Will I be punished for failing to believe something that I don't think is true?

[powlette]

By worldly standards would you admit that there is alot of bad things in this world? Would you admit that alot if not most of the bad stuff is counter productive to a good life? Why has man evolved to be so good at evil things. This would seem counter productive to the evolution theory. Also how does the Bible predict that we will keep moving toward the evil?

Evolution in itself as a process could be describes as "evil". I don't think it is - it's just nature. Why, ourselves, see death and extinction and might say it's evil, but it's just the natural course of things.

There are a lot of bad things in the world - the holocaust, genocides in Darfur and elsewhere, executions, suppression of women's rights, the crusades, just about every war, terrorism, etc. Pascal said, "Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions". I don't know if that's true or not - you can be plenty evil without a religious background (Stalin/Pot/Khan/etc).

Does satan exist and if so, does that make Hitler less culpible for his acts because he was under the influence of satan's minions? Is the common street mugger also acting on satan's orders? I think to raise this explanation vitiates man's sense of justice and morality. Can we put the mugger on trial if he is sane but claims demons made him do it?

Why has man evolved to be so good at evil things.

This is a great question! Why have we? Is it evil if I take a knife and carve up a live cow while it dies in agony? I would say yes, absolutely that would be terribly evil and something I could never do - it would give me nightmares just to think about. But is it evil when a pack of coyotes do the same thing with their teeth? How about when we raise millions of cows on farms and send them to slaughter? How do we know something is evil?

Let's say we went to some remote island in the south pacific where they've never heard of jesus or the ten commandments, etc. And we killed one of their tribe. Do you think they'd think we were evil? I'd sure think so! And where does this sense of morality come from? I'm an atheist and you're a theist and we could both agree eagerly that rape, murder, theft, lying, etc are all immoral. I don't need god to tell me and you don't either just as Hitler didn't need satan to commit atrocious acts, he was evil enough all by himself.

And all of this raises even more questions: if we're going to attribute evil in the world to satan, why doesn't god intervene on our behalf? Why doesn't he stop satan today and prevent evil in the world? How can you worship an omnipotent god who allows the needless suffering of pious people?

You don't believe in hobgoblins but you do believe in the "evil one's demons". Where is the evil one presently? What if I wanted to worship satan and do his bidding, would he then appear to me since I'm on his side now?

All of these "good things come from god" and "bad things from satan" is a cop out in my opinion. If a person donates their time to charity, I say kudos to her! I don't think god made her do it - she does it because she's a good person and mindful of her community. Similarly when I read in the paper of someone killing someone else. I say, shame on her! I don't think satan made her do it. We are all responsible for our own actions - to say otherwise eliminates responsibility for misdeeds.

[powlette]

Modernism led to a few nice holocausts as i recall including what is referred to as World War 1 and 2. Human nature to do evil does not change and it is misguided to place ones faith in something that is unsupported by evidence (familiar argument?) which is the position you are taking in the assumption that science will one day make some sort of human utopia - The evidence suggest otherwise.

I wouldn't say modernism led to holocausts. I would say that modern technology makes killing people much easier today than when wars were fought with swords and on horseback - in fact I think you'd find that the modern world is far more stable and less subject to shifting geopolitical circumstances than the ancient world. I don't know if science will one day being about some kind of utopia. I hope so, and I have two things to say on this:

1) If we could transplant one of Jesus's contemporaries to modern day America, he might very well think it was a utopia. He would probably be amazed by running water, electricity, television and all the other modern conveniences that have been invented since the iron age.

2) Religion has had thousands of years of create a better society and has failed. Religion in itself does nothing to bring clean water to remote villages or develop medicines or better farming techniques.

If we ever get to the point where art, music, philosophy and literature are heralded while violence, disease and poverty are throwbacks to a forgotten age, it won't be religion that gets us there - it will be our own laws, science, reason and technology.

