If you are/were a conservative Christian, how do/did you cope with the concept of eternal damnation?

[Lion IRC]

You know what baffles me? The number of self-professed atheists who talk positively about the (secular) ethic of being a so-called "good person" and yet they can't quite put their finger on why it is they dislike Jesus' teachings.
If heaven is full of "good people" what's wrong with heaven?

I don't dislike all of the teachings of Jesus. I only dislike that parts that divide the unsaved from the saved. For example:
"For all come short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death." or "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life." There are plenty of other verses that condemn nonbelievers, but I still remember those two from my childhood. Naturally fundies love the KJV of the Bible. It's pretty harsh. Perhaps a more modern version would sound a lot more tolerant. Maybe your translation of the book of Revelations is very different from the one I read as a child. It was used to instill fear in people, make claims about a time when Christians would be raptured to heaven while the unbelievers would be persecuted and suffer during the so called great tribulation. Of course, even fundies don't agree on many things. It still amazes me that I used to listen to fundies argue over whether the rapture would be before the tribulation or after it.

The implication is that only those who believe that Jesus was the son of God will get special treatment while everyone else will die. Now, perhaps you don't take that literally. If so, that's good. I do like the parts of the gospels that emphasize the importance of helping others, not being materialistic, etc. I just don't find that of what has supposedly been said by Jesus is positive. But, of course much of the philosophy of Jesus is similar to many other philosophies, both before and after the time of Christ. My opinion is that those who use Christianity to further charity and promote justice are using their beliefs in a positive way. While, those who believe, like my parents did, only use the teachings of Jesus to condemn and attempt to make others to feel guilty. Like other religions, Christianity serves many purposes and has many different interpretations.

In my dream world, religion would be progressive and regardless of each other's personal beliefs, we would all try to get along and not judge each other. As I said, that's my dream world. We are a very tribal species so I don't see that happening. That is partly why I refer to myself as a cherry picking secular humanist. I like many of the values of the humanist philosophy, but don't think they are much more realistic than most theistic philosophies.

The problem that I have with any afterlife is that it's an unrealistic dream or nightmare depending on which afterlife we're discussing. I don't believe in mind/body dualism. Our minds are totally dependent on the structures of our physical brains. The idea that we will somehow continue to live after all of this matter dies, just seems like magical thinking to me. Too, it might get a little boring in heaven. What do you think people will be doing in heaven? They won't even have meat bodies anymore. What goes on in your concept of heaven? I know that these days, a lot of people believe that they will be reunited with their dogs in heaven. I get that. I can't imagine a world without dogs. But, still, I was never taught that as a child. Do dogs have souls too? You see where I'm going with this. The afterlife is a lovely idea as long as you don't think too hard about it.

Anyway, just like Christians, atheists aren't all alike and we often disagree with each other. We can agree to disagree without telling each other to go to hell.

"...Our minds are totally dependent on the structures of our physical brains."

Then stop using the word "mind".
You can probably also chuck out the words consciousness, volition, memory, motive, emotions, etc.

A bit sad
Love is just an invented word which we use in lieu of plain old boring hormone molecules.

 

[steve_bank]

In the OT heaven was above, and underground was Sheol(spe?).

There was something on a show about the contemporary view of Hell being a place of eternal torment is traced to a Catholic theologian centuries back. Dante's take may have been an influence.


In around 5th grade a young nun lost it getting angry at a kid. She put a lot of red chalk on the black board and exclaimed 'This is Hell and where you are going'. True story circa 1959s.

A story from my uncle.

A man dies, goes to Hell. and meets the Devil. The Devil tells him its not so bad, he has a few choices. They enter a cave where people are eternally burning alive. H4 passes. The next cave has pitchforks raining down. He passes that one.

The third cave has people up up their necks in shit drinking coffee. The mans says this looks ok, grabs a cup of coffee, and wades in. As he turn's to leave the Devil says, 'Coffee break is over, everybody back on their heads'.

Christianity has always been about fear. I listened to a lot of TV and radio preachers. Hell fire and brimstone. Us evil non believers are going to get our asses flamed in Hell. It appears to work for a great many Christians.

Here in facility I am in I heard someone screaming and ranting, thought it was a resident who lost it. Turned out to be a preacher holding a bible meeting.

The Pope's recent clarification says the punishment is the loss of the presence of god and loss of community.

 

[Tigers!]

I was never Christian nor conservative, but in my observation, most of them deal with it quite gleefully. The concept of massive human suffering gets them sexually aroused.

You certainly associate with some peculiar people. I'll never met such people myself.

 

[Tigers!]

So, while I would love to know how any Christians here that believe in a literal hell deal with this cognitive dissonance, ......?

My first comment is that the claim of alleged cognitive dissonance is subjective claim made by someone who doesn't know me.
The next comment will be that while I dearly wish that that hell was not in the bible it is there. It is not for me to pick and choose which parts I believe or like. Otherwise i would be accused of being a cafeteria christian.

