Atheism in Medical School and the Practice of Medicine

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

My poor arguments? Ha! You twisted my point about personal freedom into condemnation of religion... Talk about a poor argument. Now you're telling me I have emotional problems? You've got lots of problems, buddy. I can't even imagine what's going on in your head to make the arguments you do.

Yeah, not only that, this dude has no worthwhile argument of his own. His only argument is picking apart others' arguments using terms of logical fallacies that he doesn't even understand.

And you've completed the trifecta of the logical **** show. The ad hominem. My work is complete.

As I suspected, push hard enough and there is no real substance.

I'll now demonstrate how to stop replying after you've said you would.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tdram]

And you've completed the trifecta of the logical **** show. The ad hominem. My work is complete.

As I suspected, push hard enough and there is no real substance.

I'll now demonstrate how to stop replying after you've said you would.

I'm the only one here who has offered any actual substance. I'm glad you derive so much pleasure from "defeating" strangers on the internet. You must have an awesome life.

 

[tdram]

And you've completed the trifecta of the logical **** show. The ad hominem. My work is complete.

You've done that about 10 times already. I just have better things to do than search every post here to find them, unlike you.

 

[pilotjoe]

Whut? It's called eugenics. Peruse Reddit for an afternoon and look at all the atheists advocating for eugenics on there. That is exactly what the world can expect from atheist leaders and governments, and is, historically, exactly what countries got when atheist rulers had power.

Your lack of understanding the difference between artificial and natural selection saddens me. Wow, you really believe that atheist leaders and governments (not sure how a government can be atheist) will lead to mass eugenics. You must be unfamiliar with most of the current Western Europe and their very secular governing with atheism being very common.

Listen, if people aren't killing in the name of religion, they will be killing in the name of State, skin color, political affiliation, territory, cultural differences, or "undesirable traits." Ridding the world of religion will not rid the world of mass slaughter, and you'd have to be obtuse to think otherwise.

I agree that religion is not the sole reason for atrocities. Greed, lust of power, antipathy, lack of critical thinking are pretty big players too. The point that I have been making is that if more of the population were picking up on traits such as critical thinking, skepticism, reason, curiosity, open-mindedness, etc. that are being encouraged by people such as this guy (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/) and others like him, there would be a lot less of a push for war/mass killings/blind trust in leadership by the public. Then there is the fact that well-respected members of the faith community like Joyce Meyer who advocate that reasoning is bad. Check out what she said:

"Many Christians live in the shallow area of their soul—they live by what they want, think and feel. That’s where I was for a good part of my early years as a Christian. But thankfully, God didn’t leave me there. He began calling me to come out into the deep—to begin following the leading of His Spirit instead of the dictates of my flesh.
God dealt strongly with my emotions and my will. Then He moved to the area of my mind, where I had some major strongholds of wrong thinking that needed to be changed—reasoning being one of the worst. I was a person who was heavily into reasoning, always trying to figure out the “why” behind something and planning excessively for what was ahead. But one day God required me to give it up. He showed me that reasoning is the opposite of trust and that I couldn’t do both at the same time."

Martin Luther didn't like reason either:
“Reason is a *****, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

And, seriously, the argument that religion has been responsible for the most death and destruction in the history of the world is the most benighted, pitiful, and patently false argument that atheists continue to make. I mean, I know why you/they do it, but no learned person takes such foolish arguments--or such foolish people--seriously.

P.S. Atheist dictators and secular governments (in the name of atheism, secularism, anti-religionism, science, and so on) were directly responsible for the killing of vast and incomprehensible amounts of people ALL throughout the 20th century. The argument can be, and has often been, made that far more people have been slaughtered "in the name of" non-sectarian motives than religious ones.

I don't think I have ever argued that it has been responsible for the most death and destruction in the history of the world. I would say disease and aging is responsible for the most death in the world. But religion is responsible for A LOT of destruction and death. Conquistadors, inquisition, mid-east turmoil, etc. But if you believe that the Bible is literal truth, you would have to believe that God is responsible himself, for A LOT of death and destruction, eh hem, the flood, eh hem. He will also be responsible in the future for A LOT of death and destruction, eh hem, the Rapture, eh hem. But all that is probably justified because a naked rib woman listened to a talking snake and ate an apple off of a forbidden tree (sounds reasonable).

It sounds to me like you want atheism/secularism/anti-religionism to be responsible for death and destruction in the 20th century. Hitler was raised Catholic and most of the German military were Catholic as well. Stalin was trying to spread his corrupt form of communism and the Church was in competition for power with him. I'm not sure what other mass eugenics/mass killing you would blame atheism on. Mao, maybe? Pretty similar situation to Stalin.

One only has to go as far as the current Israeli-Palestani conflict to see my point in how destructive religion can be (which portion of the U.S. population is in support of Israeli use of force because Israel is a holy land set aside for God's chosen people that mostly left Israel until after WWII until they came back to uproot many Palestinians after a UN convention in which leaders in Palestine wasn't present and didn't agree to?). I won't deny that religion can be a force of good. I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that you do not need religion to have that same force of good/morality. I would also like to point out that a society based on Darwinism (almost solely capitalistic) would not be a society I would like to live in. And to keep things clear with people who haven't read all my comments on this thread: I would pray with a patient, I do not thing religion should be banned, my wife is Christian, I think that faith is rarely a good thing, and I think that societies who value characteristics that many well-known atheists are advocating today would be much better off: critical thinking, empathy, curiosity and a healthy dose of skepticism.

More than anything, I am encouraging people to employ critical thinking, empathy, curiosity and skepticism in ALL aspects of their daily lives. If that leads them to atheism, cool. If not, that's cool too. I also want people to see that you do not have to know god be moral. We atheists are not the spawn of a Satan we do not believe in. Or maybe we are, and we are just trying to deceive everyone.