[mcgyver]

All of these "good things come from god" and "bad things from satan" is a cop out in my opinion. If a person donates their time to charity, I say kudos to her! I don't think god made her do it - she does it because she's a good person and mindful of her community. Similarly when I read in the paper of someone killing someone else. I say, shame on her! I don't think satan made her do it. We are all responsible for our own actions - to say otherwise eliminates responsibility for misdeeds.

Hi Powlette, you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence,...and one of the things that Christians both believe and understand is individual responsibility for our actions.

The old line "The devil made me do it" (remember Flip Wilson? ) just doesn't cut it.

But...we are all individually responsible also before God for our actions...and there's the rub: We are not held to man's standards, but to God's standards (absolute perfection)...and how can anyone possibly measure up to that?

To put it another way...if every good thing you ever did was a step on the stairway to heaven...you'd never be able to build it high enough, know what I mean?

This is where Jesus comes in...Because of His sacrifice...because He on the cross suffered the penalty for our sin (Lit. "missing the mark"), God has said that we can now be acceptable to him simply by accepting the gift of forgiveness and eternal life.

And that's the bottom line. It's a gift...and it's up to us as to whether we will accept or reject that gift. Everything else is moot.

Therein lies the "individual responsibility" for our actions.

[tango]

Dizzy, I appreciate your reply, but your allegory is so abstract that it doesn't explain anything nor does it answer any of the questions I've raised. I could more easily call a science textbook a "microscope" and say that it opens your eyes to the natural world.

You say god exists and acts in the natural world. I say your god doesn't exist at all and more than 3 billion people (non-christians) agree with me. Why is this even up for debate?

Not wishing to be too flippant here, when lemmings rush off a cliff edge they all think they are doing the right thing. But in this case 100,000 lemmings can be wrong. The fact lots of people believe something doesn't mean it's right - way back in the days when it was "common knowledge" that the earth was flat the fact everybody believed it didn't make it true.

Why is your all-powerful creator of the universe absent for me (and half the world) while at the same time requiring our belief in him for salvation? If he cares about my soul, then why doesn't he show up at my door to ensure that I'm saved - that can't be hard for him can it? How culpible can be in this when I'm asking tough questions and your omnipotent god doesn't intervene - when he knows I'll burn for it?

So what exactly are you expecting God to do to convince you? What sort of intervention are you looking for? And, if you are brutally honest with yourself, if you got such an intervention would you then believe or would you simply start looking for a rational explanation?

Correct, my brian tells me that there are no ghosts or spirits or angels or gods or demons. Who do you think is speaking to me, if not my brain?

What evidence does your brain have that there are no angels, gods or demons? What you are describing is a belief, not necessarily a fact.

[powlette]

Not wishing to be too flippant here, when lemmings rush off a cliff edge they all think they are doing the right thing. But in this case 100,000 lemmings can be wrong. The fact lots of people believe something doesn't mean it's right - way back in the days when it was "common knowledge" that the earth was flat the fact everybody believed it didn't make it true.

I agree the number of people who believe in something don't make it so - take evolution in America or in Turkey (two countries with the highest percentage to reject evolution). It also used to be common knowledge that the sun was a god and people worshiped it as one. This primitive concept is something we look back on and wonder how people could be so naive. It was common knowledge that animal sacrifices were needed to appease god. But now it's time to grow up and put away childish superstitions.

So what exactly are you expecting God to do to convince you? What sort of intervention are you looking for? And, if you are brutally honest with yourself, if you got such an intervention would you then believe or would you simply start looking for a rational explanation?

I agree if I was diagnosed with untreatable cancer and suddenly got better for no apparent reason, my first thought would be there must be some explanation and I would ponder a reasonable explanation - I wouldn't say "god did it". I might consider the possibility that something bigger and unseen had influenced the outcome, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I would try not to discount out of hand any cause - but for causes that are unseen and unfelt and unknowable, how can I attribute anything to them with confidence?