I have a difficult time understanding how they can believe in a god that is so egotistical that he rewards or punishes people based on whether or not they believe he's their savior and not on how they live their lives. Seriously. How do people do that?

We are judged upon how we live our lives. That is the hard part.

 

[southernhybrid]

You know what baffles me? The number of self-professed atheists who talk positively about the (secular) ethic of being a so-called "good person" and yet they can't quite put their finger on why it is they dislike Jesus' teachings.
If heaven is full of "good people" what's wrong with heaven?

I don't dislike all of the teachings of Jesus. I only dislike that parts that divide the unsaved from the saved. For example:
"For all come short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death." or "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life." There are plenty of other verses that condemn nonbelievers, but I still remember those two from my childhood. Naturally fundies love the KJV of the Bible. It's pretty harsh. Perhaps a more modern version would sound a lot more tolerant. Maybe your translation of the book of Revelations is very different from the one I read as a child. It was used to instill fear in people, make claims about a time when Christians would be raptured to heaven while the unbelievers would be persecuted and suffer during the so called great tribulation. Of course, even fundies don't agree on many things. It still amazes me that I used to listen to fundies argue over whether the rapture would be before the tribulation or after it.

The implication is that only those who believe that Jesus was the son of God will get special treatment while everyone else will die. Now, perhaps you don't take that literally. If so, that's good. I do like the parts of the gospels that emphasize the importance of helping others, not being materialistic, etc. I just don't find that of what has supposedly been said by Jesus is positive. But, of course much of the philosophy of Jesus is similar to many other philosophies, both before and after the time of Christ. My opinion is that those who use Christianity to further charity and promote justice are using their beliefs in a positive way. While, those who believe, like my parents did, only use the teachings of Jesus to condemn and attempt to make others to feel guilty. Like other religions, Christianity serves many purposes and has many different interpretations.

In my dream world, religion would be progressive and regardless of each other's personal beliefs, we would all try to get along and not judge each other. As I said, that's my dream world. We are a very tribal species so I don't see that happening. That is partly why I refer to myself as a cherry picking secular humanist. I like many of the values of the humanist philosophy, but don't think they are much more realistic than most theistic philosophies.

The problem that I have with any afterlife is that it's an unrealistic dream or nightmare depending on which afterlife we're discussing. I don't believe in mind/body dualism. Our minds are totally dependent on the structures of our physical brains. The idea that we will somehow continue to live after all of this matter dies, just seems like magical thinking to me. Too, it might get a little boring in heaven. What do you think people will be doing in heaven? They won't even have meat bodies anymore. What goes on in your concept of heaven? I know that these days, a lot of people believe that they will be reunited with their dogs in heaven. I get that. I can't imagine a world without dogs. But, still, I was never taught that as a child. Do dogs have souls too? You see where I'm going with this. The afterlife is a lovely idea as long as you don't think too hard about it.

Anyway, just like Christians, atheists aren't all alike and we often disagree with each other. We can agree to disagree without telling each other to go to hell.

"...Our minds are totally dependent on the structures of our physical brains."

Then stop using the word "mind".
You can probably also chuck out the words consciousness, volition, memory, motive, emotions, etc.

A bit sad
Love is just an invented word which we use in lieu of plain old boring hormone molecules.

Well, again I disagree. Love is a fantastic thing and it doesn't matter if it's dependent on our brain chemicals, our genetic heritage and how we were influenced and continue to be influenced by our environment. But, even if you find that sad, it doesn't change the fact that we are dependent on our brains for our minds ability to function. The experience is still the same regardless of what factors determine it.

Think of people with brain disorders, including people who are unable to experience emotions, or attachment to other humans. It's sad that they can't have those experiences, but the reason is due to the function of their brains. Ever spend much time with someone who suffers from Alzheimer's? It's very sad to see them lose their memory, their independence and usually at some point, their ability to identify loved ones or control their behavior. This malfunction that happens with Alzheimer's, it's due to plaques that form in the brain that eventually inhibit the actions of dendrite, and axions that normally function to send and receive neurotransmitters. It's a very sad disease and takes a lot of patience to care for such individuals. But, it's also a very interesting disease and to me, it's strong evidence of how our minds become dysfunctional when our brains are no longer able to function. Anyway, I digress. I do appreciate your responses even if I don't agree with you.

 

[southernhybrid]

So, while I would love to know how any Christians here that believe in a literal hell deal with this cognitive dissonance, ......?

My first comment is that the claim of alleged cognitive dissonance is subjective claim made by someone who doesn't know me.
The next comment will be that while I dearly wish that that hell was not in the bible it is there. It is not for me to pick and choose which parts I believe or like. Otherwise i would be accused of being a cafeteria christian.

I have a difficult time understanding how they can believe in a god that is so egotistical that he rewards or punishes people based on whether or not they believe he's their savior and not on how they live their lives. Seriously. How do people do that?

We are judged upon how we live our lives. That is the hard part.