Over and out.

 

[didymus]

Your lack of understanding the difference between artificial and natural selection saddens me. Wow, you really believe that atheist leaders and governments (not sure how a government can be atheist) will lead to mass eugenics. You must be unfamiliar with most of the current Western Europe and their very secular governing with atheism being very common.............

............Over and out.

Yikes. Seriously, to everything you wrote--Yikes.

Way too much wrong to even dedicate an appropriate amount of time and sufficient effort to detail all of it. It seems as though your strategy was to win an argument by posting such a vast quantity of nonsense, no one could ever reasonably respond to all of it.

Well played, sir. You win.

 

[didymus]

All that is required for a person to be atheist is not to have a defined position on the afterlife or a specific higher celestial authority.

I know what it means to be an atheist by definition, but that is not all you--or many on this thread, and other religion threads--do. You have not simply stated a fact about yourself that you do not have a defined position on the afterlife or a specific higher celestial authority. You have taken an assertive and antagonistic position on this thread in making statements about the destructive value/nature of religion, and the benefits of identifying as an atheist, and proliferating an atheistic (secular humanistic) worldview, which is not just about an individual not identifying with theism or deities.

You are being disingenuous in claiming that all you are is someone living with a negation of god(s), rather than someone who actively advocates for values, policies, and ways of living that are directly linked to a culture of atheism--one that has gained special traction in the last decade in the US.

Though you have done so here, you may not personally be someone who actively antagonizes religion, or promotes cultural atheism in the real world, but you are being blatantly dishonest, or are sorrowfully ignorant, if you don't think other atheists are doing these things. They (atheists) actively campaign for irreligious politicians, some support and picket to have monuments to atheism (FSM, Satanist statues, so on) on public property, lobby to have "Under God" removed from currency and the pledge, and so on and so forth. These are active endeavors (as are all endeavors, by definition).

Please don't insult us here by pretending, again, that all you are is someone with a vacancy of belief in a particular proposition, when it is clear by your participation in this discussion that you are someone with an active and vibrant opposition to people who maintain views that are different from your own.

Whereas what is required of you, if you ascribe to one particular religion is to affirm at least some minimal set of affirmations about the world around us unseen.

It is actually required of both of us. You are actually committing a fallacy of the burden of proof. Now, if it could be demonstrated that all you are doing is saying, "I don't believe X to be true," then the burden of proof in a debate would be on me. However, as it clear from your posts in this thread, you are actually saying, "I believe X is false." Therefore, you are also bound to a minimal set of affirmations about the world, that require you to defend them. Especially as one with a minority opinion, as the majority of US citizens still believe in a god of some sort, you have all the more burden to convince those of us in the former group to bend policy to the atheist side of things.

As highlighted above, this is what makes you more than one who passively holds a negative claim, and groups you right along with those who actively campaign for equal representation in the public sector. To be given equal representation, a group must have an ethos of definable propositions by which lawmakers, employers, universities, etc. can make active judgments or policies in favor of. Does this actually need more clarification?

You love the move of blurring what is essentially a negating position--atheism--to mean all sorts of political movements and ideologies who perhaps needed to eliminate their religious competitors for power.

See above. Oh, and see History.

Pol Pot and the group that accepts the title of atheist have nothing in common.

Except atheism.

Whereas you have everything in common with someone who's basic position is that everyone else but their particular faith is in some variation of peril, eternally, for not accepting your version of what constitutes reality.

False. Utterly and sorrowfully false. You seem to be given to hyperbole, which makes it quite difficult to take you seriously, and it really makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about. I do not have everything in common with people who believe what you submitted as the defining characteristics of people of faith. I happen to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and nothing of what you just said is anywhere in our theology--and we are the oldest church in the history of Christianity (even predating Roman Catholicism--and not even Catholics believe what you said).

What you put forth as the foundational component of Religion has no basis whatsoever in the theology of the historical church. It is actually a short summary of what the smallest segment of Christians globally would ascribe to believing. I've found that most atheists, in the US particularly, make sweeping generalizations about the whole of Christianity based upon their experience with Evangelicals (and not even their personal experience with Evangelicals, but based upon what they have seen on TV or read the internet). Either way, Western Evangelicalism is a new, and globally insignificant, offshoot of Christianity, which, unfortunately, wields an enormous amount of influence due to high dollar investments in television programming and political campaigns.

To be clear, I do not share everything in common with the caricature of religion you put forth, and it is another example of how you misrepresent to others, and to your self, religion. At this point it seems like a defense mechanism or something.

If you have trouble following me through that basic comparison then you just have trouble following.

I follow coherent arguments quite well.

And that's all there is to this argument. You make the exclusivity claim. You make the positive affirmation that says those who disagree with you are eternally damned....

Nope. Never had made such a claim or affirmation. Not once, ever. I'm actually quite surprised @touchpause13 "liked" your post. She has participated in a few of the same discussions I have re: religion, and she knows I don't make such claims, and I don't have such beliefs. The faith I belong to does not believe such things. Not only that, but even the Pope has publicly declared that this is not the official teaching of the RCC. So now you have no excuse to continue propagating these lies.

The two largest bodies of Christians globally (EOC and RCC, comprising around 1.5bn Christians) do not believe this, and do not teach it. The Orthodox Church has a much better history of consistently living this out than the RCC, but it still stands that these are not official positions of either church, and, therefore, the vast majority of Christians globally.

I don't know as much about the other groups, but I'm sure your falsely-attributed claim of exclusivity would not hold true for Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, or Lutherans, either.

Your attack on American empire is adoringly incognizant of religion's role in constructing the conception of savages and subjects of the Roman Catholic Church in more southern adventures in empire.