What evidence does your brain have that there are no angels, gods or demons? What you are describing is a belief, not necessarily a fact.

If I can channel Dawkins for a moment, I believe he would answer, "what evidence do you have that there's not a celestial teapot in orbit around pluto?" It's not up to me to prove something that's invisible. So although I believe there aren't any of those things, it's necessarily a belief - it's a lack of belief - I have no belief in angels. If there were angels, shouldn't we be able to test for them? It's not too hard to test what the structure of the atom is using a lead screen and a detector to surmise the atom has a closely packed nucleous surrounded by an electron cloud this was done 100 years ago. If angels are circulating around the earth chipping in here and there changing outcomes of different events as you suggest, shouldn't we be able to test for them as well? I find it too convinient that the bible says that god cannot be tested.

Which comes back to my earlier point. Let's say you and I were designing our own religion and we wanted as many followers as possible. I suggest we would come up with the following tenants to convince and convert the masses:

1) Believe what I say and you'll be rewarded after you die. If you don't believe you'll be punished after you die - completely untestable. Oh and don't adhere to any other religions or we might lose you to some other faith.
2) You are all sinners and you need our god to overcome these sins
3) You need to not use birth control and have as many children as possible and then baptize them into the faith and assign them god-parents to school them in the faith to help propogate our belief system
4) God will return to judge you, but you can't know when
5) God cannot be tested
6) Find others who don't believe and convert them to our faith.

I think that's it. With these simple rules taught to people ~1,800 years ago, it's not hard to see why Christianity took off. What do you think would happen if we found a pocket of humans who had no knowledge of the outside world and taught them this and then left? What do you think we'd find if we returned 100 years later? Would they build an entire baroque dogma around these rules? I expect you'd believe me when I say Jospeh Smith did it for the LDS church and L Ron Hubbard did it for Scientology - both of which claim millions of followers. Isn't there some chance that the Romans 1,800 years ago too?

[tango]

I agree if I was diagnosed with untreatable cancer and suddenly got better for no apparent reason, my first thought would be there must be some explanation and I would ponder a reasonable explanation - I wouldn't say "god did it". I might consider the possibility that something bigger and unseen had influenced the outcome, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I would try not to discount out of hand any cause - but for causes that are unseen and unfelt and unknowable, how can I attribute anything to them with confidence?

So having said you expect God to show up on your doorstep to convince you, you now say that even if he did exactly that you still wouldn't believe? So I'll repeat my original question, what would it take that would make you believe?

If I can channel Dawkins for a moment, I believe he would answer, "what evidence do you have that there's not a celestial teapot in orbit around pluto?" It's not up to me to prove something that's invisible. So although I believe there aren't any of those things, it's necessarily a belief - it's a lack of belief - I have no belief in angels. If there were angels, shouldn't we be able to test for them? It's not too hard to test what the structure of the atom is using a lead screen and a detector to surmise the atom has a closely packed nucleous surrounded by an electron cloud this was done 100 years ago. If angels are circulating around the earth chipping in here and there changing outcomes of different events as you suggest, shouldn't we be able to test for them as well? I find it too convinient that the bible says that god cannot be tested.

The point is that "God exists" is a statement of faith. "God does not exist" is also a statement of faith. You can't prove you are right any more than I can prove I am right. Therefore in your statements that God does not exist you are as much of a preacher as I am.

Regarding angels being measured, I come back to my original question and ask what you would need to see to believe in angels.

[powlette]

I will reply to all, but real quick:

The point is that "God exists" is a statement of faith. "God does not exist" is also a statement of faith. You can't prove you are right any more than I can prove I am right. Therefore in your statements that God does not exist you are as much of a preacher as I am.

These are NOT the same. If I said "there's an invisible pink unicorn in the room with us and you just can't see him", but you said, "there is no invisible pink unicorn in the room", are both statements equally likely? Are we both preaching our "faith" about the IPU? You're making an assertion - and a big one at that - and I'm saying that I haven't been convinced.