I actually tend to agree with you about cognitive dissonance. Last month a friend of mine made the claim that Christians experience cognitive dissonance but still go on to support such concepts as hell. I told him that just because he and I experienced cognitive dissonance didn't mean that others did. So, I take it that the idea of hell doesn't make you question the goodness of the Christian god?

So, you are saying that we are judged by how we live our lives and not how by what we believe? Okay. That's better than what I was told as a child, although the idea that hell is forever still makes me wonder how anyone can believe such a punishment is just. And, I have no problem with cherry picking Christians as long as they pick the sweetest cherries. After all, the Bible was put together long after the various stories were written. Then mere mortal men, without any input from women, decided which parts to keep and which parts to throw out. Then again, there are many different translations to consider, some much more harsh than others. Why not pick the parts that make the most sense and encourage us to be better humans?

 

[Tigers!]

My first comment is that the claim of alleged cognitive dissonance is subjective claim made by someone who doesn't know me.
The next comment will be that while I dearly wish that that hell was not in the bible it is there. It is not for me to pick and choose which parts I believe or like. Otherwise i would be accused of being a cafeteria christian.

We are judged upon how we live our lives. That is the hard part.

I actually tend to agree with you about cognitive dissonance. Last month a friend of mine made the claim that Christians experience cognitive dissonance but still go on to support such concepts as hell. I told him that just because he and I experienced cognitive dissonance didn't mean that others did. So, I take it that the idea of hell doesn't make you question the goodness of the Christian god?

The attribute of God that the Bible mentions the most is his holiness, not his goodness. His holiness means that he must do something about sin/evil, he cannot over look it. Hell is the ultimate repository of sin/evil.
God's goodness is shown in his willingness to provide a remedy for sin. He could have instantly destroyed evil/sin but did not. Why exactly he did it that way we are not exactly told. We have some indications but by no means the complete picture. I do wish that hell was not in the Bible but it is therein. I will accept his goodness as shown without fully understanding or comprehending.

So, you are saying that we are judged by how we live our lives and not how by what we believe? Okay. That's better than what I was told as a child, although the idea that hell is forever still makes me wonder how anyone can believe such a punishment is just.

How we live our lives is a reflection on what we believe or not and vice-versa. If you believe God exists you will behave is ways different from those who do and vice-versa. There is always that interplay between out beliefs and out thoughts, actions, behaivours etc.

And, I have no problem with cherry picking Christians as long as they pick the sweetest cherries. After all, the Bible was put together long after the various stories were written. Then mere mortal men, without any input from women, decided which parts to keep and which parts to throw out. Then again, there are many different translations to consider, some much more harsh than others. Why not pick the parts that make the most sense and encourage us to be better humans?

as yet if I were to cherry picking i would be accused of hypocrisy, double standards, cowardice etc. It is a form of heads I win, tails you lose i.e if I cherry pick them I am dodging the consequences if I do not cherry pick I am a wicked fundamentalist.

 

[southernhybrid]

How we live our lives is a reflection on what we believe or not and vice-versa. If you believe God exists you will behave is ways different from those who do and vice-versa. There is always that interplay between out beliefs and out thoughts, actions, behaivours etc.

No, I don't think that is true at all. There are many horrible Christians that believe that the Christian god exists but still do horrible things to people and use the worst parts of the Bible to justify their awful behavior. And, while not all atheists exhibit saintly behavior, there are many atheists that do. Many of the abolitionists, for example were atheist women. I have found absolutely no correlation between one's spiritual beliefs and one's behaviors. I did recently work with a woman about my age who told me that she couldn't be good without god. I found that a bit sad, but simply told that I was capable of being good without god. Of course, we all make mistakes and we all sometimes suffer from adverse human emotions, but I see no evidence that how we act is based on whether or not we believe in any gods.

Are you suggesting that some people are better because of the fear of god? That might not be what you meant to say but that's how it appears. Morality is an evolved trait, which is found among many animals. Even my dogs understand fairness and sometimes exhibit jealousy. Non human animals moral traits are far less complicated than human morality, but it still exists, especially among other primates.

Last night I had dinner with about 12 or so other local atheists, all of them are very fine people. There were about six women and six or seven men with ages ranging from late 30s to about 70. We had a wonderful time together. Most people enjoy a sense of community with others that have similar values and beliefs. That's one of the positives about organized religion. It allows people to group together for social and emotional support and in the best of cases, to give back to the communities where they live and work. Sadly, not all churches do good deeds. Some simply instill fear in people, manipulate people to support them financially and try to bring others into the fold through guilt and persuasion. But, I digress. Thanks for your response. I always enjoy hearing what other people have to say even when I strongly disagree with them.

Oh, and I would never criticize a Christian who cherry picks positive things from their scriptures. Not all atheists do that. I have even met a couple of Christian atheists in the last ten years. They lost their beliefs but loved their Christian communities so they remained in their churches, while not believing in any of the theology literally. I'm quite sure there are more like them.

