Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Spider-Who?]

No.

A member of my family could be standing in my back yard. At this point, I have no reason to believe anyone is doing that, so I don't believe a family member is in my backyard. That's not a belief. That's a lack of belief. That's different from saying "I think nobody is in my backyard," which would be a belief.

There are atheists who will say "I think God doesn't exist," and that is a belief--but atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in God's existence--not the belief in his non existence. It's the difference between "I don't believe in God," and "I believe God doesn't exist."

Frankly, the problem is that people don't think about language. If I say to someone in casual conversation "I don't believe in God," I guarantee that person will understand that statement as "I believe God doesn't exist," which is asinine. If I'd meant that, I would have said that.

You're talking about a level of assertion that is so mind numbingly trivial, there's no point in debating it.

 

[SuperFerret]

Wait, how are there more Christians and Muslims than Hindus and Buddhists?

 

[Saint]

You're talking about a level of assertion that is so mind numbingly trivial, there's no point in debating it.

Since it means the difference between your argument being correct and your argument being false, no, it does not seem at all "trivial" (unless you think your argument is also trivial, in which case one wonders why you felt the need to make it).

Important tip: there's a difference between a subtle distinction and a trivial distinction. In this case, the distinction is subtle, but important.

 

[Manic]

Wait, how are there more Christians and Muslims than Hindus and Buddhists?

Because despite having the more open and tolerant religions, Hindus and Buddhists don't proselytize as much.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Since it means the difference between your argument being correct and your argument being false,

Hardly. You disproved absolutely nothing in your post, and my words stand as they were.

no, it does not seem at all "trivial" (unless you think your argument is also trivial, in which case one wonders why you felt the need to make it).

Important tip: there's a difference between a subtle distinction and a trivial distinction. In this case, the distinction is subtle, but important.

Allow me to rephrase my position on your post, then.

You are taking a small phrase from a larger post and choosing to argue that minor detail as a way to try and disprove the whole, instead of actually discussing the post in it's entirety. Therefore, I find your response trivial, as you are trying to argue a small point (in comparison to the entire post and it's intent) and ignoring the obvious.

Lets look at my post again:

That's not quite accurate.

Faith has various definitions, depending on it's usage:

1) Confidence or trust in a person or thing
2) A belief not based on proof
3) Belief in a god or religious doctrine

Atheism is only a lack of "faith" in the third sense of the word. It takes faith (definition 1 and 2) to be an atheist, since one is confident in their belief that god does not exist, despite any actual proof to substantiate that belief, which is what I believe he was going for.

The bold is important aspects of the post. I was not discussing the "definition" of atheism, but the definitions of faith and how it can pertain to atheism. In a post of about 100 words, you cherry picked 6 of them ("belief that god does not exist") and tried to argue that that is not what atheism is.

Your whole post, it seems, hangs on what you perceive "atheism" to be. The fact that you would go out of your way to try and disqualify my statement based on a few words shows this. I will certainly not deny that you are correct in your explanations on the subtle differences between "no belief in god" and "believing he doesn't exist" - but those differences don't always exist - it really comes down to the intent of the person saying it.

My original post is most assuredly correct, because if the person is making the claim that God doesn't exist, then it falls under the definition of faith, since the claim is an idea not based on proof. The person, whether they like the connotation or not, is relying on faith when it comes to their position. I purposefully used the more narrow sense of the word "atheism" in the sentence you originally quoted, because my point was based on that use of the word (which I go over below), and your post does not invalidate mine in the slightest (and recall that I also used the wider definition, "atheism is a lack of faith" in my post as well, so clearly, I feel I've covered my ground more than enough).

but atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in God's existence--not the belief in his non existence.

I'm sorry, but Webster defines atheism as such:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://tinyurl.com/yln82cy

Now, based on this, we can agree (or maybe not, if you're stubborn) that atheism includes these lines of thinking: atheism is "lacking belief in god" (a), and atheism is "believing there is no god" (b), since, as I'm sure you are aware, "doctrine" is a system of beliefs or knowledge, and a belief is an idea not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Just by Webster alone, your rebuttal is only half correct, and by way of that, your entire post is called into question because you're clearly either ignoring a fundamental aspect of atheism, or are unaware of it. Further more, it substantiates peoples "confusion" by what you say, and removes the "asinine" labels for what is not really a major misconception, based on the facts, and the idea perpetuated by you that even atheists don't fully understand what the word means. Atheism is not just "a lack of belief", but also believing in his nonexistence. Some people are unsure what they believe, and therefore call themselves atheist (though agnostic is more accurate), and some people are sure and say there is no god. Again, it boils down to an individual basis.

