize what being judged by God even means or entails? It seems there already is this notion in the back of your mind that you'll get to live the life you like with the view of being a 'good person' and are prepared to present that to whatever God you didn't believe in. And that it will pass muster.

Do you want us to have apathy for your soul? Or miss out on the joy in this world?

We're addressing a well intentioned but ultimately nihilist worldview that doesn't even make it to page one of Ecclesiastes.

12thAngryMan

9:58a, 2/14/24

In reply to one MEEN Ag

Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.

one MEEN Ag

11:08a, 2/14/24

In reply to 12thAngryMan

Oh boy, you're really gonna derail this thread now. We gotta take a couple big steps back. The first step is acknowledging that there are cosmic intelligences (angels) and that YHWH is the creator of all of them. 'I Am The One Who Causes Things To Be' is the most full explanatory translation of what God calls himself to us. Very powerful angels fell and spend their time purposefully trying to drag humanity away from God. So when you read about other gods being able to perform supernatural things, don't think 'oh they're always lying or deceiving' think, those are demons. Pharaoh's priests could perform supernatural acts -through demons. And Moses's signs always beat the signs of Pharaoh. God is establishing that he is in control. He is the one who causes things to be.

So specifically about miracles the big questions are always, 'Who is benefiting from this? To whom is the worship being directed to? What domain of power is being displayed? Jesus specifically establishes that he has power over sickness, the weather, demons, and death. There is nothing that is outside His domain.

What I've seen I've described in this thread. https://texags.com/forums/12/topics/3383593/replies/65076825
Its small potatoes, but its biblically in line. The angels join in with us in worshipping Jesus. When you meet in church, there is also the saints and angels joining in. There's also accounts of jesus pulling back the veil for various people across time and letting them see the glory of the heavenly hosts. Win at Life in that same thread talks a bit about his experience seeing that. One of the priests I know has shared that he's seen an icon of the Theotokos weep myrrh. There's two icons in hawaii that weeps so much myrrh they've kept them in a clear box (at times). https://www.orthodoxhawaii.org/icons

There's a great audiobook series that summarizes the life of St. Seraphim of Sarov and the miracles he performed https://patristicnectar.org/bookstore_220620_1122221 He was visited by the Theotokos 12 times, revealed heavenly realms to inquirers, healed people, got to see the thinnest ray of uncreated life, witnessed Jesus walk into his icon. If you're interested in this I'll happily send you the 15 dollars, we listened to it when it was free.

St. Paraskevi has performed miracles not only when she was alive but into modern times. She has a wonderworking icon up in NY that is associated with healing eye related diseases.

This is just off the top of my head, I'll try to dive a bit deeper later.

Bob Lee

11:12a, 2/14/24

In reply to 12thAngryMan

12thAngryMan said:
Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.

You missed the point. He has a philosophical bias that doesn't allow for the possibility of miracles. Miracles strictly speaking are acts of God. I know priests who've experienced Eucharistic miracles first hand. These are people who would not try to conjure something in their minds, and they would not lie. So the likeliest explanation is it's an act of God. Of course if I have a wrong predisposition, then it's easy to just reject it out of hand. You just say the one thing you know for sure is that it was not a miracle and explore all other possibilities to the exclusion of the possibility that the account is accurate. The super sensible is real. Why should we reject that as a possibility? Can you give a good reason?

Agilaw

11:57a, 2/14/24

These different views point to the fact that we ALL worship something and we ALL put our faith/belief in something. To me, an atheist would seem to have an extreme amount of faith in their beliefs since there is so much evidence that points to a different reality. Also to me, as a Christian, I've delved deeply into the scriptures, heard the testimony of other believers, and searched for evidence of the one and only true God. I worship the God of the Bible, put my faith in the Jesus/Messiah of the Bible, and try my best to live according to the teachings of the Bible. I so deeply hope and pray, in a good way, that you and others who put their faith in atheism or in anything other than Jesus/the God of the Bible, will search the scriptures and call out to the God of the Bible and ask that He reveal Himself to you.

12thAngryMan

11:57a, 2/14/24

In reply to Bob Lee

Bob Lee said:
12thAngryMan said:
Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.

