Atheism vs Theism

Another view--from an ex-atheist

I'm quoting A.S.A. Jones here:

Learning to think spiritually isn't about accepting the supernatural. I am referring to that part of the human intellect that allows the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated. It is the same skill involved in interpreting poetry or in detecting the nuances that are present in higher literature. Most people already have this ability; they just need to learn how to apply it when it comes to the issue of God.

If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God, I recommend that you first read "The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff. It's short, sweet and easy to understand. Atheistic in its philosophy, this book will put you on the path to understanding truth in paradox. A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not. "The Tao of Pooh" removed much of my arrogance and knocked the owl right out of me, effectively diminishing two barriers that had allowed me to shut God out of my perception.

http://www.geocities.com/buddychai2/Opticals/02Optical.html#TWOFACESf
Which do you see? A face behind a candlestick, or two faces looking at a candlestick? There is no change in information yet the information can be interpreted in two ways. Neither interpretation can logically be proven to be more correct.We all have access to the same data concerning reality, but our interpretation of that reality can be a matter of focus. It's the same with seeing the reality of God; Focus on the material (for which there is concrete and objective evidence) and the immaterial (character assessment, basis of morality, etc.), along with God, will vanish.

This is a stereogram: http://www.eyetricks.com/3dstereo20.htm Like many others, I saw the gospel as a bunch of scribbles; I thought it was just a bunch of nonsense until my focus changed. At first glance, the eye detects only patterns of scribble. You may try to make sense of the scribbles in the same way that people will look up into the sky and pick out clouds that resemble familiar objects. If you look at this picture long enough, you may imagine seeing faces or animals in it, but if you only look directly at the picture, anything you see will only have a subjective reality. In other words, what you are seeing isn't really there, but merely a construct of your imagination.

However, this picture contains an objective reality. If you aren't familiar with this type of artwork, and if you haven't experienced seeing one of these hidden three dimensional images pop into view, you may think that I am a liar or a lunatic when I tell you that this poster contains a definitive and detailed image of a galloping horse. I am telling you that something exists based on my own visual perception and, until you see it for yourself, you won't have any reason to believe me.

When I read the Bible with the mindset in which it was intended to be read, I perceived the objective reality of its god. Just like with this poster, if you only look at it superficially, you won't see the hidden picture. The visual effect of a stereogram is produced through the careful placement of points comprising one image from two slightly different perspectives. You need two eyes to see the hidden 3-D picture. If you cover one eye, you will lose the image; its picture is a function of depth. The Bible is a spiritual stereogram and its effect, the perception of the reality of God, is produced through a careful design of ambiguity and paradox, which allow you to discover truth from different perspectives. You need two aspects of the intellect to see the reality of God in its pages; you need to utilize both the logical and spiritual (or poetic) component of your thinking to see Him. If you use only one in the absence of the other, you will lose the effect. It's like covering one eye. The truth of the Bible, like the poster, is also a function of depth. I think that the reason why a lot of people aren't seeing its truth today is because we have become a nation of shallow thinkers.

The spiritual, or intellectual effect that is produced in the Bible is no less powerful than the visual effect found in the stereogram. When you 'see' it, you'll know it. The hidden picture in both the Bible and the stereogram isn't the product of a child's random scribbling. Both are a product of intentional design. The Bible was written in three different continents over a span of 1500 years and in three different languages, yet it remains consistent in its inconsistencies, ambiguities, paradoxes and ironies. It may have been penned by over forty men, but it is evident to me that it was designed and directed by one author, by one mind. His signature is all through it! To create such a book, with no higher direction to maintain these common threads and produce the effect, would be the equivalent of creating the stereogram by accident. It ain't gonna' happen. And that's why I believe this book is inspired by the God it describes.

When you find yourself being criticized for your belief in God, keep in mind the following: You know that something exists from a primary perception and you are being told by one who has not yet had the perception that it cannot be real. It's like being at Kitty Hawk and witnessing the Wright brothers' first flight only to come home and have some egghead patronizingly explain to you, in great scientific detail, that heavier than air flight is 'utterly' impossible. This really did happen. Up to a year after their initial flights, Scientific American, the U.S. Army and most American scientists still thought that the Wrights were guilty of playing a hoax on the American public. What would you do if you found yourself in this dilemma? You were there! You saw the plane take off and land! So did many others. You can either dismiss the argument of the egghead as coming from his own ignorance and lack of perception, or you can begin to doubt your own perception and question your sanity along with your ability to reason. Did you REALLY see that plane take off? Maybe you just imagined it all. Our senses can play tricks on us, but they can also inform us of reality. How do you know if your senses are being deceived?