Here's so more definitions for you.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the "denial of the existence of God."

Philosopher and author (and atheist) Richard Carrier says "an atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist."
http://tinyurl.com/3ykq9f

The Cambridge Online Dictionary says an atheist is "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist."
http://tinyurl.com/3fwtc5p

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, divides atheism into two categories: Negative atheism (the lack of theistic belief), and positive atheism (the asserted disbelief in God).
http://tinyurl.com/3mjeq7u

Atheists.org claims "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter)...This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own." See here? They are actively saying "There is no God", while using the "lack of belief" term you used to refute that definition, which leads to the conclusion that your submission that people confusing the two terms as "asinine" isn't so ridiculous, as even leading atheists use the term loosely.
http://tinyurl.com/3hdy2yk

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wait, how are there more Christians and Muslims than Hindus and Buddhists?

Several reasons. They mainly spread through colonialism and conquest.

Another major reason is the rise of communism in China. Back in the day, the communists tried to eliminate religion in China altogether, even going so far as to destroy temples and churches.

They've relaxed their policies since the 70's, but there are still considerable restrictions on religion in China. Religious persecution is still quite common.

 

[Saint]

The bold is important aspects of the post. I was not discussing the "definition" of atheism, but the definitions of faith and how it can pertain to atheism.

If you are misrepresenting atheism in your argument in such a way that it affects your conclusion, then yes, you are necessitating a discussion on the definition of atheism by virtue of misrepresenting it.

In a post of about 100 words, you cherry picked 6 of them ("belief that god does not exist") and tried to argue that that is not what atheism is.

Yes, that's right: I picked those words because they are the relevant issue. If you had written a mathematical equation where the result is skewed by a single incorrect value, then what would you expect me to talk about? Obviously, the flawed value.

I'm sorry, but Webster defines atheism as such:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://tinyurl.com/yln82cy

Yes, and the very first item in that definition is perfectly in line with what I have explained, because disbelief is not a belief. Yes, the second item provides the option that the atheist may also believe that God does not exist, and I noted as much in my previous post; my point is only that such a belief is not an absolute component of atheism. Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear on this.

My original post is most assuredly correct, because if the person is making the claim that God doesn't exist,

In fact, your post is most assuredly a false generalization, as I have already explained, because the atheist may not be making an such claim. You argued that "it takes faith to be an atheist, since one is confident in their belief that god does not exist, despite any actual proof." Since we have established that an atheist does not necessarily believe that god does not exist, we can conclude that while faith may be a component of a particular person's atheism, it does not take faith to be an atheist.

 

[Manic]

Proof there is no god?

 

[Spider-Who?]

If you are misrepresenting atheism in your argument in such a way that it affects your conclusion, then yes, you are necessitating a discussion on the definition of atheism by virtue of misrepresenting it.

How am I misrepresenting atheism when I am using an accurate definition of the word for a hypothetical person making a hypothetical claim?

Yes, that's right: I picked those words because they are the relevant issue. If you had written a mathematical equation where the result is skewed by a single incorrect value, then what would you expect me to talk about? Obviously, the flawed value.

My point wasn't flawed, as it was based on the hypothetical atheist making the assertion that god does not exist (something we're both agreeing falls under "atheism"). The wording, maybe, as its obvious you misunderstood. I guess I should have made that more clear from the start.

Yes, and the very first item in that definition is perfectly in line with what I have explained, because disbelief is not a belief. Yes, the second item provides the option that the atheist may also believe that God does not exist, and I noted as much in my previous post; my point is only that such a belief is not an absolute component of atheism. Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear on this.

In fact, your post is most assuredly a false generalization, as I have already explained, because the atheist may not be making an such claim. You argued that "it takes faith to be an atheist, since one is confident in their belief that god does not exist, despite any actual proof." Since we have established that an atheist does not necessarily believe that god does not exist, we can conclude that while faith may be a component of a particular person's atheism, it does not take faith to be an atheist.