 

[abaddon]

... I have found absolutely no correlation between one's spiritual beliefs and one's behaviors. I did recently work with a woman about my age who told me that she couldn't be good without god. I found that a bit sad, but simply told that I was capable of being good without god. Of course, we all make mistakes and we all sometimes suffer from adverse human emotions, but I see no evidence that how we act is based on whether or not we believe in any gods.

Well, maybe it's not belief in gods but dogmatism of any kind that is the danger of Belief.

But I think there is a correlation between belief and behavior. You're talking about a secular society where the single constraint on fundy ethics are other non-theist and liberal-theist humans. If their fellow citizens were all fundies too, then you'll see these "good" Christians behave way differently.

The woman who said she couldn't be good without god actually couldn't be good without her fellow humans. Rationalists tend to presume individualism and thought in other human minds. That's why cognitive dissonance occurs to atheists regarding theists... they presume more than the most thin strain of thought and self-awareness is there; but strong belief isn't compatible with those things. Choosing between belief and having to suffer some thinking and self-doubt... well, that's a "no-brainer" for people who value Belief itself as sacred and virtuous (and enjoy the ego-stroking comfort of it).

It's the ones who want to be fully compliant that are the most suspect persons regarding their ethical abilities. Compliance isn't admirable in any way whatsoever. It's moral bankruptcy to not doubt and think for yourself about right and wrong and whether God lives up to the standard of what good is (which only we earth-animals who must live together by such standards can define, else we get righteous killers in our midst).

It's the "let me tell you what God says" people that, if they were just self-aware enough to doubt some (or think some... same thing) should check that shit. The only reason more of the fundies aren't killers is they live in a secular society that constrains them.

 

[remez]

from post 16

I've had Christian friends that never judged me for being an atheist, never said they would pray for me, never claimed that I was going to be punished for my lack of Christian beliefs. They don't judge me and I don't judge them, even if I don't understand why or how they believe the things that they do. But, the concept of eternal punishment is the most horrific thing that I see in the conservative Christian theology. I have no idea what you mean when you say that we should cooperate with the inevitable and be happy instead. I am happy and what you perceive as inevitable is nonsense to me. The late Issac Asimov who was an atheist, once said something along the lines of "if I were to believe in a god, I'd believe in one that judged man by his character and not by his beliefs." I'm paraphrasing there. I don't remember the exact quote but you get the idea. For me, and many others, it's impossible to believe in any god, but if I could believe that a god existed, it would be a god that understood justice and cared for all people. If punishment was necessary, it would be combined with forgiveness. It certainly wouldn't be used as a threat, as it is in the more conservative branches of Christianity. Hate, fear and threats are very common in religious fundamentalism. I'd prefer to see more love, peace and happiness. But what can you expect from a child of the 60s?

There are two different important ideas going on there.

One the idea that you desire and suggest a different standard of judgement. I get it. But I think your standard is far too tough, Jesus offers the easier path. I’ll get to that in a moment. But first………….

The other idea is your understandings of hell from a Christian perspective. Your reflections of hell thus far in this thread do not reflect a full understanding of Christian doctrine regarding hell. This area is multifaceted so I beg your patience. I wish I could say first this point followed by the next point and so on proceeding to conclusion, because that is the kind of thinker I am. Math guy. But this query of yours involves a massive juxtaposition of many big issues like eternity, law, justice, common grace, holiness, love, free will, heaven and hell, sin and the law, etc.

So I first offer this simple, short, core concept. God is holy, loving and just. He desires all people to freely choose to love Him and be with Him. Now that is easily said but not so easily understood. As a matter of fact, said that way, it sounds rather judgmental because the consequences of choosing not to be with Him are so dire. So here is I hope a greater perspective to that “Christianese.” God created man to be in a loving relationship with Him. Love cannot exist without free will. You cannot force someone to love you. If you choose to be with Him you can. If you choose not to be with Him you then will be free from Him. So of course this presents the alternatives (consequences) heaven and hell. Notice the judgement there, is one of your own judging.

Hold on. I know that does not clear much of anything yet. I'm sure you have heard that. I now need to juxtapose that with an attempt to explain hell. Hell is DESCRIBED as a place of eternal suffering. That it is, but the picture that likely comes to mind is this…... God Himself is causing and inflicting moment by moment torture upon those who simply choose not to be with him fueled by some petty revenge upon those who chose not to be with Him. No doubt that sounds horrific. But the actual Christian perspective of hell is not that.

