Why is it the longer an idea goes without evidence in our short lifetimes, they become less plausible. I am agnostic, but every day I feel more persuaded to become atheist as I recognize the weakness of man and how theists use religion to heal themselves, by judgment of their own conscience. I am talking about the petty weaknesses of man like having a hard life, losing a job, or any other widely accepted difficult event. Is there nothing else to grab a hold of out there?? Something real? Theists are taught to wrap themselves in the warmth of their god's power. But, can't the same effect be achieved by becoming less sensitive in order to deal with the situation and instead focus on the positive? I suspect if there is a god, these superficial types, that would rather cry to god than fix the problem, are not a very good example of a godly person. Instead, they accentuate the weakness of man and the hardships of life in drama-queen fashion. My wife struggles to go to church and rarely prays or spends little time in devotion. She keeps feeling bad about missing some Sundays but never does anything about it. What is this? But she, who believes, is no better or worse than I. We suffer the same trials and tribulations and the same treasures. Yet she, the believer, has the worst time with life's messiness and is plagued with pains of different sorts. She leads a very hard and demanding life at work and at home. What good is her god if it doesn't help her who truly is trying her best to live a life of worship. I am in awe of her faith, truly she has unwavering faith when I sometimes bring up the question (not directly) why she believes. She believes because she has faith. But, I remember having harder times with life. It seems as though when I stepped away from faith my quality of life increased. It is so baffling how both theists and non-theists suffer from the same condition day in and day out. They have the same weaknesses, the same strengths, the same ideas, the same needs, the same wants, the same luck, etc. If a god had any power, surely some would be afforded to its followers. There is no concrete thing that we can say, "Yep, that definitely is the workings of god." just like there is no concrete things that we can say, "Yep, that definitely is because of a lack of faith in god." There are too many anomalies. I meet people who are righteous, but they are called evil. Just as I meet people who are evil, but are called righteous. It is too confusing to know what to believe or recognize who is right. It is more logical that no one knows anything about god or there just plum isn't a god because of the variety of people who are identical in morals and character on both sides of their religious beliefs. (theism and atheism) Of course, religion and god are more than just ethics, and are somewhat disjoint. But, the idea here is that the point of religion is enlightenment or to better one self, or to better prepare one self. Something of which is supposed to provide a better way of life. So my question, in a nutshell is why does religion and god seem to be just about equal to any other way of life as far as molding an individual or society towards good traits. Some religions are even persecuted, so apart from that, how is believing in a god a better way of life? If it isn't, then what is the point. Even if there is a god, what is the point? A future in heaven? What good is that if you haven't done all you can for your brothers and sisters? The only way to do that is to meet life head on, not hide behind your god because it is bigger than life. Your failures and success need to be leveraged, and that is not what is taught by the preacher. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not upon your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he direct your path." In other words, turn a blind eye to what you think is evil and trust that god is in control and will keep you safe. The evil in this world must be conquered, and god's out to lunch.
Let's just suppose for argument's sake that religious people tended to score higher on some sort of personal happiness index (i.e. they tend to give more positive answers in some survey about their personal lives). What would this show? It would merely show that believing in something beyond testable reality makes people happier, so some people would benefit from making things up and then believing in them with absolute faith. So if someone wants to divorce themselves from reality and insists on believing in a universe created to cater to their own personal needs and wants, then so be it. Some of us have thought it through enough to know that just because I might want to be the Emperor of Rome, does not automatically make it so, and there's no point in giving up on the real world just so I can go live out my crazy fantasy. Some of us are happier just believing in the truth, as best we can establish it, in whatever ultimate form it might take.