If I ever begin to doubt that I actually saw a galloping horse in the above stereogram, all I have to do is look at it again and when it comes back into focus, I have my confirmation that it is there. This is why a Christian always keeps his good book handy. If I ever begin to doubt that my perception of God is valid, all I have to do is pick up the Bible and start reading, and, sure enough, His reality comes back into focus and I have my confirmation. I get the impression that a lot of Christians who were raised up in the church take their faith for granted. Their belief that the horse is real, isn't based on their own perception of it, because they've never managed to see it for themselves. Instead, their belief that the horse is real is based only on the testimony of others who claim to have seen it. See Him for yourself! If you haven't yet seen it first hand, it will blow you away when you finally do. It's the difference between knowing God and knowing about God.

More to Life than Logic

This is a continuation of Jones' essay:
When one starts thinking spiritually, it isn't that they are thinking unclearly or illogically. They are simply thinking from a different perspective.

Many principles, such as love, kindness, unselfishness and mercy, which are readily accepted as good by both Christians and non-Christians, can be destroyed by logic. For example, examine the following logical argument:

1. To be just, one must give to another exactly what that individual deserves to get, no more and no less.
2. To be fair, one must treat everyone equally.
3. To be merciful is to give an individual more than what they deserve to get (in reward) or less than what they deserve to get (in punishment).
4. Being merciful is therefore unjust.
5. Unless everyone can be treated with the same degree of mercy or kindness, to be merciful or kind to any one person is to be unfair.

The consequence of attempting to live by this logical, sound and valid conclusion wouldn't be desirable. The above argument would demand that we not give to one person in need if we couldn't give the same amount to every person in need. Before we gave anything to anyone, they must be worthy of it. We would find ourselves living in a world without grace, without mercy, without forgiveness and without kindness. We would find ourselves justifying revenge and holding grudges and keeping score, all in order to be fair and just. How can logic result in such a world? What is wrong with the above argument?

Because logic or surface thinking can destroy that which is good and logically justify both good and bad behavior, the spiritual mind is not only useful when it comes to discerning that which is good, but it is necessary to have in order to actually do that which is good, especially when a person finds themselves outside of the influence of societal pressures. I can give you all kinds of logical reasons not to give any of my hard-earned money away to charity. In fact, years ago, when I had an excellent salary, I managed to not donate a dime to anyone and I felt totally justified. But in loving Jesus Christ, I acquired His spirit of giving. This spirit became me; I owned it, I didn't have to act it. Spiritual thinking allows a person to be changed from the inside. Our minds and our laws might OBLIGATE us to do good, but our spirit DESIRES us to do good.

As a skeptic, I always asked Christians for proof of their souls or proof of their god; how did they KNOW, as they claimed, that their belief was sound? When I finally 'saw' what they 'saw', I tried to convey this evidence, but found that I was no more articulate in my attempts than they were in theirs.

In John 18:37, Jesus says, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." In Mark 4:9, He says, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." As an atheist, this seemed nothing more to me than a bit of circular logic. Nevertheless, when my ears were opened, it proved itself to be true.

To those who are blind, we can intellectually explain how color is created by varying wavelengths of light and how those wavelengths are detected by the eye, but we can't tell them what the color red looks like. To those who are deaf, we can intellectually explain how sound waves are produced and how it is that sound waves are detected, but we can't explain what a noise sounds like. It is no different with the spiritually deaf. We can try to explain but we can't make a non-believer recognize the truth that has become obvious to us. No one is able to transfer a perception to another, but we can try to remove the intellectual barriers that allow people to remain blind to that truth.

It wasn't that I was without the capability to perceive the truth; my obstinacy wouldn't allow me to see it. I was too full of myself and too blinded by what I thought were logically sound arguments to see that which was right under my nose.

Just as God can be perceived, He can also be shut out. We train our senses to tune out certain stimuli, such as the noise of traffic, or joint pain, which comes with age (I never knew how much pain I was in until a pain pill took it all away!). A large ego doesn't want to submit to any authority. A self-sufficient and self-righteous person believes they have no need of God. The immoral want to continue in their activities with a free conscience. Pride in my intellect and my anti-Christian bigotry allowed me to shut Him out for over twenty years.

It's as if the truth of God is being spoken all around us, but we can't always hear it. This world teaches us to tune Him out. His spirit is like the low pitched hum of a fluorescent light. If you busy yourself with distraction, or if you keep your own thoughts turned up so high in your head, you won't even notice the light. Picture yourself in a large crowd of people. If you are in the midst of the crowd, concentrating on your own thoughts, the conversations around you become a drone in which no particular words can be discerned. But if you focus your hearing on one voice or another, you find that you can follow a conversation. You have to be still. You have to be quiet. You have to train yourself to listen for it, and if you do all of those things, you will hear Him. You will have tuned into God.