Did you pay no attention to my caveat? Also, did you forget that YOU attributed the foundational principles of the United States to a secular document, calling the US a good example of a secular government? Did you also miss the numerous other examples I gave of how the US--again, according to you--as a society founded upon and steered by secular values, has a past of incredible bloodshed?

So what is your position? Is the US a good example of a secular society? Or is it one whose numerous wars, slaughter of tribal peoples, slave-trade, theft of land, and systemic racism and sexism are to blame on subversive religious powers? Make up your mind, dude!

If you want to negate destructive ideology then we are allies. But trying to pin national socialism or Stalinism or the like on people who don't believe in god make you no more than a third rate propagandist.

History books are your friend. It isn't propaganda, it is reality. Attempting to dismiss arguments you cannot intellectually defeat by naming them propaganda, or by calling the person making the arguments a propagandist (ad hominem--defeat the argument, not the one making the argument) does not actually make your position the right one. I find often that too many people default to calling those they disagree with bigots, or racists or, religious fanatics, or, in this case, propagandists, etc. It is effective at shutting an argument down, but not because your position is superior or more cogent, but because you show yourself to be someone who is incorrigible, and impervious to reason. It's not something to be proud of.

 

[tdram]

False. Utterly and sorrowfully false. You seem to be given to hyperbole, which makes it quite difficult to take you seriously, and it really makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about. I do not have everything in common with people who believe what you submitted as the defining characteristics of people of faith. I happen to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and nothing of what you just said is anywhere in our theology--and we are the oldest church in the history of Christianity (even predating Roman Catholicism--and not even Catholics believe what you said).

If your religion does not preach that non-believers are in eternal peril and that salvation can only be found through your Lord, please explain the verses below (a couple of many):

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Revelations 21, 8-9

And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31)

I find it very hard to believe as an ex-Christian, that any form of Christianity would preach that there are other acceptable paths. It just goes contrary to the entire teaching of the bible.

 

[Nasrudin]

Look. I won't be going through your nonsense and responding point by point to your point by point analysis of all my points. If it feels like winning great. Good for god. But if you want to have a conversation then you talk and then I talk and vice versa. I'm not getting paid to negotiate a contract here.

I'm an intern. I need to eat. And f@ck. And other stuff. Before I give you wingnuts a piece of my intellect.

Kisses.

 

[didymus]

If your religion does not preach that non-believers are in eternal peril and that salvation can only be found through your Lord, please explain the verses below (a couple of many):

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Revelations 21, 8-9

And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31)

I find it very hard to believe as an ex-Christian, that any form of Christianity would preach that there are other acceptable paths. It just goes contrary to the entire teaching of the bible.

Don't misunderstand: We do believe that salvation is only found through Christ. But we do not believe that only Christians can be saved. We also believe in--for lack of a better word--Hell, but we do not accept or teach the modern view (that is largely derived from Dante) that Hell is a physical place that is occupied by "souls," and demons with horns, and whatnot, or that it is something that has a conception or experience of time, or is meant as punishment for unbelief, or different beliefs, or as a permanent state of torturous recompense for temporal sins.

The Orthodox Church teaches: God is not particular but He is the Father of all and His providence brings the "nations" to salvation. To the Jews God gave the "written law" but to the nations He gave the "natural law," the law innate in human conscience and reason.

Moreover: It cannot be assumed that salvation is denied non-Christians living in true piety and according to natural law by the God who "is love..." In his justice and mercy God will judge them worthy even though they are outside the Church.

I'm not personally going to comment on isolated verses from the Bible, which are too easily removed from context, by believers and non-believers alike, for the sake of "proving" some subjective position. The whole narrative of Scripture--along with the traditions of the Church, councils, and so on--point to a God who is just. Therefore, we believe that whatever decision is made by God is a just decision. If Hell exists, then anyone God condemned to Hell would be justly condemned. I want to emphasize how the historical church understands these things, because, well, it is the historical perspective--and is the perspective that has remained for 250 million Christians globally, for almost 2,000 years--that Hell as discussed in the Bible is viewed from the perspective of humans, and not from God's perspective. Without getting too complex here, it means that there is no "place" of torment--known as Hell--that God condemns people to, but, rather, that all people are welcomed into God's presence after death, but to many, such a welcome will be experienced as torment, because there are many people who hate God. The Church teaches that God's presence and existence is "light," and that this light is warmth and comfort for those who longed to be brought out of the darkness of ignorance, suffering, and so on--but this light can also be the scorching fire of "Hell" to those for whom God is abhorrent and hated. Ultimately, though, it is speculation on my part, and I don't really hold it too tightly.

The Orthodox Church is considered by many to be the best Church for agnostics (which is why is was so appealing to me in the first place, and why it has remained such a comforting environment all along). The Church holds 99% of theology loosely, and doesn't put too fine a point on things we are convinced we can't really be convinced about. This is to say, we basically don't hold much of anything in common with American Evangelicalism (also considering over half of my local church is comprised of staunch democrats, and a peppering of hardcore libertarians, we wouldn't really fit in at most right-wing, fundamentalist congregations).

But not everyone who doesn't believe in God hates God. Not every atheist despises Christ, though they may despise many Christians. The historically consistent teaching of Christianity is not that God sends unbelievers to Hell, or punishes people for not believing. The theology of right-wing Evangelical Christianity is actually the minority position within Christendom. A rejection of Evangelicalism, is not a rejection of Christianity.

tl;dr The historical view of Hell in Christianity does not match the widespread modern view. Believers and non-believers from all different walks of life will go to Heaven. Christianity teaches that God is ultimately just, and so any decisions He makes are actually and accurately just, whether we understand or agree with them. The Orthodox Church is awesome.

 

[tdram]

Don't misunderstand: We do believe that salvation is only found through Christ. But we do not believe that only Christians can be saved.