Please reread my post, as its obvious you're skimming. Even the part that you quoted states:

My original post is most assuredly correct, because if the person is making the claim that God doesn't exist...,

...Which confirms my previous statement that it is a hypothetical "positive atheist" (an atheist who claims there is no God) we're talking about here. If the person is NOT making the claim that God doesn't exist and merely lacks the belief, then there is no faith involved because there is no claim to be made. I assumed this distinction would have been apparent. While I can see how you originally saw my first post as a generalization, I have made it abundantly clear what my intention was and that I fully understand the degrees of atheism. Even if I refused to make this clarification, the logic that someone who states there is no god and "faith" are connected would still be an accurate statement; which I feel is the fertile discussion point, instead of going back and forth about the definitions of atheism and who meant what.

 

[Saint]

Edit; nevermind all this, your last post made it moot.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Well, I believe it takes more faith to believe in no God than it does to believe in God.

When I look around at things like trees, the grand cannon, the Rocky mountains, I can see God.

I have Atheist friends. So I am not offened. I neither cram my belife down their throats and they return the favor. We both know where each other stands.

My tag line is this though. "If your right and when we die nothing happens that's fine. I will have lived a very moral life on belifes that others are greater than myself. But, if I'm right and Jesus is who he says he is your screwed."

I only say that to people I know very well. So there ya go.

Your tag line is used by A LOT of people to try to convince people not to stray from religious belief.

This idea that they should carry on believing, or even carry on pretending to believe when their faith has actually gone, JUST INCASE they are wrong, is just ridiculous IMO.

If i'm 'wrong' and there is a God and a hell and i'm gonna end up there - then God is my enemy. I wouldn't for one second want to be in heaven, if it meant sucking up to a deity nasty enough to send someone like me to hell just because I didn't believe in him.

No.

A hobo could be fighting a dog in my back yard. At this point, I have no reason to believe anyone is doing that, so I don't believe a hobo is dog-fighting is in my backyard. That's not a belief. That's a lack of belief. That's different from saying "I think nobody is in my backyard," which would be a belief.

There are atheists who will say "I think God doesn't exist," and that is a belief--but atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in God's existence--not the belief in his non existence. It's the difference between "I don't believe in God," and "I believe God doesn't exist."

Frankly, the problem is that people don't think about language. If I say to someone in casual conversation "I don't believe in God," I guarantee that person will understand that statement as "I believe God doesn't exist," which is asinine. If I'd meant that, I would have said that.

It doesn't even make sense to argue that lack of belief is a belief; that's a logical contradiction. That's like saying "You don't believe in anything, and that's a belief." It doesn't make sense. Nothing can't be something.


This is complete nonsense; how does it take more faith to say "I see no reason to believe in any of this" than it does to say "Not only does my God exist, but by necessary consequence all other religions are wrong"?

If somebody comes up to you and says "I have an invisible car," it doesn't take any faith to say "You haven't convinced me to believe that." Again: it is a logical contradiction to say that faith is required to not believe something.

Agreed 100%

Precisely, which is why I don't understand why agnosticism is considered by some to be "safe." Its just being completley honest, we, anyone, have no specific knowedge.

Simple.

Agnosticism isn't an answer to a question of belief. It's avoiding the question.

You can be an Agnostic Christian, you can be an Agnostic Atheist. You can say that you do not know whether or not God exists, but you believe he does. You can say that you do not know whether God exists, but you don't believe he does.

But if someone asks you what you believe, and you say your agnostic, it basically means your choosing not to answer the question.

And IMO whether or not you believe in God is not a difficult question to answer. Whether or not you think it can be proven, whether or not you think you have enough knowledge to make the judgement is irrelevant.

You either do, or you don't.

When you start getting into debates as to whether God existing is a fact/God not existing is a fact, then taking an agnostic viewpoint is much more logical. But that's not cut and dry what Atheism is, as you are trying to suggest.

 

[Saint]

I have made it abundantly clear what my intention was

No, I really don't think you have, but I'm willing to drop it at this point, as we appear to understand each other.

 

[redhawk23]

Not to put words in his mouth (oh his post in this instance) but what I think Saint was getting at was that there is a difference between saying "I do not see ample evidence for the existence of God/s and there for will not espouse the idea that they do." and stating, "There is not God."