What if merciful meant compassionate? Would that not enable fairness, justness, and mercy to all work in conjunction with each other?

Going on here, you as a Christian then found it natural to give, to be generous, and that is what I would call a good theology. Although I would say, as Gandhi did, that there are many paths to the higher realizations of true happiness, that being empathy (compassion is a part of that), gratitude, awe, wonder, and serenity. Christianity really does work very well for some people, as it does for my mother. However, myself, having tried to fit everything into objective science and the law of love, found Christianity impossible to reason, and therefore caused me a whole lot of confusion.

Buddhism brought me a lot closer to these higher understandings, and I don't see how believeing in only one God, or many, or none, makes any difference in gaining these higher realization. To me, one perspective works better than another for some people, and Christianity is just one.

I would agree that many don't actually know what you would call God. Many are brought up in a certain religion or ideology, and not having questioned or taken any of these seriously, don't realize what it really means to be a Christian, or what it really means to be a Buddhist. Both are just ways of finding happiness in empathy, gratitude, serenity, and the need to live in the moment. A lot of people having been taught these from a young age probably don't know the true meaning of these, and in that would I say it is dangerous to teach one's higher understandings, cause that seems something a child must come to on his/her own.

Christianity, and all the books of the Bible are consistent on some points, but very inconsistent on others. In the end, one must go to philosophy to carefully examine whether it is consistent. A God of Compassion who chose but one people, not extending His compassion to others? It was too hard for me to swallow, or reason out.

Onto another point. The loss of ego is what all the major religions try to instill.

Interestingly, Karen Armstrong (I like her books quite a lot if you haven't noticed), also said that during her seven years as a nun, she wasn't able to comprehend God or come any nearer to Him. It was when she studied the theology of the mystics did God make more sense to her, and that she had failed to see this because she was caught up in reason and logic.

Anyways, God remains a very difficult theology. While some would maintain that God is a personal God, and He is involved with our everyday life, others, and especially after events like the Holocaust, found that theology far far too difficult to swallow.

Pararousia said:

When one starts thinking spiritually, it isn't that they are thinking unclearly or illogically. They are simply thinking from a different perspective.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The perspective as always been the same for me. The problem is that most theists cannot understand that, otherwise they would be deist, pantheist or aheist. Let me explain below.

Many principles, such as love, kindness, unselfishness and mercy, which are readily accepted as good by both Christians and non-Christians, can be destroyed by logic. For example, examine the following logical argument:

Click to expand...

These values can be either destroyed or supported by logics. Don't underestimate the power of logics. Logics is a pathway to many abilities some consider unnatural. :evil:
Let us see one by one :

1. To be just, one must give to another exactly what that individual deserves to get, no more and no less.

Click to expand...

This is a twisted definition of "justness". Is that what the Christian believe in ? Logics dictates that every situation should be treated on a case by case basis, taking into consideration all the factors that may have influenced a person to act the way they did. In the case of amical relationships, people should consider their own feelings toward the other person too, and the consequences their reaction/punishment may have for this relationship. This is not strictly speaking "logics" by "reason". Logics is only one of the (most powerful) servants of reason. But common sense is another.

2. To be fair, one must treat everyone equally.

Click to expand...

Why ? Fair about what ? It is one of the biggest mistakes of Christian to believe that every human being should treat every other human being equally. It is so obviously not true and totally impossible for the human character to do that. We are not robots. We are social beings with emotions, personal preferences, memories and even chemical attractions (pheromone, etc.). Therefore, we cannot treat all others individuals equally. This would be utterly illogical, as it would go against our personal feelings, family ties, and ultimately against our own interests and survival. Logics is based on the law of nature. Anyone that uses logics with twisted religious values will only come to nonsensical conclusions. That is why it is necessary to know nature well (through sciences, psychology, introspection, personal observations and common sense) before starting to try to think logically. If you play with a real knife thinking it's only a toy, you will end up hurting yourself (and not use the knife for its intended purpose).

3. To be merciful is to give an individual more than what they deserve to get (in reward) or less than what they deserve to get (in punishment).

Click to expand...

This is again a Christian value. This is entirely up to one's own feelings and treated again in a case by case basis. The problem with religions is that they give general rules that may not apply to everyone or not in every situation, and are rarely clear about how to proceed. That's why I say that religion is only for people who cannot think by themselves, and need somebody to tell them how to live and behave in exemplified situations, but will usually end up messing it up by their lack of brains.