I appreciate your detailed explanation. So if I understand correctly, what your church preaches is that god will give everyone salvation, regardless of whether they accept him, as long as they are living in a just way? In other words, I'm an athiest so clearly I don't believe in any god, but you are saying that god would overlook that as long as I was a nice guy and treated everyone fairly?

If that's what you're saying, I have to say I like your version of Christianity a lot more than mine.

 

[didymus]

I appreciate your detailed explanation. So if I understand correctly, what your church preaches is that god will give everyone salvation, regardless of whether they accept him, as long as they are living in a just way? In other words, I'm an athiest so clearly I don't believe in any god, but you are saying that god would overlook that as long as I was a nice guy and treated everyone fairly?

If that's what you're saying, I have to say I like your version of Christianity a lot more than mine.

That is the long and short of it. Listen, though many Christians lack it, central to our faith is the core value of humility. If we believe in a just god, then anyone giving it their best go of it--as far as actively loving on people, taking good care of the Earth, fighting for the oppressed, seeking to discover truth, through the studying of the world around us--is someone a just God keeps in mind, and we, as Christians, need to be humble enough to accept that every person struggles, every person falls short in life, everyone makes mistakes, and that most people are genuinely interested in being good, doing good, and knowing what's right.

Though I'm using language that is inherently insufficient to explain something vast, the historical Christian perspective is that God extends mercy, and is chiefly interested in sharing eternal goodness with all people-and that, ultimately, humans cannot really know what is on God's mind, or what His plans are, so we need to be humble in how we approach people with different experiences. I'm not great at it, but I'm striving to be better everyday.

And, FWIW, it's not my version of Christianity, but the historical and most widely accepted version.

 

[tdram]

That is the long and short of it. Listen, though many Christians lack it, central to our faith is the core value of humility. If we believe in a just god, then anyone giving it their best go of it--as far as actively loving on people, taking good care of the Earth, fighting for the oppressed, seeking to discover truth, through the studying of the world around us--is someone a just God keeps in mind, and we, as Christians, need to be humble enough to accept that every person struggles, every person falls short in life, everyone makes mistakes, and that most people are genuinely interested in being good, doing good, and knowing what's right.

Though I'm using language that is inherently insufficient to explain something vast, the historical Christian perspective is that God extends mercy, and is chiefly interested in sharing eternal goodness with all people-and that, ultimately, humans cannot really know what is on God's mind, or what His plans are, so we need to be humble in how we approach people with different experiences. I'm not great at it, but I'm striving to be better everyday.

And, FWIW, it's not my version of Christianity, but the historical and most widely accepted version.

That's very interesting because you are the first Christian I have ever heard saying that. I definitely prefer this viewpoint of God than the one I grew up hearing about - the god that was always out to punish people for disbelief, while at the same time supposedly loving everyone. The God I learned about didn't care about how good you were as a person, he only seemed to care whether you had enough fervor in worshipping him.

 

[Roxas]

That's very interesting because you are the first Christian I have ever heard saying that. I definitely prefer this viewpoint of God than the one I grew up hearing about - the god that was always out to punish people for disbelief, while at the same time supposedly loving everyone. The God I learned about didn't care about how good you were as a person, he only seemed to care whether you had enough fervor in worshipping him.

For what it's worth, the Mormon branch of Christianity shares this view as well. Good people are good people, regardless of their faith, and are still rewarded as such.

 

[Roxas]

That is the long and short of it. Listen, though many Christians lack it, central to our faith is the core value of humility. If we believe in a just god, then anyone giving it their best go of it--as far as actively loving on people, taking good care of the Earth, fighting for the oppressed, seeking to discover truth, through the studying of the world around us--is someone a just God keeps in mind, and we, as Christians, need to be humble enough to accept that every person struggles, every person falls short in life, everyone makes mistakes, and that most people are genuinely interested in being good, doing good, and knowing what's right.

Though I'm using language that is inherently insufficient to explain something vast, the historical Christian perspective is that God extends mercy, and is chiefly interested in sharing eternal goodness with all people-and that, ultimately, humans cannot really know what is on God's mind, or what His plans are, so we need to be humble in how we approach people with different experiences. I'm not great at it, but I'm striving to be better everyday.

And, FWIW, it's not my version of Christianity, but the historical and most widely accepted version.

Very well said

 

[tdram]

For what it's worth, the Mormon branch of Christianity shares this view as well. Good people are good people, regardless of their faith, and are still rewarded as such.

What I'm curious is how they define a 'good' person. Would rejecting the concept of a god at all still qualify one to be a "good" person assuming this person was behaving in a fair and just way otherwise?

 

[Roxas]

What I'm curious is how they define a 'good' person. Would rejecting the concept of a god at all still qualify one to be a "good" person assuming this person was behaving in a fair and just way otherwise?

Absolutely. Everyone has their own experiences, and God doesn't write you off because yours led you to where you are. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a concept still practiced by many who want nothing to do with religion. They're still good people.

 

[BANGO]

.

 

[tdram]

Absolutely. Everyone has their own experiences, and God doesn't write you off because yours led you to where you are. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a concept still practiced by many who want nothing to do with religion. They're still good people.

That sounds good. So what's the deal with these pastors that are ranting against other religions and atheists and science, etc? Where do they get their justification from if God doesn't mind?

 

[Roxas]

That sounds good. So what's the deal with these pastors that are ranting against other religions and atheists and science, etc? Where do they get their justification from if God doesn't mind?

Now we're delving into details of specific religions. It sounds like you were raised in a church like that, you tell me.

 

[didymus]

That sounds good. So what's the deal with these pastors that are ranting against other religions and atheists and science, etc? Where do they get their justification from if God doesn't mind?

