Benefits of believing in god

[oi_antz]

Personally, I would rather deal with reality as it is without resorting to invisible friends to help me cope with life.

For me, a life with God is not so much about 'coping with life' as it is praising Him for everything I love about it. Life has always had ups and downs, and you can either cope with it or not. So far so good for me.

A life with God is about 'complying with God's law'. Without God in your life you cannot do that completely. GOM, you accused me on another thread of having a secret inappropriate content addiction. I want to put this right. I will tell you that I used to be addicted to masturbation. When I got horny I would have to go for a squirt. I understand this is pretty common. Can you guess what Jesus demanded of me when I fell at His feet? Go on, have a guess. It wasn't murder. I think you need a reality check, to define exactly what is your image of a healthy Christian, and compare that to what God deems 'holy'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've been reading many books on religion and I have read in quite a few that the atheist does not have a god to give him/her the strength for rough times. There is no "replenishing."

I agree. The atheist does not have a god to replenish him. However, that doesn't mean that the atheist has no means for replenishment.

I find sources of replenishment in the support of friends and loved ones, in art, in reflection, and other sources.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

A life with God is about 'complying with God's law'. Without God in your life you cannot do that completely. GOM, you accused me on another thread of having a secret inappropriate content addiction. I want to put this right. I will tell you that I used to be addicted to masturbation. When I got horny I would have to go for a squirt. I understand this is pretty common. Can you guess what Jesus demanded of me when I fell at His feet? Go on, have a guess. It wasn't murder. I think you need a reality check, to define exactly what is your image of a healthy Christian, and compare that to what God deems 'holy'.

I used the inappropriate content thing as an example of Christian hypocrisy. You accused someone else of living in their pleasures or something and my point was that you probably have your own secret pleasures too. Christians always do. This doesn't actually bother me. What bothers me is when they rail against unbelievers for the very things they themselves are probably doing.

Also, I did have a reality check. It happened when I de-converted from Christianity. And having read the Old Testament, I'm quite aware of some of the things God deems holy.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I agree. The atheist does not have a god to replenish him. However, that doesn't mean that the atheist has no means for replenishment.

I find sources of replenishment in the support of friends and loved ones, in art, in reflection, and other sources.

I agree. There are plenty of ways someone can replenish themselves outside of religion. In fact, towards the end of my faith, I found myself relying less and less on God and the Bible, and more on music, literature and science. There is great comfort in knowing how the world really works rather than striving to make some religious text applicable in a world that has surpassed it.

 

[oi_antz]

Also, I did have a reality check. It happened when I de-converted from Christianity.

Well you don't seem to have found a very truthful reality. First reason: you think I rail against unbelievers hypocritically. Secondly you think I have a plank in my eye. Jesus told us to remove those planks from our eyes so we can help our brother's with their splinters. This is what I am doing, if you can demonstrate to me that I have a splinter in my eye, please do, but don't go throwing offensive accusations at me because I am really quite offended that you would call me a w*nker. I certainly have been in a past life, but I am a new creation, not quite what you seem to imagine me to be. This is why I said you need a reality check, your attitude doesn't match reality as I know it.

And having read the Old Testament, I'm quite aware of some of the things God deems holy.

Good.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Well you don't seem to have found a very truthful reality. First reason: you think I rail against unbelievers hypocritically. Secondly you think I have a plank in my eye. Jesus told us to remove those planks from our eyes so we can help our brother's with their splinters. This is what I am doing, if you can demonstrate to me that I have a splinter in my eye, please do, but don't go throwing offensive accusations at me because I am really quite offended that you would call me a w*nker. I certainly have been in a past life, but I am a new creation, not quite what you seem to imagine me to be. This is why I said you need a reality check, your attitude doesn't match reality as I know it.

I didn't actually call you that. You're exaggerating. Obviously masturbation is a big issue for you because you seem to be getting disturbingly angry about it. As an atheist I have no problem with auto-eroticism. There is no God in the sky listening to my thoughts or watching my every move. This is why my reality is probably a lot better than yours. You're clearly tormented by the issue of masturbation. If your reality is the right one, it certainly seems to be bringing you no happiness.

Anyway, I think you've derailed this thread enough with this issue. If you were really that upset about it, you probably should have addressed me over PM rather than in an open thread. I suspect the mods will be here shortly cleaning this mess up.

 

[oi_antz]

I didn't actually call you that. You're exaggerating. Obviously masturbation is a big issue for you because you seem to be getting disturbingly angry about it. As an atheist I have no problem with auto-eroticism. There is no God in the sky listening to my thoughts or watching my every move. This is why my reality is probably a lot better than yours. You're clearly tormented by the issue of masturbation. If your reality is the right one, it certainly seems to be bringing you no happiness.

Anyway, I think you've derailed this thread enough with this issue. If you were really that upset about it, you probably should have addressed me over PM rather than in an open thread. I suspect the mods will be here shortly cleaning this mess up.

The original thread that you made the comment on has been removed but allow me to refresh your memory. You said something along the lines that you bet I frequent the inappropriate content forums, but you said so in your usual fashion of literary flare. As for your comment that I'm tormented by it, you have that wrong too. I really have to wonder just what you imagine Christianity to be. I recommend that you find a level-headed Christian to compare your sense of reality with some time, it can't be healthy to have so much anger at a false pretense.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think it'd be an oversimplification to attribute theism in general to a desire for (illusory) comfort.