Hell is a place where God is not. He is not there. And you can freely choose to go there. It is an eternal separation from Him. But lost in there is this important Christian understanding of common grace. In heaven God’s grace is everywhere. Here on earth there are different Christian positions of the extent of God’s grace, but suffice it to say that God’s grace is at work here on earth in his church. So some of God’s grace is here to guide and bless us all of us. Now that further underscores this Christian understanding. God’s grace here on earth through His church COMMONLY blesses BOTH believers and non-believers. (Now at this point you may disagree and want to address the atrocities done in His name as evidence to the contrary, but that is a different issue and I’m trying to keep this short and direct but thorough. Patience please.) So heaven is full of His grace and mercy, earth has some of His grace and mercy common to us all, and in hell He is not there. He is not there performing daily torture. He is not there. Neither is His loving grace and mercy. Hell is a place where those that don’t want to be with God can go to be completely separated from His presence forever. But that means His grace and mercy are not there either. That place is described as a place full of suffering and torture. A weak but still profound parallel of "Lord of the Flies" comes to mind, an island absent from direct and perpetuating civil grace and mercy. You reason that you don’t need God to be good, then there is your place to prove it. Since you are a atheist, why would you care at all what the descriptions of the place are? You can make it work without God. So from your perspective there shouldn't be any real concern.

So that is a more thorough depiction of hell from a Christian perspective that was not reflected in your assertions earlier. Provided to add and clarify our two perspectives. Now to your other idea that God’s standard of judgement is wrong and your standard of judgement is better.

Now you insinuate that God’s standard for heaven is petty and immature because it is solely based upon a belief in him. Well....No and Yes, and a deeper perspective. It is not just a belief that is the concern, scriptures teach that even the demons believe but still choose not to be with Him. The standard is that once you have determined He exists or even that He reasonably exists then you need to choose to enter into a loving relationship with Him. He seeks love and a relationship with you, not just a simple belief that he exists. That was a clarification about belief but it did not address your concern of pettiness.

To go deeper......God is holy and just. Ungodliness and injustice cannot remain in his presence. Juxtaposed with that Christian understanding is this…..ALL men have fallen short of being judged good enough to be with God. There is no believer (save Jesus) or non-believer good enough in their own being or works to be in God’s perfect presence. There is no believer (save Jesus) or non-believer who has or can meet the standard of the law for perfection and that is what is required by perfect justice. All men are cursed by sin and need a way to be pardoned from the law. That pardon is based not on good merits and that we could never achieve. But more simply it is based on do you love Me (God) and want to be with Me? If you do then I (God) have made a way to pardon you from the law and it's just sentence of eternal separation from God. If you do not want to be with Me (God) then you can go to where I am not, because I’m (God) not going to force you to be with Me. So from my Christian perspective, I have a pardon to be with God. Your way, again from my Christian perspective, is a way I could never achieve. I could never be good enough to earn heaven. I need the pardon. So, facing a perfect law and facing the overt sentence, I reasonably conclude that God’s pardon is the easier than your standard of good works or intentions. I plead guilty and except his pardon.

So there you have it. Your perspective of your standard was clear I got that. What I did not see reflected was a more thorough representation of the Christian perspective and that was my humble attempt there.

It really is a matter of perspective, based upon the way in which you see the world, aka your worldview. Destiny is a huge part of everyone’s worldview. You presented and insinuated hell as a place to which we Christians and God revengefully or even gleefully wish for you to go and get what’s coming to you and the media, culture, and academia for the most part reflects your worldview perspective. But for a few extreme examples, that is not the case. As to your Christian friends, from their perspective, I’m pretty certain most of them were trying to provide you with more information because they felt you were lacking all the facts or proper perspective. That is what happens when to different worldviews meet, they seek commonality and attempt to reconcile their differences. At least that is the way I read your intentions and as I hope you perceive that was my intent here as well. I don't experience any cognitive dissonance here. Because from my perspective I would instead ask you.....

Would it be loving for God to force you into his eternal presence against your will?

ps. A comparative background to juxtapose with yours presented in the OP. I was not raised in a Biblically Christian home like you. My home life was secular and apathetic to Christianity, but I did know what Christianity was, because I too had Christian friends in school. I was not a good little boy. My choosing God did not come about from fear, but was a philosophical conclusion supported by science that I reached in my college years in my pursuit for the truth. I have a mathematics degree and love science. We had opposite worldviews as children, yet our worldviews today regarding our respective destinies each went opposite of our origins. Interesting twist.

 

[steve_bank]

Mind is synonymous with brain, therefore religions are a function of the brain...period.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Man's imagination is the unifying factor to all religions.

 

[southernhybrid]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, remez. I have to admit that I found your post a bit confusing. It was as if you were twisting and turning words such as justice and goodness, to somehow explain or justify the horrific things that I see in the Christian Bible. Of course, I see no evidence for the very existence of such an entity as the Christian god, but I do try to understand how others not only believe in a god, but also believe in many of the things in many so called holy books, not just the Christian Bible.

As far as freewill, I don't think we have freewill, but I don't want to get into a discussion about freewill. Many atheists believe in freewill. I'm just not one of them. I believe that we are all products of our genetic and environmental heritage as well as things that influence us day to day. To me, that doesn't make life any less enjoyable. By denying the age old concept of freewill, it's much easier to be tolerant towards others. It helped me not to judge my more difficult patients during my 42 year nursing career, as I could always remind myself that if I had been influenced by the exact same genetics and environmental things that they were, I'd be like them.