This is an excellent question. I think most people are okay justifying themselves, and don't really require external justification. People can twist all kinds of crap to advance their agendas. Also, I wouldn't go as far to say God doesn't mind--I believe God still wants people to be in relationship with Him because, in my experience, there is great freedom in knowing and worshipping Him. What I was communicating is that I believe God doesn't condemn people to Hell, or judge without mercy and grace those who gave it their best shot in life, and ended up going to other churches, practicing other religions, or not believing in God at all, for myriad reasons.

The fact is--and I would never dispute it--people use religion to deceive, coerce, manipulate, oppress, and profit off of the weak. I think God has mercy upon all people, but in my sin, I am tempted to believe there is a Hell and it is reserved for the people who do these things.

 

[didymus]

deleted my comment..waste of time discussion.

Too bad. I would have liked to read your thoughts, though you may have not been interested in my response to them.

 

[didymus]

That sounds good. So what's the deal with these pastors that are ranting against other religions and atheists and science, etc? Where do they get their justification from if God doesn't mind?

Oh, and the simple answer to your question is fear. I think the people who rant the hardest are probably the ones most in danger of losing their faith. They are battling less against other religions, atheists, and science than they are with their own doubts, or feelings of insecurity. I won't say all of them doubt their faith in God, per se, but many possibly feel insecure, and do these things to compensate. Some may fear losing their faith, others fear losing their way of life and/or comforts, some genuinely fear--though maybe irrationally so--chaos breaking out in society if there is widespread rejection of God, and so on.

 

[tdram]

Oh, and the simple answer to your question is fear. I think the people who rant the hardest are probably the ones most in danger of losing their faith. They are battling less against other religions, atheists, and science than they are with their own doubts, or feelings of insecurity. I won't say all of them doubt their faith in God, per se, but many possibly feel insecure, and do these things to compensate. Some may fear losing their faith, others fear losing their way of life and/or comforts, some genuinely fear--though maybe irrationally so--chaos breaking out in society if there is widespread rejection of God, and so on.

Why do they fear their doubts? Why not embrace those doubts and find out what they mean? Where is the source of fear of doubt / losing faith coming from? What's so bad about losing faith if it's not for you? As you said, not everyone has the same path in life.

 

[didymus]

What I'm curious is how they define a 'good' person. Would rejecting the concept of a god at all still qualify one to be a "good" person assuming this person was behaving in a fair and just way otherwise?

Can't speak for Mormons, but that sounds accurate from the Orthodox Church POV. People don't have to believe in a god, or subscribe to a particular religious tradition to care for widows and orphans, to take care of the sick, to clothe and feed the poor, to visit those in prison (or to befriend the lonesome); one does not have to be religious to preserve and protect the environment, to treat animals with dignity, to care and serve for the mentally and physically disabled; one simply does not have to believe in a god or be religious to tend to those things that Christians (I can't speak for others) believe God cares about, and has entrusted to us to care about.

I think if people are doing that, they are on the right track.

 

[didymus]

Why do they fear their doubts? Why not embrace those doubts and find out what they mean? Where is the source of fear of doubt / losing faith coming from? What's so bad about losing faith if it's not for you? As you said, not everyone has the same path in life.

I have no clue. Next time you meet someone like that, you'll have to ask them. My thought is that some of it comes down to fear of the unknown. It's similar to my interactions with my wife's family. They were all born and raised, and still live in a very small town in a northern state. They have not really ever ventured outside of their town, and they have no desire to. Whenever I talk with them about different cultural experiences we have had, or something powerful from literature or film we've gleaned, or conversations with neighbors we've had, or travels, or whatever, they become uncomfortable with it. It's outside of their context, and they don't have any desire to expose themselves to anything of the sort.

It's sad to me, but it's just their idiosyncratic character. I believe their lives would be richer for knowing more about the world outside of the bubble, but they don't care to. They are still wonderful and loving people.

However, the motivations behind why people embrace their doubts or avoid them are highly complex, and I'm not equipped to determine what motivates people, and all the variables contributing to that. I'm just proposing a superficial explanation.

 

[boogaloo]

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.​

DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

I would rather believe this than anything else. I think it's beautiful, and it gives my life more meaning than any god could. I get to experience the universe in its entirety for a short amount of time, and then I fade to nothingness, as those before me have done and those after me will do. Born of dust, I'll return to dirt. Anything in between is up to me.

 

[didymus]

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.​

DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

I would rather believe this than anything else. I think it's beautiful, and it gives my life more meaning than any god could. I get to experience the universe in its entirety for a short amount of time, and then I fade to nothingness, as those before me have done and those after me will do. Born of dust, I'll return to dirt. Anything in between is up to me.

This was worth sharing. It's not an explanation that makes sense to me of my experience of the world (definitely not of the immense joy I experience in ordinary moments with my young son--the elation, the hope, and the evidence of beauty and goodness therein). To me personally, It doesn't account for my celestial curiosity, my drive for and passion to create art, my unshakable longing to know and encounter God, and the intricacy I personally see in the world.

To me, your position sounds depressing, cold, and disconnected, but you're right--you've got to decide for yourself. And I do think your position is consistent with a godless universe. I just don't see how it has any real practical value.

 

[boogaloo]

This was worth sharing. It's not an explanation that makes sense to me of my experience of the world (definitely not of the immense joy I experience in ordinary moments with my young son--the elation, the hope, and the evidence of beauty and goodness therein). To me personally, It doesn't account for my celestial curiosity, my drive for and passion to create art, my unshakable longing to know and encounter God, and the intricacy I personally see in the world.

To me, your position sounds depressing, cold, and disconnected, but you're right--you've got to decide for yourself. And I do think your position is consistent with a godless universe. I just don't see how it has any real practical value.

I think what you are describing is the human condition; I have experienced the same joys and have the same passions in life. The vantage point is only depressing, cold, and disconnected if you choose to see the world that way. I don't understand what you mean by "real practical value."