 

[Bill]

3 - God doesn't hate gays. God doesn't hate liars. God doesn't hate atheists. Technically, God should have "no" emotions since he is not human. When we say "God loves us" (or any other emotion), it is OUR way of expressing logic behind his words/actions in a way we as humans can understand and sympathize with. That being said, the bible says that "God is Love", and Jesus' whole message was to love one another regardless of who they were or what they did. So anyone who claims that God hates (insert any demographic here) is a moron and has not a shred of understanding of the faith they claim to have. (sorry, this misconception is something i'm very passionate about)

I agree that a god should have no emotions. And there are always statements made by Christians relating to their God's emotions. But what about incidents where God describes himself as having emotions? Such as:

Deuteronomy 5

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation* of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Emphasis mine.

Of course this begs the question; did God violate one if His own commandments? Namely, You shalt not covet. Does God not covet the attention and love that we might give to other gods?

I define perfection as free from fault, want and need. After all, the act of needing or wanting seeks to fill a void. And a perfect god would have no void. The Bible is replete with examples of God needing/wanting our love, attention, and worship. And He is demonstrably willing to punish those who deny Him his wants and needs quite severely if they are not fulfilled. If we were talking about any other human or god, we would quite simply label him a megalomaniacal terrorist. It seems that as long as you worship it, a god can act in any fashion deemed necessary by his followers.

I submit that if God existed, and He were perfect, we would not exist at all. God would have no need or want for anything that we, or the universe we exist within, could provide.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I agree that a god should have no emotions. And there are always statements made by Christians relating to their God's emotions. But what about incidents where God describes himself as having emotions? Such as:

Deuteronomy 5

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation* of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Emphasis mine.

Of course this begs the question; did God violate one if His own commandments? Namely, You shalt not covet. Does God not covet the attention and love that we might give to other gods?

I define perfection as free from fault, want and need. After all, the act of needing or wanting seeks to fill a void. And a perfect god would have no void. The Bible is replete with examples of God needing/wanting our love, attention, and worship. And He is demonstrably willing to punish those who deny Him his wants and needs quite severely if they are not fulfilled. If we were talking about any other human or god, we would quite simply label him a megalomaniacal terrorist. It seems that as long as you worship it, a god can act in any fashion deemed necessary by his followers.

I submit that if God existed, and He were perfect, we would not exist at all. God would have no need or want for anything that we, or the universe we exist within, could provide.

Good post, and I will fully admit that I don't have all the answers. This will probably come off as a lame excuse (I don't intend it to be), but I feel like a God that we can fully understand his motives and intentions is not all that impressive. That is certainly not to say we shouldn't try, however.

The points you made are not rare ones, and are a HUGE topic of debate, even among theologians.

As I mentioned before, the emotions that God is depicted as having in the Bible are for our benefit. To think that we have the power to actual riffle the feathers of such a "powerful being" is quite funny, imo. But since we, as humans, are dominated by emotion, and our emotions are the cheif way we respond to others and relationships and events, it makes sense for the writers of the Bible to describe God as having these emotions, too. How can we can even comprehend being in a relationship devoid of emotion? The only emotion that I personally feel God is truely capable of is love (as corny as that may be); and only for want of a better word. It is a pure thing, and is the only "perfect" emotion that has the ability to produce positive action, and be incorruptible if true.

On the point of God being "jealous"...You're right - jealousy in the way we commonly think of it (coveting what others have, etc) is wrong. However, sanctified jealousy is something entirely different, which is what is being suggested in the verse you pointed out. Sanctified jealousy is a justified emotional response of wrong doing, broken agreements, etc. The best way I can give an example of is the feeling you get if you find out your wife cheats on you. That is a justified version of jealousy - it is not "wanting what your friend has", its not "woefully comparing the blessings of others with yours". Its a feeling you get when you lose something that you loved, and earnestly wanting to protect it. God does not covet. How would you feel if you were in his shoes? If you created all life, and the very people that you created decided to ignore you and give all their love and attention to a "god" that they made up? You wouldn't want that. You'd want them to know the truth and not live a lie.