My mother and I are very much alike in many ways, except her bookshelves were filled with Christian apologetics and mine are full of books on primatology, atheism, and neuroscience. She became a believer when she was in her 20s, but I don't think she ever even questioned what she came to believe. It was all due to an emotional experience that she had in her church. I don't think she had a choice. The emotional part of her brain influenced her to believe what felt good to her. While my leaving Christianity was due to my inability to make sense of it any longer. It was an eye opening experience, probably similar to what some Christians claim to experience, once they feel that they are "saved." We humans aren't as different from each other as we might like to think. Unfortunately, there are people who are born with psychopathy and so far, there is no medical treatment for that condition. Do you believe that someone born with psychopathy actually chooses to be immoral or violent, or do you accept like I do that this is a brain disease? I'm not suggesting that psychotic criminals should be released if they are a danger to the rest of us, but I do believe that prisons should be humane and not vengeful or cruel. But I digress. The Biblical god sometimes seems quite psychotic to me, knowing what I know about mental illness. I didn't choose to reject god, I just see no evidence that any gods exist.


Anyway, I don't think that being an atheist or a theist is a choice. It's just how we perceive things. Sometimes we believe things that make us feel hopeful, peaceful, righteous etc. I know an awful lot of people here in Georgia, that believe in all kinds of superstitions. They never question those things. They never try and consider that the things they believe don't exist. That's how theism appears to me. It's a belief that people accept because in their own minds it makes sense, because of tradition or culture, or perhaps because they've had an emotional experience that leads them to accept it. Sometimes it's based on their own fear of mortality.

Again, thanks for responding to this thread. If your beliefs are necessary for you to be happy and live a positive life, so be it. I think I've just been "blessed" with good genes from my mother, and that has motivated me to be a decent person.

 

[abaddon]

Free will was only tossed into the story as part of the narrative filler. In "the theist perspective", filling in a story-line with reasons is called "reason". You find the reasons the psychopath digs a hole for his beloveds to 'freely will' to fall into if his date with them goes badly... And there it is: reasoned faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Man's imagination is the unifying factor to all religions.

The ancient Romans condidered a common trligion/mythology essemtial to mainaing social cohesion. The question today is what can replce it.

 

[bilby]

Man's imagination is the unifying factor to all religions.

The ancient Romans condidered a common trligion/mythology essemtial to mainaing social cohesion. The question today is what can replce it.

The ancient Romans considered slavery, gladiatorial combat to the death, and crucifixion of criminals, to be essential to maintaining social cohesion too.

They were wrong about those three; Why would we take their advice regarding the value of a common religion?

 

[remez]

from post 33

Thanks for taking the time to reply, remez.

Sincere dittos.

I have to admit that I found your post a bit confusing. It was as if you were twisting and turning words such as justice and goodness, to somehow explain or justify the horrific things that I see in the Christian Bible

Two points there.

First you are over extending the context of my reply. My context was your assertion of "cognitive dissonance" essentially regarding the co-existence of a loving God and an eternal hell. I was not trying to address all of your perceived horrors about the Bible.

Secondly, your perception of my twisting words. That infers intent and needs to be addressed. When two worldviews are in conflict their differences are open for discussion. I was not twisting words, I was attempting to untwist your reflected perception of my worldview. I'm certainly not asserting that you have to agree with my worldview. I was attempting to gently show you where your reflection of my worldview was incomplete.

Which is what I need you to do for me now. Because............................

As far as freewill, I don't think we have freewill,

Now here is where I confused with your position. That statement infers that you had a "choice" and that you freely reasoned that conclusion. But that seems inconsistent with your overt view that freewill does not exist. As I read it you are boldly self-refuting yourself, because you are freely choosing to reason there is no freewill.

How do you reconcile such a cognitive dissonance?
or
Where am I wrong with asserting that it is a cognitive dissonance?

This is critically important to your position. As it reads right now it is nonsensical, because your OP and your last response to me are replete with choice and freewill as I see it. Example...................

but I don't want to get into a discussion about freewill.

Do you have a choice?

Another example...................

Many atheists believe in freewill. I'm just not one of them.

Sounds like you had the freewill to reason that conclusion.

or.............

To me, that doesn't make life any less enjoyable. By denying the age old concept of freewill, it's much easier to be tolerant towards others. It helped me not to judge

To deny and to judge infers choice and freewill. You are choosing to deny choice and freely judging that freewill does not exist. That is cognitive dissonance.

Moving on for now………………

Do you believe that someone born with psychopathy actually chooses to be immoral or violent, or do you accept like I do that this is a brain disease?

Yes sometimes they choose and yes it is a brain disease. I don't reason that your choices are mutually exclusive. So I must be missing your point.

I'm not suggesting that psychotic criminals should be released if they are a danger to the rest of us, but I do believe that prisons should be humane and not vengeful or cruel.

I agree with your freely reasoned conclusion about releasing psychotics. But why should I assume that prisons are vengeful and cruel?

I didn't choose to reject god, I just see no evidence that any gods exist.