 

[didymus]

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

By "no real practical value," I mean that it is highly unlikely that you actually live as though the quoted is true. Aren't you going into medicine? Are you doing so to help people, or just to "get yours"? If you are doing it to help people, then you don't live out practically the above quote.

No purpose? Then why be a physician? Why do anything at all? Wouldn't non-existence be better than existence in this world of purposelessness and emptiness and suffering?

No evil and no good? Do I even need to explain how you don't approach the world or life practically as if this were true? You have no problem with war, rape, bigotry, oppression, hate? These things aren't evil? Do you believe in a rule of law? What is your belief and support of law based on if so?

You don't believe there is any good? Delicious food, invigorating and enlivening discussion, poetry, film, love between a father and son, giving generously of your abundance to someone less fortunate? No good in the world?

I would venture to guess you do not conduct your life in a way that affirms the universe operates as blind, pitiless indifference. And that is what I mean by no practical value; it's an abstract and unapplied concept, meant more for making a point than actually directing one's life--and it strikes me as something someone would write in a suicide letter. It's hard to imagine any of the other atheists on this thread even supporting it. But perhaps they do.

I still think you are spot on in pointing out that a person's perspective really determines for that person what they find meaningful or not. I accept that we view things differently, and I'm okay with that, just as long as you don't try to live out "practically" your quote above if I'm ever on your operating table

 

[tdram]

To me, your position sounds depressing, cold, and disconnected, but you're right--you've got to decide for yourself. And I do think your position is consistent with a godless universe. I just don't see how it has any real practical value.

As far as he and I are concerned, that's reality. I also don't find it depressing or cold. It is what we make of it. I was actually more depressed as a young believer, because I'd look around and see senseless atrocities, like young children raped and murdered, and wonder why an omnipotent, omniscient god would allow such things to happen.

 

[tdram]

By "no real practical value," I mean that it is highly unlikely that you actually live as though the quoted is true. Aren't you going into medicine? Are you doing so to help people, or just to "get yours"? If you are doing it to help people, then you don't live out practically the above quote.

No purpose? Then why be a physician? Why do anything at all? Wouldn't non-existence be better than existence in this world of purposelessness and emptiness and suffering?

No evil and no good? Do I even need to explain how you don't approach the world or life practically as if this were true? You have no problem with war, rape, bigotry, oppression, hate? These things aren't evil? Do you believe in a rule of law? What is your belief and support of law based on if so?

You don't believe there is any good? Delicious food, invigorating and enlivening discussion, poetry, film, love between a father and son, giving generously of your abundance to someone less fortunate? No good in the world?

I would venture to guess you do not conduct your life in a way that affirms the universe operates as blind, pitiless indifference. And that is what I mean by no practical value; it's an abstract and unapplied concept, meant more for making a point than actually directing one's life--and it strikes me as something someone would write in a suicide letter. It's hard to imagine any of the other atheists on this thread even supporting it. But perhaps they do.

I still think you are spot on in pointing out that a person's perspective really determines for that person what they find meaningful or not. I accept that we view things differently, and I'm okay with that, just as long as you don't try to live out "practically" your quote above if I'm ever on your operating table

I don't believe in "evil" or "good" as forces in the world. But as a human being, I can empathize with other human beings. I know what pain feels like, and I don't want to inflict that on another person. I know what it's like to be stolen from and cheated. I know what it's like to be sick. That's what drives my decisions in life, not an arbitrary definition of what's good and what's evil.

 

[tdram]

No purpose? Then why be a physician? Why do anything at all? Wouldn't non-existence be better than existence in this world of purposelessness and emptiness and suffering?

That's a very good question. I don't think there's an overall "purpose" to life. If there is, I have no idea what it is and will likely never know. It doesn't bother me too much. As long as I keep waking up every day, I'm going to keep doing my best to survive and enjoy whatever of this life I can. Sure, I could kill myself, but that's not a very pleasant thing to do. I'd rather do things like what you mentioned you enjoy, because I enjoy those things too. The cost-benefit ratio of living vs not living, for me, is on the side of living.

 

[pilotjoe]

Take the three and a half minutes and listen to the maestro, NDT, explain the wonder and awe the universe provides us. I'm not speaking for all atheists when I say this, but I think the questions of why are we here, why does it all matter, what is our purpose are akin to asking what is the smell of the color green? I feel what one could call a 'spiritual experience' thinking about how small the odds were for my existence, the realization that we are all made of star stuff and how complexity came from so simple of a beginning. I think we make our own purpose in life rather than having a purpose set for us. The purpose I set for myself is to leave myself/those around me better off than they were yesterday. Be that by kind gestures, volunteering, becoming a physician, improving my relationships, etc., I want to be better than I was yesterday, every day.

 

[didymus]

As far as he and I are concerned, that's reality. I also don't find it depressing or cold. It is what we make of it. I was actually more depressed as a young believer, because I'd look around and see senseless atrocities, like young children raped and murdered, and wonder why an omnipotent, omniscient god would allow such things to happen.

Sounds like we both have "realities" we accept, even if the answers don't sit well. I don't like that God allows people to do horrible things to themselves or others, but I also believe in the critical importance of freedom in human choices, because to the extent the world can be awful, or people can be evil, the world can be good and beautiful, the people can be wonderful and incredibly good. It is a sad, but necessary, reality that people must be allowed to be capable of both incredible good and incredible evil. Again, I'm no fan of bad people and evil acts, but it is the reality of human freedom, central to the Christian understanding of God, that if I am going to believe in it, I must accept it.