Here's a decent article on it:
http://bible.org/seriespage/jealous-god

As for why He created is...he didn't "need to". I agree with your point that if God "needed" our presence and worship, he wouldn't be perfect. Personally, I don't believe that we will ever really know WHY this side of the grave; though it certainly isn't wrong to offer ideas and try to explain it. The best I can offer is simply that God wanted to create us. You can do something because you have the desire to without it "filling a void" or marking you as "imperfect". Or...maybe perfect beings just need a hobby.

 

[Spider-Who?]

No, I really don't think you have, but I'm willing to drop it at this point, as we appear to understand each other.

I thought my very last post, was pretty clear...

it is a hypothetical "positive atheist" (an atheist who claims there is no God) we're talking about here. If the person is NOT making the claim that God doesn't exist and merely lacks the belief, then there is no faith involved because there is no claim to be made.



But whatevs. I'm cool with dropping it.

Not to put words in his mouth (oh his post in this instance) but what I think Saint was getting at was that there is a difference between saying "I do not see ample evidence for the existence of God/s and there for will not espouse the idea that they do." and stating, "There is not God."

No, I understand him fine and agree with that notion. We were just running around in circles. Just a typical internet argument.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I haven't been in a discussion involving religion in about a year and a half (...because most of the arguments are mundane), but I might as well start yet again.

Hi, I'm an Atheist, and when I'm not calling forth the Prince of Darkness, I'm taking the Lord's name in vain (about 30x a day on average) t:

 

[Saint]

I thought my very last post, was pretty clear...

it is a hypothetical "positive atheist" (an atheist who claims there is no God) we're talking about here. If the person is NOT making the claim that God doesn't exist and merely lacks the belief, then there is no faith involved because there is no claim to be made.



But whatevs. I'm cool with dropping it.

For clarity, I wasn't referring to your previous post which was, in fact, clear.

 

[Bill]

Good post, and I will fully admit that I don't have all the answers. This will probably come off as a lame excuse (I don't intend it to be), but I feel like a God that we can fully understand his motives and intentions is not all that impressive. That is certainly not to say we shouldn't try, however.

The points you made are not rare ones, and are a HUGE topic of debate, even among theologians.

It is a set of points among many others that atheists can make that do not require faith in order to make the case that the Christian version of god does not exist. I don't feel that you should need to make excuses for the authors or the god they're attempting to contain with their descriptions. But Apologists have to do it to take sense from a book that should make perfect sense if actually written or inspired by a being of such magnitude.

I don't question my ability to comprehend an idea as being incorrect merely because I am supposed to have a preconceived notion that it must be correct or that it's exalted above the status it deserves due to being lucky enough to be introduced at the beginning of Western civilization at the right time. It's interesting the number of excuses people make for themselves and God to continue believing while cheerfully telling others they have to have faith to not believe when they can provide actual reasons.

I mentioned before, the emotions that God is depicted as having in the Bible are for our benefit. To think that we have the power to actual riffle the feathers of such a "powerful being" is quite funny, imo. But since we, as humans, are dominated by emotion, and our emotions are the cheif way we respond to others and relationships and events, it makes sense for the writers of the Bible to describe God as having these emotions, too. How can we can even comprehend being in a relationship devoid of emotion? The only emotion that I personally feel God is truely capable of is love (as corny as that may be); and only for want of a better word. It is a pure thing, and is the only "perfect" emotion that has the ability to produce positive action, and be incorruptible if true.

On the point of God being "jealous"...You're right - jealousy in the way we commonly think of it (coveting what others have, etc) is wrong. However, sanctified jealousy is something entirely different, which is what is being suggested in the verse you pointed out. Sanctified jealousy is a justified emotional response of wrong doing, broken agreements, etc. The best way I can give an example of is the feeling you get if you find out your wife cheats on you. That is a justified version of jealousy - it is not "wanting what your friend has", its not "woefully comparing the blessings of others with yours". Its a feeling you get when you lose something that you loved, and earnestly wanting to protect it. God does not covet. How would you feel if you were in his shoes? If you created all life, and the very people that you created decided to ignore you and give all their love and attention to a "god" that they made up? You wouldn't want that. You'd want them to know the truth and not live a lie.

Here's a decent article on it:
http://bible.org/seriespage/jealous-god

I read the article. It raises more questions than it answers. Why would a god of such power and magnificence care for concepts such as honor or supremacy when it is supposedly the only god? Or desire(there's an interesting word) devotion and worship?