4. Being merciful is therefore unjust.

Click to expand...

Twisted logics based on the previous twisted arguments with no grounds in the real world (i.e. Nature).

5. Unless everyone can be treated with the same degree of mercy or kindness, to be merciful or kind to any one person is to be unfair.

Click to expand...

Thank you, it was a nice example of narrow-mindedness, poor rational skills, little knowledge of the real world and utter lack of common sense.

Is that what you believe in, Pararousia ? Do you believe in people who right or say such things from your own free will and judged by your own rational abilities ? Very disappointing. You have been misled. I know it can be difficult to throw away what one has believed all one's life, but sometime it is better to pass through an intense phase of questioning and come out looking at the world as it is, without distortions. You will feel refreshed and see things completely differently.

Maciamo, although I am not an atheist, I thought your post above was very good.

Maciamo said:

That's why I say that religion is only for people who cannot think by themselves, and need somebody to tell them how to live and behave in exemplified situations, but will usually end up messing it up by their lack of brains.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that view and might have found it offensive (if I was more easily offended... lol). There are many non-atheist people who are able to think, in a clear and logical way, by (and for) themselves. "Religion" is not a question of "following rules"; anyone who belongs to a religion and thinks that is somehow immature and misguided in their outlook.

I am not well able to explain why and how "religion" is more than "following rules". Maybe someone with a religion who is more intelligent and articulate than me would be able to step in here and expand on this...? :clueless: :sorry:

"Religion" (in the sense of a formalised structure rather than a personal belief in a deity/deities) also helps a person to have an informed conscience in respect of moral and ethical issues. Of course, atheists do not necessarily have a purely "selfish" viewpoint on such issues, for example may be humanists or such. (But technically speaking there is no reason why there should be any universal "ethical" standards of behaviour or acceptable attitudes if there is no deity/prime force.)

Pararousia said:

1. To be just, one must give to another exactly what that individual deserves to get, no more and no less.
2. To be fair, one must treat everyone equally.
3. To be merciful is to give an individual more than what they deserve to get (in reward) or less than what they deserve to get (in punishment).
4. Being merciful is therefore unjust.
5. Unless everyone can be treated with the same degree of mercy or kindness, to be merciful or kind to any one person is to be unfair.

Click to expand...

1. To be just is to do whatever is best for everyone involved, i.e. greatest good for the greatest number
2. To be fair is to be just
3. To be merciful is to be compassionate (thanks Revenant) regardless of our arrogant opinion about what a person 'deserves'.
4. Being merciful can be just or unjust, depending on the situation
5. To be merciful (compassionate) may sometimes be preferable to being just.

I enjoyed Pararousia's post very much. I come to different conclusions, however. I think that just because there are things, like the pictures she mentions, which can be two things simultaneously, and that you can know something that others are blind to, etc., that in and of itself does not necessarily mean that there is a god or gods. I think it opens the possibility, but more specifically, I think that it teaches us no more than we have to be humble with the knowledge we have or think we have and keep an open mind towards many possibilities.
Pararousia's god may very well exist. I will not say 100% that it doesn't, because no matter how much I know, it will still pale in comparison with what I don't know. I am willing to admit that there are things that even if I was taught, I would still never understand. So I can deny this god outright.
But on the same grounds, I can not rule out any other god or gods, either. If I take the possibility that the Bible is indeed true, I must take the possibility that say Shinto tales and beliefs are true in turn, because I do not and never will know for certain which is really true. Just because there are ancient writings saying A and B doesn't necessarily mean that A and B are true. What I am saying here is, in my estimation, very heretical, because I can use it to argue that we shouldn't try to learn and discover the truth. I do not wish to make this argument, however.
You see, I think that we should try to search for truth and knowledge, and at the same time keep in mind that we never actually will attain this goal. I do not find this to mean that there is then no reason to try, because what is, simply is. And though I can not explain it, knowing that is enough for me.
Many people will disagree with me. I say, let them disagree. No one is 100% right, and no one is 100% wrong. Who's to say what the actual truth is? I do not think that a single person on this planet is qualified, and I don't mind a bit.

Kinsao said:

I disagree with that view and might have found it offensive (if I was more easily offended... lol). There are many non-atheist people who are able to think, in a clear and logical way, by (and for) themselves. "Religion" is not a question of "following rules"; anyone who belongs to a religion and thinks that is somehow immature and misguided in their outlook.

Click to expand...