Obviously I am someone who has chosen to believe the universe is driven by purpose. For me, accepting a world view that defines existence as purposeless--and that all my efforts and endeavors are futile and empty--defies all reason, and stands totally contrary to the lives that all of us live everyday. It is utterly inconsistent to claim in one breath that we are nothing more than ignorant matter colliding in meaningless interactions, while in the next breath advocating for equal rights for minorities, or for human trafficking to come to an end, or for countries to declare peace in wartime. If there is no value, no value statements or judgments can be made.

 

[didymus]

Take the three and a half minutes and listen to the maestro, NDT, explain the wonder and awe the universe provides us. I'm not speaking for all atheists when I say this, but I think the questions of why are we here, why does it all matter, what is our purpose are akin to asking what is the smell of the color green? I feel what one could call a 'spiritual experience' thinking about how small the odds were for my existence, the realization that we are all made of star stuff and how complexity came from so simple of a beginning. I think we make our own purpose in life rather than having a purpose set for us. The purpose I set for myself is to leave myself/those around me better off than they were yesterday. Be that by kind gestures, volunteering, becoming a physician, improving my relationships, etc., I want to be better than I was yesterday, every day.

I have this video downloaded to my computer. Have enjoyed watching it a few times this last year. I disagree with the premise and conclusions, but I greatly enjoy contemplating the expanse of the universe, and our place in it. Also, when Neil is not talking politics, I enjoy his insight and teachings on cosmology.

 

[didymus]

I don't believe in "evil" or "good" as forces in the world. But as a human being, I can empathize with other human beings. I know what pain feels like, and I don't want to inflict that on another person. I know what it's like to be stolen from and cheated. I know what it's like to be sick. That's what drives my decisions in life, not an arbitrary definition of what's good and what's evil.

Those definitions don't sound arbitrary at all.

 

[didymus]

That's a very good question. I don't think there's an overall "purpose" to life. If there is, I have no idea what it is and will likely never know. It doesn't bother me too much. As long as I keep waking up every day, I'm going to keep doing my best to survive and enjoy whatever of this life I can. Sure, I could kill myself, but that's not a very pleasant thing to do. I'd rather do things like what you mentioned you enjoy, because I enjoy those things too. The cost-benefit ratio of living vs not living, for me, is on the side of living.

I support that.

 

[tdram]

Those definitions don't sound arbitrary at all.

I guess I meant other people's definitions. Like as a kid I my parents told me that drug addicts and prostitutes were "evil" and people who always went to church were "good". The reality is it's not clear cut like that. A lot of regular churchgoers have "bad sides". Similarly, becoming addicted to a substance or being forced to sell your body for money because you're poor and ahve no other options doesn't make you "evil". See what I mean? These definitions people come up with are often arbitrary. My definition is simple. I just try to put myself in that person's shoes and think about what my action would do to them. That's how I decide what I should be doing and I what I shouldn't.

 

[pilotjoe]

There is also Carl Sagan with his Pale Blue Dot monologue that is pretty inspiring.

I think stating "we have no purpose" is something that should come with explanation. Like morality, you do not need a God to have a purpose. Humanitarian acts for the sake of improving peoples' lives is a purpose. I like what Albert Einstein says on the matter of human purpose: "How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose we know not, though sometimes sense it. But we know from daily life that we exist for other people first of all for whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends."

 

[didymus]

I guess I meant other people's definitions. Like as a kid I my parents told me that drug addicts and prostitutes were "evil" and people who always went to church were "good". The reality is it's not clear cut like that. A lot of regular churchgoers have "bad sides". Similarly, becoming addicted to a substance or being forced to sell your body for money because you're poor and ahve no other options doesn't make you "evil". See what I mean? These definitions people come up with are often arbitrary. My definition is simple. I just try to put myself in that person's shoes and think about what my action would do to them. That's how I decide what I should be doing and I what I shouldn't.

It may surprise you to know this, but we have a lot more in common than you may think. Anyway, I absolutely appreciate and respect your position, and I feel I've gained much from discussing these things. It's okay to come to blows every now and again, especially if it leads to a greater understanding of another in the end.

 

[Bearded_Monkey]

.

 

[tdram]

It may surprise you to know this, but we have a lot more in common than you may think. Anyway, I absolutely appreciate and respect your position, and I feel I've gained much from discussing these things. It's okay to come to blows every now and again, especially if it leads to a greater understanding of another in the end.

That's really interesting. I have also found your posts to be very helpful and informative, and I definitely appreciate and respect your position as well. I know where you're coming from. I have certainly gained a lot of perspective on religion from this discussion.

 

[boogaloo]

By "no real practical value," I mean that it is highly unlikely that you actually live as though the quoted is true. Aren't you going into medicine? Are you doing so to help people, or just to "get yours"? If you are doing it to help people, then you don't live out practically the above quote.

No purpose? Then why be a physician? Why do anything at all? Wouldn't non-existence be better than existence in this world of purposelessness and emptiness and suffering?

No evil and no good? Do I even need to explain how you don't approach the world or life practically as if this were true? You have no problem with war, rape, bigotry, oppression, hate? These things aren't evil? Do you believe in a rule of law? What is your belief and support of law based on if so?

You don't believe there is any good? Delicious food, invigorating and enlivening discussion, poetry, film, love between a father and son, giving generously of your abundance to someone less fortunate? No good in the world?

I would venture to guess you do not conduct your life in a way that affirms the universe operates as blind, pitiless indifference. And that is what I mean by no practical value; it's an abstract and unapplied concept, meant more for making a point than actually directing one's life--and it strikes me as something someone would write in a suicide letter. It's hard to imagine any of the other atheists on this thread even supporting it. But perhaps they do.