The article is attempting to make sense out of set of circumstances that exist because the writers of the Bible described a god that has needs and desires similar to ours, but it shouldn't. And instead of dismissing such a god, they rationalize these descriptions with comparisons when logic and reason should lead them elsewhere.

for why He created is...he didn't "need to". I agree with your point that if God "needed" our presence and worship, he wouldn't be perfect. Personally, I don't believe that we will ever really know WHY this side of the grave; though it certainly isn't wrong to offer ideas and try to explain it. The best I can offer is simply that God wanted to create us. You can do something because you have the desire to without it "filling a void" or marking you as "imperfect". Or...maybe perfect beings just need a hobby.

The answers you offer are ones that you must make because your religion is at stake, and it must not be compromised. Christians attempt to give God all sorts of interesting attributes when attempting to rationalize our existence. They describe his need for honor, glory and power. They say we are to serve, worship and love him. Yet can't decently outline why a God would need any of these things in the first place.

You have two statements that you must not question: God created us. We exist to serve him. You must not question the veracity of these statements. You must believe them to be true. Now you must make sense of why a being capable of creating the universe needs to be served.

Or you could think for yourself.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

They say we are to serve, worship and love him. Yet can't decently outline why a God would need any of these things in the first place.

You have two statements that you must not question: God created us. We exist to serve him..

In fairness, I think that's kind of a closed minded view of why a lot of religious people 'worship'.

I also don't think you'll find many who think we exist to serve him...

Worship may have been mandatory in order to avoid hell before, and may still be in some religious circles. But I think most people worship by choice...

It's like a big consistent thank you. Like saying grace before supper. It's just some people's way of feeling that they have acknowledged everything they are grateful and thankful for, acknowledging what a miracle it all is and why they should 'rejoice'. And in a way 'spending time' with God.

 

[redhawk23]

^The whole service to God/ doing God's work is a major talking point in many churches and religious understanding.

The word Muslim translates roughtly to "submitter".

Actually most religious people I know, at least from the Abrahamic religions believe that we exist to serve the greater good which the way they explain it is God. It's not a point against them at all.

 

[Spider-Who?]

It is a set of points among many others that atheists can make that do not require faith in order to make the case that the Christian version of god does not exist. I don't feel that you should need to make excuses for the authors or the god they're attempting to contain with their descriptions. But Apologists have to do it to take sense from a book that should make perfect sense if actually written or inspired by a being of such magnitude.

I agree that one should not make excuses, but the admission that we simply can’t or at this time don’t know everything is not an excuse; it’s a simple fact of life that transcends religious boundaries. That’s where faith and study come into play.

The answers you offer are ones that you must make because your religion is at stake, and it must not be compromised. Christians attempt to give God all sorts of interesting attributes when attempting to rationalize our existence. They describe his need for honor, glory and power. They say we are to serve, worship and love him. Yet can't decently outline why a God would need any of these things in the first place.

God doesn’t NEED anything. If he NEEDED anything, he wouldn’t be God. That’s a point you’re missing (along with the anthropomorphic nature being a human addition for human benefit). The act of giving God honor and worshiping him (which means much more than simply “getting on ones knees and singing”) is GOOD FOR US. By worshiping God (which can be anything from focusing on God, to appreciating our blessings and to serving the community/doing good deeds), we are experiencing positive emotion and spreading that to others. It is, as someone else said, focusing on the greater good. But worship isn’t everything, and it certainly is not a pass into Heaven. Worship is not groveling at Gods feet. Its is about loving, him, thanking him for his blessing, and following his moral code. It’s a way for us to have an active relationship with him. It has nothing to do with GOD’s need, but OURS. When you kiss your girlfriend/wife and tell her you love her, do you do so because SHE wants you to, or because YOU want to express that love outwardly? When you selflessly express that love, does it not have positive effects on you and your relationship? God does not “demand” it; he’s merely letting us know that worship is good for us; it is a way we can express that love (if we so choose to have it) and fertilize our relationship with him.

You have two statements that you must not question: God created us. We exist to serve him. You must not question the veracity of these statements. You must believe them to be true. Now you must make sense of why a being capable of creating the universe needs to be served.

Or you could think for yourself.