Back on point for now….
That is a prime example of cognitive dissonance.
You logically inferred a "because" in there.
You just said you freely did not choose "because" you did not see any evidence.

That is still a conclusion freely based your perception of evidence. That infers that you freely examined the offered evidence and freely chose to reject it.

Deeper to the same point…....

Did you have a reason to reject the purposed evidence or not?

If you did then you exercised freewill and freely reasoned the conclusion of a choice.

If you did not freely reason your rejection then you are not being reasonable, you're just assuming the answer which is a fallacy.

Final point………..

I know an awful lot of people here in Georgia, that believe in all kinds of superstitions. They never question those things. They never try and consider that the things they believe don't exist. That's how theism appears to me. It's a belief that people accept because in their own minds it makes sense, because of tradition or culture, or perhaps because they've had an emotional experience that leads them to accept it.

If they have no freewill to choose it, then why would you be so negatively judgmental of their position? They don’t even have the freewill to examine their beliefs and you are negatively judging them anyway. That does not sound like the kind of thing a decent person would do.

Sorry if that last quote response sounded like I was being a bit nasty and mocking you. I intentionally wanted you to sense exactly that, because now perhaps you can recognize it here………….

If your beliefs are necessary for you to be happy and live a positive life, so be it. I think I've just been "blessed" with good genes from my mother, and that has motivated me to be a decent person.

….as well.

 

[southernhybrid]

Okay remez. I probably shouldn't have brought up free will because that is something that people don't seem to understand. We certainly do have the illusion of free will and that's why we are able to feel as if we are making choices, when in fact, it's the influences that impact our brains that are actually making those choices for us. It's something that a person realizes or they don't. The older I become, the more I feel as if my behavior and my beliefs have been influenced by my genetics, and the environment that has influenced me.

So, for example, if I had not attended a fundamentalist Christian college for one semester and had I not been exposed to the things that I was at that college, I might not have been influenced to dig deeper into various religions. Had I not been heavily indoctrinated into such a harsh version of Christianity, I might have felt comfortable in a more liberal, tolerant version of Christianity. I married a Baha'i when I was 20. There were many things about that religion that attracted me, but in the end, my mind wouldn't allow me to believe the things that the faith claimed were true no matter how hard I tried, so I continued on the road as an agnostic. I searched, read, prayed for answers during my twenties, but no answers ever came. The more I thought and read, the more obvious it became to me that there are no supernatural creatures out there. If I had been a different person, influenced by other things, I might not be an atheist. One of my sisters remains a Christian. The other sister is no longer a Christian, but she continues to hold onto many beliefs which I would consider superstitions. Her beliefs are mostly harmless and she never tries to convince anyone else to accept them. So, we were all influenced by different things that lead us to different conclusions. We had no choice. We simply followed the paths that were open to us. We may feel as if we had choices but the reality is that we simply were influenced by many factors that brought us to a conclusion.

Imo, my Christian sister always had a terrible time with guilt. She has suffered from anxiety and depression for most of her life. She was emotionally and to a lesser extent, physically abused by my Christian father as well. To this day, she suffers from a great deal of guilt. Perhaps that's why she was never able to break away from what we had been told as children. I don't know if that helps explain my position. It can be trying to explain things on a discussion board. It's very common for people not to fully understand what the other person means.

I can't help it if I think too much. I can't help it if I question things that don't make sense to me. That's what I mean when I say that we have no choice in what we believe. It either makes sense to us, or it causes cognitive dissonance. Of course, from my perspective, the Bible is simply mythology of the time that it was created. I will admit that I have a very difficult time understanding how anyone can see it differently, but at the same time, I realize that there are intelligent people that do view the Bible as true. I can only hope that they use their beliefs to do good works, and not to shame, or hurt those who don't share those same beliefs.

I know it was off topic but since you mentioned my reference to prisons. I read a lot and from what I've read, I've come to the conclusion that most of the prisons in the US are very inhumane. There was a time when we had prison reform and things may have been better but with budget cuts and privatization of the prison systems, things have become deplorable. But, perhaps we should be discussing that in the political section. I only brought up prisons because I see our prison system as very unjust, similar to the way I view the Biblical version of a god. You can't pretend that an entity that punishes his so called creation with eternal suffering is anything that resembles just.

Again, thanks for the discussion. I realize it's unlikely that we will agree on much or that we will completely understand each other's position. To me, the only important thing is how we live our lives, not what we believe. And, some people tell me that they can't be good without god. If that't true, then maybe it's good that religion exists.

 

[Learner]

Free will was only tossed into the story as part of the narrative filler. In "the theist perspective", filling in a story-line with reasons is called "reason". You find the reasons the psychopath digs a hole for his beloveds to 'freely will' to fall into if his date with them goes badly... And there it is: reasoned faith.

Oddly enough... some people argue against religions that contain; slavery, sacrificing i.e. giving something personal up, being forced to do things that is "against" an individuals own "will", who would want to do otherwise. And also, from the perspective there are those written about, who would give-up something for someone else which is not against the individuals "will".