I still think you are spot on in pointing out that a person's perspective really determines for that person what they find meaningful or not. I accept that we view things differently, and I'm okay with that, just as long as you don't try to live out "practically" your quote above if I'm ever on your operating table

Sounds like we both have "realities" we accept, even if the answers don't sit well. I don't like that God allows people to do horrible things to themselves or others, but I also believe in the critical importance of freedom in human choices, because to the extent the world can be awful, or people can be evil, the world can be good and beautiful, the people can be wonderful and incredibly good. It is a sad, but necessary, reality that people must be allowed to be capable of both incredible good and incredible evil. Again, I'm no fan of bad people and evil acts, but it is the reality of human freedom, central to the Christian understanding of God, that if I am going to believe in it, I must accept it.

Obviously I am someone who has chosen to believe the universe is driven by purpose. For me, accepting a world view that defines existence as purposeless--and that all my efforts and endeavors are futile and empty--defies all reason, and stands totally contrary to the lives that all of us live everyday. It is utterly inconsistent to claim in one breath that we are nothing more than ignorant matter colliding in meaningless interactions, while in the next breath advocating for equal rights for minorities, or for human trafficking to come to an bed, or for countries to declare peace in wartime. If there is no value, no value statements it judgments can be made. Good luck living that world view out to its logical end.

There's really no way I can respond to all of your questions in a timely manner, but I'm glad you posted the last paragraph. I think you are confusing the universe, which is nothing more than ignorant matter colliding in meaningless interactions, with human beings, who have consciousness--and who are advocating for equal rights, human rights, and peace. What you are describing is the human condition: the sum of the features that make us human. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I believe human beings are driven by purpose. Human beings give their lives meaning. The universe may be indifferent, but I am not. I choose to help people because I can.

 

[didymus]

There's really no way I can respond to all of your questions in a timely manner, but I'm glad you posted the last paragraph. I think you are confusing the universe, which is nothing more than ignorant matter colliding in meaningless interactions, with human beings, who have consciousness--and who are advocating for equal rights, human rights, and peace. What you are describing is the human condition: the sum of the features that make us human. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I believe human beings are driven by purpose. Human beings give their lives meaning. The universe may be indifferent, but I am not. I choose to help people because I can.

I haven't thought of it quite like that, and the distinction makes sense. I'll consider it further and try to let it inform my responses in the future (and not just here, but in other conversations I may have with others). I don't care to misrepresent what you think, and I'm glad to get a fuller picture of it. Thanks

 

[pilotjoe]

It may surprise you to know this, but we have a lot more in common than you may think. Anyway, I absolutely appreciate and respect your position, and I feel I've gained much from discussing these things. It's okay to come to blows every now and again, especially if it leads to a greater understanding of another in the end.

I think it is important to note that your beliefs are not in the norm of Christians here in the U.S. I think the statistic I posted way back was 61% of not just Christians, but Americans as a whole, believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is brimstone and fire, demons, parting the Red Sea, the Flood, 10,000 year old universe, etc. Idk if you are from the U.S. or maybe I'm over-exposed having grown up in the Bible belt, but reasons such as hearing people often speak about atheists being possessed are why I am vocal about my disbelief--to a certain extent.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

That's what most Christians think of atheist.

I'm not meaning to downplay your experience/suffering, but most?

I've seen enough of these conversations happen to understand it happens more often than it should (which is never), but I have serious doubts that "most" Christians feel this way.

 

[didymus]

I think it is important to note that your beliefs are not in the norm of Christians here in the U.S. I think the statistic I posted way back was 61% of not just Christians, but Americans as a whole, believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is brimstone and fire, demons, parting the Red Sea, the Flood, 10,000 year old universe, etc. Idk if you are from the U.S. or maybe I'm over-exposed having grown up in the Bible belt, but reasons such as hearing people often speak about atheists being possessed are why I am vocal about my disbelief--to a certain extent.

I am from the states, actually, and was even raised in the Bible Belt (though I was not raised going to church), so I know what you're talking about. But I became Eastern Orthodox at 29, and it is a church that is very small in the US, though it is the 2nd largest Christian body in the world.

It's a church that is far from americentric, and one that was largely uninvolved in most of the Western expansion and redefinition of Christianity. It's quite refreshing since my church is full of Syrian, Russian, Greek, Lebanese, and Ethiopian people. The church I attend in particular is fairly politically liberal, at least as far as American politics are concerned, since it has a heavily immigrant, and highly educated congregation (though we have a smattering of Libertarians and Conservatives as well--it's just really diverse), and people are often surprised when they learn that the church isn't a pro-Israel, apocalyptic-rapture, American flag waving, Republican HQ.

Anyway, I think one thing we probably share in common is debating biblical literalists whenever they make the six-day-creation theory heard. Something my priest told me after that "The Bible" miniseries aired on the History Channel, was, "When people take the creation story in Genesis literally, it looks absolutely insane." Also, it's shameful that you had to endure people claiming you were "possessed" because you're an atheist, as opposed to just accepting that you are a perfectly normal human being who just happens to have genuine disagreements about how we came to be here. Though I've never encountered such a thing myself, I can imagine how infuriating that would be, and I would probably pull out the big guns on someone if they said that to me, too.

 

[pilotjoe]

I apologize if I came off on the big guns on you, I should have gotten your POV initially. I'm definitely not used to discussing religion with someone with an Eastern Orthodox take on Christianity, though I've heard about it a few times. I'm glad I got to hear your perspective, it was definitely refreshing. All the best.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

Why are religious people so fragile in their beliefs that any criticism leads you to drop the conversation and run away? Sounds like you have some doubts yourself.

The problem is not that you are "discussing" it, the problem is that you're being a jack-ass. If you can't see how comparing a belief system to a mental disorder is insulting, I think you're the one with the issue.

 

[tdram]

The problem is not that you are "discussing" it, the problem is that you're being a jack-ass. If you can't see how comparing a belief system to a mental disorder is insulting, I think you're the one with the issue.

Actually, it's your attitude towards mental disorders that's disturbing and part of the reason why mental disorders have such a stigma in our culture today.