You missed the point. He has a philosophical bias that doesn't allow for the possibility of miracles. Miracles strictly speaking are acts of God. I know priests who've experienced Eucharistic miracles first hand. These are people who would not try to conjure something in their minds, and they would not lie. So the likeliest explanation is it's an act of God. Of course if I have a wrong predisposition, then it's easy to just reject it out of hand. You just say the one thing you know for sure is that it was not a miracle and explore all other possibilities to the exclusion of the possibility that the account is accurate. The super sensible is real. Why should we reject that as a possibility? Can you give a good reason?

And don't other posters have a philosophical bias towards accepting them? Surely a priest is more predisposed to believing a Eucharistic miracle than say, a citizen of ancient Greece? But that same Greek person is more inclined to ascribe lightning to the anger of Zeus. I didn't completely rule out the possibility of miracles (though I find them unlikely), I was asking for more information/context.

The Banned

12:04p, 2/14/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

Sorry, I'm not good at clipping and quoting from my phone, but in your first two paragraphs of your OP, you challenge a Christian's worldview. The opening paragraph states that you don't think we believe what we say we believe: that our behavior would be worse and our lives less meaningful if God wasn't real. I think some pushback should have been expected on your end. I certainly did not take away "oh, so this is how Kurt finds meaning in life and he wants to share that with us". Instead I read "faith in a higher power isn't really needed and here's a thought exercise to prove you don't really think so either".

Your second to last statement said that we have a beautiful gift, even if it isn't eternal. That further elicited responses you don't like because that would directly conflict with many people's lived experiences. Many people see life as nothing but a burden, often times because they don't like the hand they were dealt. This presents a problem because, again, you start with the thesis that we don't believe God provides us with significant reason to avoid evil and possibly even maintain the will to live. I am currently dealing with someone that has flat out said they'd have committed suicide by now if they didn't believe in God.

I'm not saying you are trying to force your views on others. I think you've always been respectful there. But I would say that your OP offered some significant challenges to the Christian worldview and I'm not sure how one would expect not to get some of the responses you have. I've simply asked questions that I believe your worldview fails to answer comprehensively. I chose that line of questioning because I disagree with your premise that people of faith don't actually believe that general behavior would be much worse without God as their purpose. Based on this most recent post, I would say you have an incomplete view of human nature. I'm happy to expand on that if you care to continue the conversation.

For the record, I don't think you are evangelizing for your cause, and don't think I accused of doing so. I thought I was engaging the OP, but I readily admit it's possible that I, like you, may not have had the tone that I intended.

ABattJudd

12:18p, 2/14/24

This is a great conversation (at least what I've read so far)! I really have nothing of substance to add, but I would say that as a Christian, I'm afraid that anyone witnessing my golf game may be convinced there is no god.

"Well, if you can’t have a great season, at least ruin somebody else’s." - Olin Buchanan

Bob Lee

12:28p, 2/14/24

In reply to 12thAngryMan

12thAngryMan said:
Bob Lee said:
12thAngryMan said:
Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.

You missed the point. He has a philosophical bias that doesn't allow for the possibility of miracles. Miracles strictly speaking are acts of God. I know priests who've experienced Eucharistic miracles first hand. These are people who would not try to conjure something in their minds, and they would not lie. So the likeliest explanation is it's an act of God. Of course if I have a wrong predisposition, then it's easy to just reject it out of hand. You just say the one thing you know for sure is that it was not a miracle and explore all other possibilities to the exclusion of the possibility that the account is accurate. The super sensible is real. Why should we reject that as a possibility? Can you give a good reason?

And don't other posters have a philosophical bias towards accepting them? Surely a priest is more predisposed to believing a Eucharistic miracle than say, a citizen of ancient Greece? But that same Greek person is more inclined to ascribe lightning to the anger of Zeus. I didn't completely rule out the possibility of miracles (though I find them unlikely), I was asking for more information/context.

Not really, no. For particular claims, my philosophical worldview allows for their possibility, but I'm not inclined to accept them without evidence. It's one possible explanation. I examine truth claims through that lens.

Why do you think miracles are unlikely? If creationism is true, then they're a certainty.