Its hard imo not to include free-will in the theology.

 

[remez]

from post 38

Okay remez. I probably shouldn't have brought up free will because that is something that people don't seem to understand.

You assert that as if you had a choice.

How is that consistent with your belief that choices do not exist?

We certainly do have the illusion of free will and that's why we are able to feel as if we are making choices, when in fact, it's the influences that impact our brains that are actually making those choices for us.

If freewill is an illusion then so is reasoning.

You can't remain reasonably consistent asserting such a belief.

You assert there are no choices but then your next sentence you assert ....................

It's something that a person realizes or they don't.

... ...which is an absolute choice. There is no realization/conclusion to realize/reason because there is really no choice. Your molecular movement caused that illusion. That's cognitive dissonance and no other choice. And if you object then you're contradicting your own reasoning....I mean your contradicting your own illusion because to object would mean you have another choice which you would defend. Ontology digresses to subjective illusion and the laws of logic no longer apply.

The older I become, the more I feel as if my behavior and my beliefs have been influenced by my genetics, and the environment that has influenced me.

Again to be consistent with your belief you only have the illusion that you reasoned that. There really wasn’t any choice or reason for you to be different.

You have no foundation to reason any further. You just told me you don’t have the freewill to reach a reasonable conclusion, because a conclusion infers a free choice of possible givens. All that you assert is not reasoned. It is just the way your molecules moved. Well…..Happy movements to you.

I was going to end it there, but I freely chose to pause (24 hrs) and reason your position further. From my perspective what you just said there is so unreasonable how could anyone even believe it? So I looked at your examples hoping to discover your reasoning/illusion from their support…….

So, for example, if I had not attended a fundamentalist Christian college for one semester and had I not been exposed to the things that I was at that college, I might not have been influenced to dig deeper into various religions. Had I not been heavily indoctrinated into such a harsh version of Christianity, I might have felt comfortable in a more liberal, tolerant version of Christianity. I married a Baha'i when I was 20. There were many things about that religion that attracted me, but in the end, my mind wouldn't allow me to believe the things that the faith claimed were true no matter how hard I tried, so I continued on the road as an agnostic. I searched, read, prayed for answers during my twenties, but no answers ever came. The more I thought and read, the more obvious it became to me that there are no supernatural creatures out there. If I had been a different person, influenced by other things, I might not be an atheist. One of my sisters remains a Christian. The other sister is no longer a Christian, but she continues to hold onto many beliefs which I would consider superstitions. Her beliefs are mostly harmless and she never tries to convince anyone else to accept them. So, we were all influenced by different things that lead us to different conclusions. We had no choice. We simply followed the paths that were open to us. We may feel as if we had choices but the reality is that we simply were influenced by many factors that brought us to a conclusion.

Imo, my Christian sister always had a terrible time with guilt. She has suffered from anxiety and depression for most of her life. She was emotionally and to a lesser extent, physically abused by my Christian father as well. To this day, she suffers from a great deal of guilt. Perhaps that's why she was never able to break away from what we had been told as children. I don't know if that helps explain my position.

First on a personal note, I’m sorry that your chain of events was on the harsher side of life and sincerely hope there are better days ahead for you.

I reason that your whole lamented chain of “What-if’s” as normal reflections over the "could-have-beens". Reflecting upon the past is completely normal and sometimes fun to do. But you offered that list of reflections to support your assertion that freewill is an illusion. I still don’t see the connection, but here is my shot at it in the form of a question........

Are you reasoning (or whatever you call it) that since the past can’t be changed, then we can now forward conclude that all freewill is illusion?

I can't help it if I think too much. I can't help it if I question things that don't make sense to me. That's what I mean when I say that we have no choice in what we believe. It either makes sense to us, or it causes cognitive dissonance.

We all should question things that don't make sense to us. That is a positive virtue. It is actually our epistemic duty. Where would science be today if that did not happen?

But I completely fail to see how freely choosing to be inquisitive ultimately infers that choice, freewill and reasoning don't exist. You have provided no reasoning (or whatever you call it) to make such an unreasonable leap. In my world of reasoning your reasoning/illusion is a perfect example of a non-sequitur and thus erroneous by the laws of logic.

In my world if something does not make sense to me I either reject it or tentatively store it on another self not called knowledge. That is not cognitive dissonance. That is proper epistemology.

A perfect example of cognitive dissonance would be how you are FREELY CHOOSING to REASON the non-existence of freewill, choice and reason.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

Thank you for your response as well. It has been helpful to me.

I realize it's unlikely that we will agree on much or that we will completely understand each other's position.

Again "realize" infers that you had another choice/s and you freely choose this belief, which is inconsistent with your belief.

To me, the only important thing is how we live our lives, not what we believe.

But what we believe directly influences how we live our lives.

And, some people tell me that they can't be good without god. If that't true, then maybe it's good that religion exists.

That assertion reflects a misinterpretation of the Moral Argument. But we can freely choose not to go there for now.