But what do you call religions if it's not about following the rules. Don't forget that you can believe in god(s) and not have a religion (e.g. the Deist and some Panteists or Animists).

"Religion" (in the sense of a formalised structure rather than a personal belief in a deity/deities) also helps a person to have an informed conscience in respect of moral and ethical issues.

Click to expand...

A personal belief is never considered as religion. It is just a (religious or spiritual) belief. Nowadays many people who consider themselves religious and believe in god do not belong to any religion, i.e. formally established organisation with places of worship (churchs, temples...) and a set of common rules and beliefs between its members.

As for moral and ethical issues, they are not only taught by religions, but also by philosophy (ethics is a branch of philosophy). Some philosophers are religious, others are not but believe in god, and others are atheists or agnostics. I sincerely believe that philosophy does a much better job in teaching morals, because it uses reason to analyse the various types of morals of each religion, measures the pros and cons, and this way gives the individual the chance to determine by themselves what values are the most important for them. Thus, people who aquire moral values through philosophy tend to be more consistent in their behaviour as they understand thoroughly the how and why morals function, and how and why they should react this or that way in a given situation.

Of course, atheists do not necessarily have a purely "selfish" viewpoint on such issues, for example may be humanists or such. (But technically speaking there is no reason why there should be any universal "ethical" standards of behaviour or acceptable attitudes if there is no deity/prime force.)

Click to expand...

Humanism is more closely linked to "strong atheism" or deism than theism, because it is a philosopical and reasoned approach of life based on relativism and universalism, both of which conflict with most monotheist values.

In other words, only religion-less people can be truly moral and humanist, since people following the rules of a particular religion do not have the freedom to doubt their religion's teachings, or deviate from maladapted morals, without becoming heretics (therefore losing their religion for the profit of their personal beliefs).

Many people think that they belong to a religion but in fact disagree on many points with it, and consequently are not true followers of this religion, but people who have based their personal beliefs on parts of that religion. For example, the Hippies are heavily inspired by the New Testament but cannot be considered Christian (even if they believe in god), as they typically reject the values of the Old Testament. They would be Christian-inspired deists, but not Christians.

In my opinion, most people nowadays do not care enough about the definition of "religion" and may think they are Christian of one type (Catholics, Baptists, Lutheran...) but in fact be much closer in belief to Christian of another type, or deists or agnostics (if they have any doubt in this existence of god).

Just remember that it is a mistake to talk of "on measure religion" if there is only one member of that 'religion'. It is an "on measure belief".

All this to explain that "religion is only for people who cannot think by themselves, and need somebody to tell them how to live and behave in exemplified situations". Others can create their own belief system, with or without god, with or without elements taken from established and recognised religions.

Some people won't think carefully, whether they are monotheists, animists, or atheists. The Christian who feels it is their job to ensure Christian morals are upheld, to the atheist who hatefully denounces Christians for being hateful. Neither think carefully in my opinion.

Religion wouldn't be around were it not fulfilling some quota for happiness. It is after all happiness that we are all after, and if religion brings someone happiness, then I would say it is a good thing for the most part. Not everyone has the mental faculties or the desire to get into philosophy, and while a few of the religious morals can no longer be considered to have validity (such as the laws against homosexuality), I do think that most of the morals are very good.

So if religions bring happiness, and happiness is needed to better engage kindness, then religion can't really be said to be for the weak, as the weak are usually those who are less than happy.

Pararousia said:

If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God, I recommend that you first read "The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff. It's short, sweet and easy to understand. Atheistic in its philosophy, this book will put you on the path to understanding truth in paradox. A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not. "The Tao of Pooh" removed much of my arrogance and knocked the owl right out of me, effectively diminishing two barriers that had allowed me to shut God out of my perception.

Click to expand...

I've read this book, plus the follow up "The Ti of Piglet". They do give a nice taoist view on the world and are well worth reading , whether you are a believer or not. Didn't change my mind on the non-existance of God, but they help make you look on the world in a different light

Maciamo said:

All this to explain that "religion is only for people who cannot think by themselves, and need somebody to tell them how to live and behave in exemplified situations". Others can create their own belief system, with or without god, with or without elements taken from established and recognised religions.

Click to expand...

Lol Mycernius... I disagree with what you say... but I will defend to the death your right to say it!

Of course, you are right that "belief" or "spirituality" and whatnot on a personal level are a different thing from "religion" (or more specifically, what you might call "organised religion"). :relief:

I'll make my first post here :wave:

Religion wouldn't be around were it not fulfilling some quota for happiness. It is after all happiness that we are all after, and if religion brings someone happiness, then I would say it is a good thing for the most part.