Eta: you're comparing someone with all of the benefit of revelation and salvific knowledge to someone who predates the incarnation. But to the point, a lot of pagans did convert because of Christ's passion and resurrection. I doubt those people were less disposed to believe in miracles than a priest here and now.

kurt vonnegut

1:32p, 2/14/24

In reply to one MEEN Ag

one MEEN Ag said:
"Besides if you are right and I am living my life poorly and will someday be judged by God - then let him do his job. Its not your job."

Kurt, think about what is on the line here. How much do I have to hate someone to not even share the reality of the world with them? Christians absolutely have the obligation to share the redemption available through Christ. And the first step of the good news is understanding that there is A) sin and death in this world B) sin and death are not good C) there is a savior out there that overcome sin and death. D) We can overcome sin and death by aligning our will and nature with God.

Do you realize what being judged by God even means or entails? It seems there already is this notion in the back of your mind that you'll get to live the life you like with the view of being a 'good person' and are prepared to present that to whatever God you didn't believe in. And that it will pass muster.

Do you want us to have apathy for your soul? Or miss out on the joy in this world?

We're addressing a well intentioned but ultimately nihilist worldview that doesn't even make it to page one of Ecclesiastes.

How do you know you are encouraging me toward a worldview that is correct and results in the afterlife that you say it does? What if you are encouraging me toward a worldview that the real God finds problematic and that He would actually feel more merciful toward an agnostic as opposed to a worshipper of a false God? I recognize what you say is on the line. Christianity makes a MASSIVE claim and then says "eh, just trust me! Besides, God will give you an even better prize if you believe without seeing."

Do I know what being judged by God means and entails? No, do you? How do you know? And how do you prove it to me? "eh, just trust me?"

I'm not asking for your apathy. I'm asking you to consider another perspective without using your Christian lens. I think I've become frustrated in this thread because I don't think anyone has been willing to remove their Christian lens and look through a different one. And part of me wants to attribute it to Christians here being unable to even consider the possibility that they aren't correct. A less judgy part of me realizes this isn't really fair and perhaps I've done a poor job of explaining the assignment.

When your presuppositions all confirm the existence of a God who provides meaning, then of course you will conclude that existence without God is meaningless. The spirit of the hypothetical is that you remove those presuppositions from your mind and consider the possibility of purpose using naturalist presuppositions. This is how empathy works. And how understanding perspective works. If a part of the purpose of the R&P board is to understand different perspective, then this is a base level ability we need to be willing to use.

kurt vonnegut

2:06p, 2/14/24

In reply to Bob Lee

Bob Lee said:
12thAngryMan said:
Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.

You missed the point. He has a philosophical bias that doesn't allow for the possibility of miracles. Miracles strictly speaking are acts of God. I know priests who've experienced Eucharistic miracles first hand. These are people who would not try to conjure something in their minds, and they would not lie. So the likeliest explanation is it's an act of God. Of course if I have a wrong predisposition, then it's easy to just reject it out of hand. You just say the one thing you know for sure is that it was not a miracle and explore all other possibilities to the exclusion of the possibility that the account is accurate. The super sensible is real. Why should we reject that as a possibility? Can you give a good reason?

I am open to the possibility of certain types of miracle.

The problem with revelation type miracles is the sheer volume and variety of conflicting 'miracles'. Your priest experienced a miracle that confirms the Christian God. A Muslim experiences one where he sees and hears Mohammad. A Hindu experiences their own miracle. And the Buddhist. And the Mystic. And then some lady hears a voice that tells here to drown her children in a bathtub.

I don't have any reason to not believe your priest. Or to not believe he is being genuine and sincere. However, to accept it as a miracle all of its implications is to reject all of the miracles experienced by non-Christians as simply false. If this is a miracle and proof of God, then it means that every non-Christian that has claimed a miracle is delusional or dishonest.

When you presuppose Christian miracles are real, its easy to believe Christian miracles from reliable sources. When you do not presuppose Christian miracles, skepticism is hardly an irrational reaction.

kurt vonnegut

2:10p, 2/14/24

In reply to The Banned

Fair enough. Online conversations area hard and I could have written my original post differently. The last two paragraphs of my response to one MEEN above maybe better describes my intention.