Can you see the difference between these two beliefs:

1) I believe there is no god
2) I have no belief in a god

One is making an assertion, one is not. I'm not asserting god does not exist. I'm not trying to prove he doesn't. I'm merely saying that I lack this belief that you have. It's not on faith that you don't think there's an invisible pink unicorn in the room - you should demand that I show you some evidence to support my extraordinary claim about the IPU - as well you should!

[tango]

So can I safely assume from this that you are willing to accept that God may exist, but you are yet to be convinced?

[powlette]

So can I safely assume from this that you are willing to accept that God may exist, but you are yet to be convinced?

Hey hey.. slow down now, slow down I, like all open minded individuals am willing to accept that God may exist. But now you'll let me quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Christians are claiming there is a God and their god is the one true god. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. My mind is pretty well made up, but I'm willing to listen to evidence. Let me add: about 95% of scientists in the world will tell you evolution is a fact, but any good scientist would tell you that if you found evidence to the contrary that was equally good at explaining the diversity of life, then they'd listen and test your theory and possibly incorporate it into evolutionary theory - to do otherwise isn't science because science, unlike religion, is tentative based on what we know currently and is subject to change based on future evidence.

So far what I've seen and heard (even as child in the Catholic church) is: dogma, superstition, tradition, old stories passed down over hundreds of years. These are the same kind of evidence you'll find in almost any religion and are not compelling to me. What would be compelling would be some modern day confirmed miraculous event that can't be easily explained. Like, the moon disappears for a day - that would certainly be cause to re-evaluate my worldview and understanding of how celestial objects move! Be pretty tough to explain that away. Which brings me back again - if god exists and wants us to believe - why doesn't do something like that? Why create people who will ask questions and not believe (as he must have known I wouldn't before I was born), and then condemn them for it?

[tt1106]

Hey hey.. slow down now, slow down I, like all open minded individuals am willing to accept that God may exist. But now you'll let me quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Christians are claiming there is a God and their god is the one true god. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. My mind is pretty well made up, but I'm willing to listen to evidence. Let me add: about 95% of scientists in the world will tell you evolution is a fact, but any good scientist would tell you that if you found evidence to the contrary that was equally good at explaining the diversity of life, then they'd listen and test your theory and possibly incorporate it into evolutionary theory - to do otherwise isn't science because science, unlike religion, is tentative based on what we know currently and is subject to change based on future evidence.

So far what I've seen and heard (even as child in the Catholic church) is: dogma, superstition, tradition, old stories passed down over hundreds of years. These are the same kind of evidence you'll find in almost any religion and are not compelling to me. What would be compelling would be some modern day confirmed miraculous event that can't be easily explained. Like, the moon disappears for a day - that would certainly be cause to re-evaluate my worldview and understanding of how celestial objects move! Be pretty tough to explain that away. Which brings me back again - if god exists and wants us to believe - why doesn't do something like that? Why create people who will ask questions and not believe (as he must have known I wouldn't before I was born), and then condemn them for it?

History. God did create a people that believed. Then they fell away.
I think it comes down to the basics, whether or not you believe in God.
The history of the human race is one of unbelief, not belief. Throughout the years there remained only a remnant of faithful people.
So YOU would want the creator of the universe to show up every 50 years to confirm his existence, so people don't have to have faith, they can have proof. God has to reveal himself all at once in a big global Instant message, so everybody will believe the proof. Then he'll have to have a press conference to answer the questions. Then he will have to have a G&A to answer individual questions. Then if he quits answering questions too early, he will be seen as a pretensious God with no time for his creation. But if he stays too long, he will be a needy God.
Assuming he answers all questions with, Well because it's my will or because I want you to glorify me and enjoy my presence for eternity, Poeple will want clarificaiton.
Um God, Why do bad things happen to good people. God, why was my daughter killed in a car crash? God, why did you let my husband die?
My point is that, he has revealed himself over thousands of years.
Instead we choose, to place restrictions and requirements on God.
If he proves himself tomorrow, will you worship, repent and beg for forgiveness? Even now, I bet that if we lined up many unbelievers and asked them that question, they would balk at the idea of begging for forgiveness. It's human nature to be prideful. maybe not you, but certainly many would not worship God, even with proof.