I’ll be honest and say that I don’t appreciate the tone and assumptions you’re making about my ability to “think for myself”, as well as your assumption that religious people do nothing but “make excuses”. It shows are really shallow understanding of the mind of a religious person and isn’t a mindset that I feel is even remotely beneficial for open and intelligent dialogue.

There are things that we know and things that we don’t. The bible was written thousands of years ago and by that very nature, there is a certain degree of separation, which in turn leads to confusion and misunderstanding. That’s why it is important to actually study the bible, to peer into the original text and language and gain a better understanding, and there are countless ways to do so. Even then, we won’t know or be able to fully understand everything about God That is not a knock on religion; it’s just an admission of the limits of our ability. Do we condemn science for not knowing all there is to know? Absolutely not.

You have two statements that you must not question: God created us. We exist to serve him. You must not question the veracity of these statements. You must believe them to be true. Now you must make sense of why a being capable of creating the universe needs to be served.

I’m sorry, but this is just completely wrong. That is the mindset of a brainwashed religious individual and an atheist who doesn’t understand, to think that we cannot question faith and the Bible. Without questioning, without trying to understand/identify issues within a set of statements, one learns nothing. And in the event that you aren’t able to come to a conclusion does not mean that the statement in question is false. There just isn’t enough data to determine one way or another, so instead of just “deciding” on a conclusion without adequate information, we should continue trying to further understand.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

^The whole service to God/ doing God's work is a major talking point in many churches and religious understanding.

The word Muslim translates roughtly to "submitter".

Actually most religious people I know, at least from the Abrahamic religions believe that we exist to serve the greater good which the way they explain it is God. It's not a point against them at all.

Fair enough, I guess my perception from my own experience of churches and religious people around me is just a bit different to that.

I try to be objective and empathetic towards religious beliefs and people, because I think that's the only fair way to be in such a debate.

But the notion of our purpose on life being to SERVE is not something I can empathise with at all. It's hideous, it's control by those in power, and it to me seems like a complete lack of individualism or willingness to take on board any personal reason for living.

 

[redhawk23]

I’m sorry, but this is just completely wrong. That is the mindset of a brainwashed religious individual and an atheist who doesn’t understand, to think that we cannot question faith and the Bible. Without questioning, without trying to understand/identify issues within a set of statements, one learns nothing. And in the event that you aren’t able to come to a conclusion does not mean that the statement in question is false. There just isn’t enough data to determine one way or another, so instead of just “deciding” on a conclusion without adequate information, we should continue trying to further understand.

What you have to understand though is that is exactly the stance taken by so many of the religious folk that one often encounters in everyday life. I agree fully that without questing one truly cannot learn anything. That's exactly the issue I take with many of the religious groups in my community. Even when you politely question the tenets of their particular faith, so many react very negatively and go on the defensive as if you personally insulted them, rather than taking the time to actually answer the question. So often I've encountered a discouragement of free inquiry, at least when it comes to certain topics.

 

[Spider-Who?]

But the notion of our purpose on life being to SERVE is not something I can empathise with at all. It's hideous, it's control by those in power, and it to me seems like a complete lack of individualism or willingness to take on board any personal reason for living.

I think the problem you may be having is how you're looking at the word "serve"m and the connotations that it has. God isn't asking us to wait on him like a butler or a slave. To "serve God" is to love and help others. Its not a "me-centric" life, but a selfless life - to do good deeds and to help those in needs; to be the person you're meant to be and live a good, fulfilling life in that regard. Because God is love, and he wants us to love, loving others is a "service" to him.

What you have to understand though is that is exactly the stance taken by so many of the religious folk that one often encounters in everyday life. I agree fully that without questing one truly cannot learn anything. That's exactly the issue I take with many of the religious groups in my community. Even when you politely question the tenets of their particular faith, so many react very negatively and go on the defensive as if you personally insulted them, rather than taking the time to actually answer the question. So often I've encountered a discouragement of free inquiry, at least when it comes to certain topics.

Oh, I understand that. Completely. I's a shame. But consider this: So many atheists don't "question" religious folk out of a honest desire to understand or learn. They question with the intent to try and discourage and/or start arguments. Look at Bill's post above. His post wasn't a sincere question; it was an attempt to prove his position, which in turn lead to him actually insulting my ability to think for myself. This is how many atheists act they can be just as arrogant and self-assured as the religious people they complain about. Both sides are equally guilty of handling their and others' opinions poorly.