However, theism certainly can betray strongly regressive urges, especially when believers essentially proclaim (somewhat unwittingly) that they want to return to the status quo of their childhood years, literally invoking a substitute Father who'll take care of their lives for them, telling them what to do and sorting all messes out with paternal authority.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

The original thread that you made the comment on has been removed but allow me to refresh your memory. You said something along the lines that you bet I frequent the inappropriate content forums, but you said so in your usual fashion of literary flare.

I remember clearly what I said. My memory isn't at fault. However, you don't seem to be remembering why I said what I did. Also, remember that I said you "probably" went to the inappropriate content addiction section. I didn't say you definitely went there. I was making a rather blasé remark on the idea that you were potentially being hypocritical in condemning another atheist as being a pleasure seeker. I recall writing two paragraphs in that post, the first of which was addressed at you for your rather judgemental remark, the second at Christian hypocrisy in general.

The only thing I regret about that whole post is that it seems to have created such a fuss with you. I don't regret addressing Christian hypocrisy though. I've seen too much of it to not turn a blind eye to it when it presents itself to me.

As for your comment that I'm tormented by it, you have that wrong too.

Well, if I'm wrong, I apologise.

I really have to wonder just what you imagine Christianity to be.

I am aware that there is no such thing as a unified Christianity. Each Christian interprets the Bible according to their own understanding and therefore restricts themselves to their own set of moral values within their definition of what they believe the "Spirit" is teaching them. So I don't "imagine" Christianity to be build on anything solid and therefore there is no definitive ideal of what a Christian is. However, having spent too many years in churches, I have a fair idea of the many struggles Christians go through. Even Paul had to address the concern that each Christian had a different conscience in the context of food sacrificed to idols.

I recommend that you find a level-headed Christian to compare your sense of reality with some time, it can't be healthy to have so much anger at a false pretense.

I'm not angry. Also, in engaging on this forum I am constantly comparing my reality with that of Christians. I still think mine, based on empirically tested methods that provide predicable results, is much better than basing it on the ancient and unscientific writings of priests.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, if I'm wrong, I apologise.

Thank you.

I am aware that there is no such thing as a unified Christianity. Each Christian interprets the Bible according to their own understanding and therefore restricts themselves to their own set of moral values within their definition of what they believe the "Spirit" is teaching them. So I don't "imagine" Christianity to be build on anything solid and therefore there is no definitive ideal of what a Christian is. However, having spent too many years in churches, I have a fair idea of the many struggles Christians go through. Even Paul had to address the concern that each Christian had a different conscience in the context of food sacrificed to idols.

Which denominations have you visited, and were they well trained? Quality education makes a big difference. I think a large proportion of what you describe as "disunified Christianity" is more that everyone grows in different shapes and different rates, and they all start at different times. So Christianity is a school with pupils at a variety of grades. Some put a lot of effort into it, others not so much so. And remember what Jesus said "my father is the vine dresser, those who bear fruit will be pruned to bear more, those who produce no fruit will be cut off." It's all about growth, ever trying to become more like Christ. If you wanted a definitive example of what a Christian should be it is right there, established by the King and carried forth by His saints.

I'm not angry. Also, in engaging on this forum I am constantly comparing my reality with that of Christians. I still think mine, based on empirically tested methods that provide predicable results, is much better than basing it on the ancient and unscientific writings of priests.

You still haven't grasped the meaning of John 4:14.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Historically speaking, theistic world views have been informed by the same desire as any other: the need to understand the world that surrounds us, to generate meaning and compartmentalize reality in a fashion that makes it accessible, relatable and, most important of all, controllable (within certain limits).

The African tribesman sacrificing a goat to drive out the angry fever spirits that plague his wife is ultimately trying to achieve exactly the same as a physician giving her aspirin: exerting control over the natural world by using the underlying dynamics they believe to detect in reality.
That one of them may be closer to the mark of actually understanding fever is a secondary factor here.

 

[Greg1234]

This is because most atheists tend to recognize that you are responsible for your own actions.

You reap what you sow. Responsibility does not negate necessity and dereliction of theological duties is irresponsibility.

 

[Greg1234]

I've been reading many books on religion and I have read in quite a few that the atheist does not have a god to give him/her the strength for rough times. There is no "replenishing." The christian, though, can go to god and receive compassion, joy, strength (authors assertion) so BECAUSE of this, its good to believe in god.

Thoughts? I dont know if i agree because it asserts that without god, one would fall apart under extreme stress and pressure. Is god just a crutch for "weak" people?

Analogically, a meth addict says he doesn't need to rely on his inner faculties of normalcy and rejuvenation to get through life as meth is sufficient.

Naturally, it depends on what you mean by getting through life.

 

[Delphiki]

. . . dereliction of theological duties is irresponsibility.

...according to theists only.

 

[oi_antz]

dereliction of theological duties is irresponsibility.

...according to theists only.

Execution of theological duties is sometimes irresponsible though, we would agree. Happy new year