Precisely. We're all human first, so it doesn't have to be 'either or'. Becoming a mature, well-adjusted individual with resilient coping mechanisms is a universal goal. And poor theology will be just as inhibitive to reaching this goal and dealing with problems, as poor psychology. Throwing tantrums or fleeing responsibility is likewise a sign of spiritual and psychological immaturity. A faith that refuses to deal with reality is weak and people will mock it with good reason. But at the same time it's worthwhile remembering that there are times we all want to hide in a corner, and at those times we need compassion, not judgement. It might be her realisation that these religious 'duties' have little power outside the comfort that discipline or routine may provide. When they have become ways of flogging yourself, it's best not to do them until you have recovered the hope they were based on. Church is about community, not conscience - and while your wife struggles to go, you may provide that for her by supporting her uncritically. Prayer and devotion can still be done at home, but it's important to realise it's not the acts of prayer or devotion that have any power - they're expressions of faith in God's power. Since we're all human, we all share the human condition. God does not change people into superhumans - that's just hubris. The idea that believers will somehow be exempt from the demands and challenges of life is a fantasy that quickly gets dispelled by reality. People who base their faith on personal comfort quickly lose it. No, the power of following God is the power that faith provides in spite of suffering: that indestructible knowledge that there's always hope. This knowledge is the liberating factor, and it's up to us to make the freedom concrete. If you say you're in awe of her faith, where do you notice it? That reminds me of Eccles. 8:14: "There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve." And the writer also concluded no one really knows anything, and even if they know something, they probably don't understand it. But precisely because the evidence is so meaningless and confusing, we should be careful to draw any conclusions about God from it. If it makes no difference to the people around you, it makes no difference at all. Like Jesus said, 'if you don't love your enemies, then what are you doing different than anybody else?' and 'If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.' So the point is that it's supposed to make a difference - not to you in the first place, but to other people. The irony is that in stead of Christians inspiring this by example, they're often inspiring it by contrast. Which has historic precedent, I think, since Christians only came to be when the Jews rejected Jesus. I wonder if God isn't using a bit of reverse psychology here. Does that sound to you like the Christian message? Read the rest of that chapter (Proverbs 3) and you will see it means quite the opposite if put into practice. In other words, the evil to avoid is the evil of not acting when you should.
strangely enough, there are copious theistic commentaries and texts that illuminate the pitfalls of merely taking to god as a consequence of material reversals. IOW the problem has no absolute philosophical need to take shelter of atheistic doctrine strangely enough, the classic weakness of many atheistic arguments is the vagueness surrounding what is real (despite their insistent clamoring about what isn't real). they are? at the moment its not even clear what "wrapping one's self in the warmth of god" entails, so its even less clear how one can accommodate achieving the same means through a surrogate model religiosity in the mode of ignorance And that determination which cannot go beyond dreaming, fearfulness, lamentation, moroseness and illusion — such unintelligent determination, O son of Pṛthā, is in the mode of darkness. its hard to respond when you don't establish what criteria you are using to entail a higher standard. Just to illustrate the soreness of your proposal , I recall street children in Brazil purposely infecting themselves with HIV syringes since it enabled them to get accommodation and meals in hospitals. Apparently their quality of life greatly increased ..... that's because they are existing in the same environment - namely the material world. The difference is that an atheist is not even vaguely entertaining the slightest chance of moving on from it. once again, its difficult to respond since you don't establish what a "concrete finding" is .... which is akin to the common atheist plea of "that's not real" while simultaneously avoiding any discussion on what is Or alternatively, you are merely describing religiosity confounded by material existence The word guṇa-vyatyaya-jaḥ is significant in this verse. Vyatyaya indicates change or inversion in the normal order of things. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has described the concept of vyatyaya by giving the Sanskrit synonym vaiṣamya, which indicates inequality or disproportionate diversity. Thus, it is understood by the term guṇa-vyatyaya-jaḥ that the body is generated by the unstable relationships of the three modes of material nature, which exist everywhere in constantly changing proportions. There is constant strife among the modes of nature. A good person is sometimes torn by passion, and a passionate person sometimes wants to give up everything and rest. An ignorant person may sometimes become disgusted with his depraved life, and a passionate person may sometimes indulge in bad habits in the mode of ignorance. Due to the interactive conflict of the modes of nature, one wanders throughout material nature creating one body after another by one's own work, karma. As it is said, variety is the mother of enjoyment, and the variety of material modes gives hope to the conditioned souls that by changing their material situation their unhappiness and frustration can be turned into happiness and satisfaction. But even if one acquires relative material happiness, that will soon be disturbed by the inevitable flux of the material modes. In a nutshell, religiosity may be difficult but material life is impossible given that whatever you are alluding can be done is contextualized by death, old age and disease, one could just as easily argue why bother to do anything since anything you do will be grossly insufficient. IOW many a person use the same reasoning for a departure into hedonism. How do you suppose this theistic conclusion of yours works with "God give me the strength to change the things I can. The courage to accept the things that I cannot. And the wisdom to know the difference" ??? Given that the "evil" ("spiritual ignorance" is probably a more accurate word) exists (and in most cases, is nurtured by) the individual, exactly who do you suppose has to do the "conquering" (again, probably not the most accurate word to use) and how?