Click to expand...

While I think religion can make some people happy, you have to remember that most religious people didn't exactly choose to believe, they were rather indocrineted by their family and/or society since their childhood (before the age of reason). So, they can't say they are happier being christian or whatever if they were one their whole life. How can someone be sure something is better if they never "tasted" the other side?

So if religions bring happiness, and happiness is needed to better engage kindness, then religion can't really be said to be for the weak, as the weak are usually those who are less than happy.

Click to expand...

I'm I the only one who see a contradiction here? If the weak are unhappy (wich I don't agree) and religion bring happiness (which I again don't agree), how can you say religion is not for the weak?

Sorry for the crapy English :relief:

Welcome to the forum kumo ! :wave:

kumo said:

While I think religion can make some people happy, you have to remember that most religious people didn't exactly choose to believe, they were rather indocrineted by their family and/or society since their childhood (before the age of reason). So, they can't say they are happier being christian or whatever if they were one their whole life. How can someone be sure something is better if they never "tasted" the other side?

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was thinking. There are few if any "strong atheists" who have never 'tasted' to religion (esp. Christianity), but hardly any theists who understand philosophy, reason or logics as well as atheists.

kumo said:

I'll make my first post here :wave:

Click to expand...

Welcome! How dare you contradict me on your first post!

kumo said:

While I think religion can make some people happy, you have to remember that most religious people didn't exactly choose to believe, they were rather indocrineted by their family and/or society since their childhood (before the age of reason). So, they can't say they are happier being christian or whatever if they were one their whole life. How can someone be sure something is better if they never "tasted" the other side?

Click to expand...

If they were indoctrinated, I think those that don't question their indoctrination have no reason to. They are satsified with the indoctrination they recieved. As one Christian put it, 'I will go with the 80% that I do understand'. If they aren't satisfied, they will go the route of Maciamo and I. They will question until they find answers they are more satisfied with.

kumo said:

I'm I the only one who see a contradiction here? If the weak are unhappy (wich I don't agree) and religion bring happiness (which I again don't agree), how can you say religion is not for the weak?

Click to expand...

It is in my experience, that those who lack desire, awe, wonder, and true empathy are unhappy. They are more likely to take on pessimistic views, feeling themselves victims, and this I see as not being emotionally strong. Those who are strong are emotionally strong, as emotions are the driving force behind every action. Emotion is what makes a person strong (meaning the emotions one experiences regularly).

And I would agree with Maciamo that there are few monotheists that get into philosophy, although I do know two very philosphical Christians, one who inhabits the religion subforum in the Philosophy forum, and another on Nobody Hates forum. But not everyone can understand philosophy, or are actually interested in it's finer arguments.

Don't throw away the spiritual realities

Maciamo:

Is that what you believe in, Pararousia ? Do you believe in people who right or say such things from your own free will and judged by your own rational abilities ? Very disappointing. You have been misled. I know it can be difficult to throw away what one has believed all one's life, but sometime it is better to pass through an intense phase of questioning and come out looking at the world as it is, without distortions. You will feel refreshed and see things completely differently.

Click to expand...

"At one time, we (I) too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us (me), not because of righteous things we (I) had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out in us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying."

If they were indoctrinated, I think those that don't question their indoctrination have no reason to. They are satsified with the indoctrination they recieved. As one Christian put it, 'I will go with the 80% that I do understand'.

Click to expand...

People can be happy with pretty much anything, but just believing something because it makes you happy is not very intellectually honest. This is just falling to the "ignorance is bliss" argument. Besides, someone who doesn't want to think about their own believes shouldn't be so eager to preach it on everyone (yes, even on their children), yet most Christians do it all the time kashii:

It is in my experience, that those who lack desire, awe, wonder, and true empathy are unhappy. They are more likely to take on pessimistic views, feeling themselves victims, and this I see as not being emotionally strong.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think this description fits much better religious people than non-religious ones (well, maybe not buddhists). I think desire for real knowledge is much more fulfilling than trying to destroy your own logic in order to accept the religion's "truth".

Those who are strong are emotionally strong, as emotions are the driving force behind every action. Emotion is what makes a person strong (meaning the emotions one experiences regularly).

Click to expand...

Agreed again, though I can't see how this have any relation to religion.

kumo said:

People can be happy with pretty much anything, but just believing something because it makes you happy is not very intellectually honest. This is just falling to the "ignorance is bliss" argument. Besides, someone who doesn't want to think about their own believes shouldn't be so eager to preach it on everyone (yes, even on their children), yet most Christians do it all the time kashii:

Click to expand...