[moonglow]

Hey hey.. slow down now, slow down I, like all open minded individuals am willing to accept that God may exist. But now you'll let me quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Christians are claiming there is a God and their god is the one true god. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. My mind is pretty well made up, but I'm willing to listen to evidence. Let me add: about 95% of scientists in the world will tell you evolution is a fact, but any good scientist would tell you that if you found evidence to the contrary that was equally good at explaining the diversity of life, then they'd listen and test your theory and possibly incorporate it into evolutionary theory - to do otherwise isn't science because science, unlike religion, is tentative based on what we know currently and is subject to change based on future evidence.

So far what I've seen and heard (even as child in the Catholic church) is: dogma, superstition, tradition, old stories passed down over hundreds of years. These are the same kind of evidence you'll find in almost any religion and are not compelling to me. What would be compelling would be some modern day confirmed miraculous event that can't be easily explained. Like, the moon disappears for a day - that would certainly be cause to re-evaluate my worldview and understanding of how celestial objects move! Be pretty tough to explain that away. Which brings me back again - if god exists and wants us to believe - why doesn't do something like that? Why create people who will ask questions and not believe (as he must have known I wouldn't before I was born), and then condemn them for it?

God did do all sorts of in your face miracles when He got the Hebrews out of slavery...but what was their response? Many of them went back to worship the golden calf they made once the miracles stopped...at least not so in your face you couldn't deny them. This is the nature of man. As long as its happening we can't deny it of course...as soon as its not so in our face, we start doubting...making up other ideas to explain it away...even say we imaged it (no matter if thousands of others saw it too!). So why should God part the sea, make the moon disappear (which would send us off in space I think!) or other major things when maybe five people, if that then were convinced He was real. Most likely they would sit in front of the TV and let CNN tell them what really happened... Explain it away...

Its like the Discovery channel will admit these events happened in the bible but explain it away as natural events..unusual...but natural...totally ignoring the timing of these events. The volcano just happened to explode right after God said He would reign down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. A strong unusual wind came up to part the Red Sea just at the time Moses rose his staff to do so...saving the Hebrews from the oncoming Egyptian soldiers...then the wind just happened to die after they all safely got across so the water fell back on the soldiers drowning them all....

So as the Discovery would have us believe, sure they happened, but it was all natural so therefore, there is no God... It just all just happened exactly at the time it needed to happen is all...no big deal... ugh.

The tradition, the dogma, superstition, you mentioned in the Catholic church is common with certain ones...they need to simply provide the evidence and let it speak for itself. There is so much historical and archeological evidence now for the people, places and events in the bible it takes more faith to not believe! The proof is there! And with new evidence for the bible...our beliefs don't change so I don't know why you would say that. All they do is show our beliefs are true. Its science that changes constantly as new evident is presented...the new changing the old beliefs...doesn't work that way with our beliefs as the bible does not change.

With science though..its not something dependable. They use to say the bible was wrong and the stars could be counted...then they made a stronger lens... So yet again, science proved itself wrong. That is a tiny example of many.

Here are some: Jesus: Evidence, ancient historical sources - Part 1 of 2

Herod's Lost Tomb Found?

Scientific Evidence On God's Existencehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qv7F...e=channel_page

5 Reasons to Believe God Exists

[markinro]

Imagine for a moment that I told you that you must believe in Santa Claus or you'll burn in hell for all eternity. Certainly there's plenty of reason to believe - people sing songs about him, play music about him and CNN even shows NORAD covering his trip around the world at christmas time with no sense of facetiousness.