This is confusing because I believe there's always hope. If everyone would come together and love one another, then the world would be a better place. I'm all for the spiritual way of life, it's just the part about god that has me screwed. To this day I live by the core way of life which is altruism, even though I don't believe it is the word of God. But, I am damned by god because I do not follow commandments 1, 2, and 4. I have to believe that Jesus or God exists to make it to heaven. For all practical purposes, I live the same life I did as a Christian, just without the praying, studying the Bible, and going to church. I am more at peace than ever now that I don't have to concern myself with details. I'm free to live, and I take responsibility for everything that I do, and am willing and do atone for my transgressions against my fellow man. That is why I am asking the question for this topic. I thought religion was suppose to add something that is missing.
Yes, they are taught to seek their god's wisdom, forgiveness, love, peace, etc. They are taught that god is their sanctuary, like a warm blanket. The world may be coming undone at the seams, but fear not because god is good and in charge. It means many things. One is peace and hope. It is the strength and inner peace and ability to love, and things similar to altruism. Those are the benefits that are advertised. I have to think on this. Ultimately, we all do by working together and loving one another. But, if you are a theist, you are supposed to leave that up to god because vengeance is its business. When evil is done you are turn the other cheek. No individual has the right of vengeance, but even in theism, an individual can be the instrument of it. Vengeance must be taken in this world unless we are all willing to put aside our differences and forgive each other. Evil is the transgressions of people against their fellow man. There are two ways to conquer it. I hope and desire that people would do it peacefully. It hurts and scares me to think about the vengeance that would be required otherwise. Evil must be stopped, and everyone just sits around and waits. But, theists...they have hope that their god will do it for them. My challenge is why wait.
Yet it's been, what, thousands or even millions of years of humanity and we've never been able to achieve it. That means that if you want to base your hope on something, history is not a good foundation. The hope Jesus presented doesn't depend on everyone coming together for success - that's a corollary... It doesn't even depend on the world becoming a better place (which is just another way of saying heaven). Jesus based it firmly on the reality of God's existence and love for mankind. If you deny that reality, you must base your hope on something far less evident than God: the natural ability of people to live in peace. God is Spirit, and a spiritual life is closely linked with God - whether you recognise him or not. I don't for a moment believe God's Spirit is limited to those who believe in him - after all, it's encounters with an unknown God that led many people to believe in him over other gods. Altruism is a good start, but again, if there is no God and no justice, what makes altruism better than someone who lives for selfish purposes. Neither of you are "damned" for it. A selfish person might even get more satisfaction and influence from his way of life. So it's not special unless there's some spiritual value to one way of living and not the other. Now suppose that God confers that value and not people, it is simple logic that the only reward for it can come from God. The ten commandments weren't meant for you, so it's a strawman, especially after Jesus. Laws, any laws, only point out that some things are wrong. You may not have the commandments, but you have a conscience (I presume) that regulated your interactions with people. But again: what's the objective difference between those following a law and those who reject it? There is none, unless there's a God who judges between them. And the significance of Jesus is that He was innocent in God's eyes when all laws declared him guilty. His life illustrated a point: when only God can declare you innocent or righteous, who do you hope in? So the irony is the only way you're NOT condemned is through Jesus. Our own legal and religious systems give ample evidence that their lofty goals are not going to be finally realised or resolved anywhere else - especially at global community level. Religion can't and won't add anything to that. It will only ask you to do more. "Sell your possessions and give them to the poor", remember? But where is this life ultimately taking you that a selfish life won't? God may just offer humanity more than a moral or religious life can achieve. Not following Him might amount to not acting on a grand scale. I think it is significant that God provided a vivid example of forgiveness when He could have 'avenged' the death of an innocent man. It's an example worth following if we want to defeat evil and avoid judgement.
Not accurate though. 'When evil is done to you, do not retaliate - do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing.' Romans 19:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. It's a call to action, not to non-action. Love must act as fire must burn.