It may not be intellectual honest, but people like my mother, can be very compassionate, while overlooking that which they can't explain. In the end, a theology which allows someone to be compassionate, in itself a fulfilment of personal happiness, is to me at least what is most important in life. Having compassion means a much happier existence than just having intellectual abilities.

kumo said:

I agree, but I think this description fits much better religious people than non-religious ones (well, maybe not buddhists). I think desire for real knowledge is much more fulfilling than trying to destroy your own logic in order to accept the religion's "truth".

Click to expand...

A lot of those who remain religious have a certain amount of awe. They are in awe of nature, or what they would call creation. Some of the laws and theologies are indeed hard to reason, I'll completely agree. But awe at 'creation', and compassion, are indeed forms of happiness. A lot of religious people do have these. For example, a Christian will see the truth in 'love your neighbor as yourself' (I know it's not particular to the Christian faith) and they will do what they can to fulfil this.

kumo said:

Agreed again, though I can't see how this have any relation to religion.

Click to expand...

Awe, empathy (compassion being a part of empathy) and connection (within an organized religion) all make people happier. They also find happiness within a set of beliefs that they hold strongly.

It may not be intellectual honest, but people like my mother, can be very compassionate, while overlooking that which they can't explain. In the end, a theology which allows someone to be compassionate, in itself a fulfilment of personal happiness, is to me at least what is most important in life. Having compassion means a much happier existence than just having intellectual abilities.

Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is that being compassionate is totally possible, if not easier, when you are not religious. I think human beings are naturally caring about others in order to live in society, we don't need someone to teach us that. In other words, all the possible benefits religion can bring to us are already inherent human traits. Which do you think is more moral: being good because you just want to or being good fearing punishment and expecting a reward?

A lot of those who remain religious have a certain amount of awe. They are in awe of nature, or what they would call creation. Some of the laws and theologies are indeed hard to reason, I'll completely agree. But awe at 'creation', and compassion, are indeed forms of happiness. A lot of religious people do have these. For example, a Christian will see the truth in 'love your neighbor as yourself' (I know it's not particular to the Christian faith) and they will do what they can to fulfil this.

Click to expand...

Being a atheist doesn't make you emotionless. Reality is equally impressive whether it was created by a god or not.

Trying to expand on my point earlier:
It's not a problem of whether the person is happy or not being a Christian, simply because a person's religion is not the only source of happiness. If someone is born blind and is a happy person, that doesn't mean that being blind is a good thing or that said person wouldn't be happier without such problem. Indoctrination works in such a way that it's not much different than a "born trait"(or however you say it). It is very possible that a person's religion is actually hindering their happiness, even if they are already "happy enough", but they wouldn't realize it anyway because they never "tasted" the other side.
I'm not saying all Christians would be better off without their faith, but those who would are not rare at all.

ps: how do I include the poster nickname into the quotes?

kumo said:

What I'm trying to say is that being compassionate is totally possible, if not easier, when you are not religious. I think human beings are naturally caring about others in order to live in society, we don't need someone to teach us that. In other words, all the possible benefits religion can bring to us are already inherent human traits. Which do you think is more moral: being good because you just want to or being good fearing punishment and expecting a reward?

Click to expand...

I agree that humans are naturally caring, to an extent. The various religions do however demand more than what would come naturally, such as the Christian and Buddhist teachings of love for even the enemy. That isn't something that most people would do naturally, and does require a 'higher' understanding. That isn't to say that religion is the only way to these 'higher' understandings. I'm just saying that I don't quite agree that compassion to everyone is an inherent trait.

And I would say that being moral cause one wants to be is more moral, and that certainly, some religious people (although not only including) get caught up in the hope for future happiness, while forgetting that happiness can only be experienced in the present. A higher setpoint of happiness is required to better engage empathy (I said that already, didn't I?). A religious person may hope for a perfect heaven, or nirvana, cause they don't like the present moment. But then a non-religious person can do the same in their hope for more happiness set in the conditions of a new car, a new house, etc.

A few religious people do have it harsh, having been inculcated with a fear of making a mistake, and being thrown into the fires of eternal torment for belonging to the wrong denomination.

However, I think a lot of religious people do not think a whole lot about the future of heaven or hell. They go through life like all other people, thinking of the near future.

kumo said:

Being a atheist doesn't make you emotionless. Reality is equally impressive whether it was created by a god or not.

Click to expand...

That is a perspective that works very well for some people, and to me it seems simpler than trying to reason out the thologies of the monotheistic faiths.