If I told you that you had to believe in something that you don't currently think is true and for which there is no empirical evidence, could you? Well I can't - it's not a choice I made to ignore your god or ignore Zeus or any number of other mythical gods, I just simply don't believe god exists and there's no more reason to believe he does than there's reason to believe santa does. I believe they're all old myths created by people, spread by stories and taught to children. This would by equivalent to you not believing in Mythra or Ra or any number of gods that are equally supported by evidence.

Now I know you'll say god "touched" you or "speaks" to you, or whatever, but there's no real evidence for this - if there were, his existence wouldn't continue to be debated for thousands of years. Personally I think my christians are using what's called cognitive disonance which allows you to believe something because you don't want to face the alternative.

But my question is, using my brain which tells me there are no gods/devils/angels/ghosts/demons/supernatural spirits (and you believe was given to me by god), I can't convince myself to believe in something that I don't think is true, so how can you reconcile my sentence to burn in hell for using my god-given brain with your belief in an all-loving god?

I didn't read through the 5 pages of posts so if this has been addressed...

What I just found interesting "...what I don't THINK is true..". You mean atheists are not certain God does not exist ? This would be a fundamental difference with christians who know without any doubt God is real, He sent His Son to die on the cross, raised Him from the dead and now sits at His right side.

[SeekingWisdom]

I still stand by what I said, nothing is going to prove anything to anyone because believing is a choice, and someone who has their mind made up will find a way to attribute every way that God reveals Himself to something else.

With that being said, I don't really see the point of this conversation. I'm not trying to be rude, just matter of fact. What do you hope to gain from this conversation?

If you want some proof and you want to see God then how about you take off your skeptics glasses and ask Him to reveal Himself. Not as a test, not for fun and giggles; but truly from your heart. Maybe He will grant you your request, maybe He won't. Maybe He will answer you with quickness, maybe He will wait years and years. Just don't expect a magic show because that is not how it works. But God is the one you need to be talking to, not us. Get to know Him.

[powlette]

I didn't read through the 5 pages of posts so if this has been addressed...

What I just found interesting "...what I don't THINK is true..". You mean atheists are not certain God does not exist ? This would be a fundamental difference with christians who know without any doubt God is real, He sent His Son to die on the cross, raised Him from the dead and now sits at His right side.

I'm not certain that god does not exist. I just don't have a belief in him. I am a-theistic or without theism. This is the problem, you've started with something that you're sure of - unwaveringly - and once you've started with that premise, anything that contradicts it must be wrong. Evolutionary evidence? Hogwash. Carbon dating? A conspiracy. etc, etc.

In one of Sam Harris's books, I forget which he describes these two world views. There is mine which he names "the spartan meritocracy" and yours "the baroque monarchy".

In the spartan meritocracy, there are few if any initial assumptions. The best ideas win out and the ideas that don't fit are discarded. We learn as we go. We're not tied down to any one ideal or preconceived notion. We follow the evidence where it takes us, open to new ideas and recognizing that our knowledge is tentative at best. It is humble.

In the baroque monarchy, there are a huge set of initial assumptions such as God exists, Jesus died for our sins after being born of a virgin, heaven/hell etc, etc. It is a monarchy in that it is the only possible worldview and no other considerations are allowed. Things that don't fit as expelled from the "kingdom" so to speak.

So that is how I view us approaching these questions and I ask you, which is the more intellectually honest?

[powlette]

I still stand by what I said, nothing is going to prove anything to anyone because believing is a choice, and someone who has their mind made up will find a way to attribute every way that God reveals Himself to something else.

That was the point of my initial question. I don't think believing IS a choice. I don't think you can honestly believe something that you don't think is true and I'm being told that I'll be punished for that. I find that manifestly unfair. No matter how much you want Santa to be true and how much you open your heart to him, you'll never honestly believe he's real. That's is where I am regarding your deity.