Religions may have begun when people felt the awe and wonder of nature, as well as stumbling across certain kinds of meditations, therefore wanting to put a name or names to these feelings they got. While for others, it is very comforting to feel there is a larger than life being watching over them.

I think it really depends on what perspective works for each person.

kumo said:

Trying to expand on my point earlier:
It's not a problem of whether the person is happy or not being a Christian, simply because a person's religion is not the only source of happiness. If someone is born blind and is a happy person, that doesn't mean that being blind is a good thing or that said person wouldn't be happier without such problem. Indoctrination works in such a way that it's not much different than a "born trait"(or however you say it). It is very possible that a person's religion is actually hindering their happiness, even if they are already "happy enough", but they wouldn't realize it anyway because they never "tasted" the other side.
I'm not saying all Christians would be better off without their faith, but those who would are not rare at all.

Click to expand...

Religion isn't the only source of happiness, agreed. But for some people, it is the a very good route, and perhaps even the best route to happiness. As I put forth earlier, different perspectives work well for different people.

kumo said:

ps: how do I include the poster nickname into the quotes?

Click to expand...

The first part goes as follows----->

kumo said:

, the last part remains the same as it is in your previous quotes.

Click to expand...

Revenant said:

If they were indoctrinated, I think those that don't question their indoctrination have no reason to. They are satsified with the indoctrination they recieved. As one Christian put it, 'I will go with the 80% that I do understand'. If they aren't satisfied, they will go the route of Maciamo and I. They will question until they find answers they are more satisfied with.

Click to expand...

In some societies it is just impossile for ordinary people (given their education and knowledge of the world) to question religion. I am thinking especially about Muslim countries. When all the people around you are Muslim or Christian and that you have always been told that anything else is bad or that you should beware of the lies of the unbelievers, where would the original doubt come from. This is even truer in conventionalist and collectivist societies (like Mulsim ones), where individuality is not valued much and people need to believe in the same religion as the group to feel integrated into society. Even if a very independent-minded and very insightful, educated and inquisitive person came out of the lot and realised the errors of religion, it would be best for them to shut up if they don't want to be rejected (or lynched) by the rest of the group.

In fact, this has always been true until the elite itself starts questioning religion and encourage ordinary people to do so. It only started in the 18th century in Europe, but went back again in the 19th, and "religious liberation" came only in the 1960's and 70's. The minority of intellectuals who questioned religion were always persecuted by religious authorities in the Middles Ages, and even as far as the 17th century (e.g. Gallileo, whose aim was not even to fight religion but just to point out a few factual mistakes in the Bible).

The first serious questioning of Christianity by intellectuals came with the translations of Aristotle's works by Averroes (an Andalucian-Arab philosopher). The translations quickly made their way to the Sorbonne University in Paris, and although the Church swiftly denouced them, it eventually led to the loss of faith of the Renaissance and the development of Humanism. People were going back to their Greco-Roman heritage because it was were the truth was. Note that every period of (European) history that saw a weakening of religion for the profit of philosophy was considered as a "golden age" (Classical Greece and Rome, Renaissance, Enlightenment, 1960's and early 70's...), while those when religion became stronger was seen as a "dark age" (late Roman Empire, most of the Middles Ages, Inquisition, today's Bush Administration, etc.).

In conclusion, ordinary people living in completely monotheist societies cannot easily escape religion without facing presecution or rejection from the group. Why because monotheist religions are fundamentally intolerant and most of their followers cannot accept atheism (although another monotheism might be a bit more acceptable to them).

Therefore, a society that is too religious is not free anymore (even tried to shout that you were an atheist in Mississipi or Alabama and see what happens ?). The first governments to declare complete freedom of religion were headed by atheists : the USA of 1776 with Jefferson as leading athesit, the France of 1789 led by atheist and deist revolutionaries, India in 1947 with the atheist Nehru as the Prime Minister, or modern EU governments. Note the false freedom of religion in today's USA, when the national motto is "God bless America" or "In God We trust" (both mid-20th century additions) simply decalring that atheists are not welcome, and indeed president Bush Sr. has declared that "atheists should not even be considered as citizens". This is where society goes when strongly religious people lead the government.

All this to say that I disagree that people who don't question their indoctrination have no reason to taste to atheism. If society allows it, they should at least try to understand atheist arguments and see things diffrently. The problem is that most of the "true" Christians and Muslims live in totally closed societies (for Christians, I am thinking to the so-called "Jesus land" States). Where is poverty and misery higher ? In the US Deep South or atheist parts of the US and Europe (it's difficult to determine atheist areas of the US, as they are always mixed with poorer religious Hispanic or Black minorities) ? In Muslim countries or in Europe and Japan ?