If faith is what is required

shadowcomplex

then wouldnt God make it difficult?hence why its easier to be an athiest

shadowcomplex

bluewolf wrote: »

I suppose its easier to make jokes

your post just doesn't make much sense

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

I suppose its easier to make jokes

Holy shít, you posted more than once in one of your own threads, are you feeling okay?

Helix

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then wouldnt God make it difficult?hence why its easier to be an athiest

its easier to believe that what you do has no consequence, since you can repent and get into a magical utopia

its easier to believe that when your family die, they go to heaven where you'll see them again

its easier to believe that theres a magic sky fairy looking out for your best interests all that time

i wouldnt have said being an atheist was the easiest one at all

eire4

Helix wrote: »

its easier to believe that what you do has no consequence, since you can repent and get into a magical utopia

its easier to believe that when your family die, they go to heaven where you'll see them again

its easier to believe that theres a magic sky fairy looking out for your best interests all that time

i wouldnt have said being an atheist was the easiest one at all

Some good points there.

shadowcomplex

Helix wrote: »

its easier to believe that what you do has no consequence, since you can repent and get into a magical utopia

its easier to believe that when your family die, they go to heaven where you'll see them again

its easier to believe that theres a magic sky fairy looking out for your best interests all that time

i wouldnt have said being an atheist was the easiest one at all

nicer maybe, but not easier

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

nicer maybe, but not easier

Explain.

Dades

shadowcomplex wrote: »

If faith is what is required...then wouldnt God make it difficult?hence why its easier to be an athiest

Faith is what's required because the reality is there's no evidence, not because of some daft notion of God making it difficult to believe.

Fbjm

I'm still undecided as to whether these threads are entertaining or annoying. They pop up every now and again, and one thing I've come to realise (through the powers of casual observation :pac:) is that it's impossible to argue any case on an atheistic mindset with these people. So here's the most useful contribution I can make to this thread:





Blast faith with piss :cool:

CiaranMT

shadowcomplex wrote: »

nicer maybe, but not easier

Cheers for the laugh!

Newsite

Fbjm wrote: »

I'm still undecided as to whether these threads are entertaining or annoying. They pop up every now and again, and one thing I've come to realise (through the powers of casual observation :pac:) is that it's impossible to argue any case on an atheistic mindset with these people. So here's the most useful contribution I can make to this thread:





Blast faith with piss :cool:

We've no doubt you're correct.

Fbjm

Newsite wrote: »

We've no doubt you're correct.

*The most useful contribution anyone can make to this thread. :rolleyes:

shadowcomplex

Fbjm wrote: »

I'm still undecided as to whether these threads are entertaining or annoying. They pop up every now and again, and one thing I've come to realise (through the powers of casual observation :pac:) is that it's impossible to argue any case on an atheistic mindset with these people. So here's the most useful contribution I can make to this thread:





Blast faith with piss :cool:

whats the point in an atheist forum

strobe

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then wouldnt God make it difficult?hence why its easier to be an athiest

shadowcomplex wrote: »

nicer maybe, but not easier

MagicMarker wrote: »

Explain.

I'm feeling uncharacteristically altruistic (might have something to do with being stuck at home alone and sober at 10pm on a Friday night, not sure.) so...

What Shadowcomplex means is 'Faith is a difficult thing to maintain, God made that a reality on purpose so it could act as a test. I think it's easier to live your life without taking things on blind faith than to live your life while trying to maintain this faith.'

Of course he then extends this to saying 'it's easier to be an atheist' which would mean that not taking the God thing on faith is the only difference between being an atheist and a hobgodling. Which as Helix points out is not the only thing to take into account if you are in the humour for arguing over which is easier to be.

But despite his extension, if we take his original assertion in isolation i.e 'It's harder to take something on blind faith than to believe the thing when it's supported with strong evidence', I think I would probably agree with him (at least it is for me, I'm sure others find it easier). It would be harder for me to believe a stranger if he walked up to me on the street and told me "if you give me a thousand euro I will invest it for you and then track you down in three weeks and give you the one hundred thousand profits I will make for you" than it would be to believe a professional stock broker with a proven empirical track record of making ten fold returns telling me there was a good chance he could get me similar returns to the ones he usually gets for others.

So in conclusion, the statement that 'it's easier to be an atheist' is a matter of opinion and not one I particularly agree with but I would agree that for me personally, yes, it is harder to believe something purely on faith than to believe something with evidence behind it... obviously, I would have thought.

MagicMarker

shadowcomplex wrote: »

whats the point in an atheist forum

There is no atheist forum.

Turtwig

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then wouldnt God make it difficult?hence why its easier to be an athiest

What do you mean by faith?
Am I allowed to assume I can understand the actions or thought process of an infinite being? (If you allow God to be infinite.)

shadowcomplex

strobe wrote: »

I'm feeling uncharacteristically altruistic (might have something to do with being stuck at home alone and sober at 10pm on a Friday night, not sure.) so...

What Shadowcomplex means is 'Faith is a difficult thing to maintain, God made that a reality on purpose so it could act as a test. I think it's easier to live your life without taking things on blind faith than to live your life while trying to maintain this faith.'

Of course he then extends this to saying 'it's easier to be an atheist' which would mean that not taking the God thing on faith is the only difference between being an atheist and a hobgodling. Which as Helix points out is not the only thing to take into account if you are in the humour for arguing over which is easier to be.

But despite his extension, if we take his original assertion in isolation i.e 'It's harder to take something on blind faith than to believe the thing when it's supported with strong evidence', I think I would probably agree with him (at least it is for me, I'm sure others find it easier). It would be harder for me to believe a stranger if he walked up to me on the street and told me "if you give me a thousand euro I will invest it for you and then track you down in three weeks and give you the one hundred thousand profits I will make for you" than it would be to believe a professional stock broker with a proven empirical track record of making ten fold returns telling me there was a good chance he could get me similar returns to the ones he usually gets for others.

So in conclusion, the statement that 'it's easier to be an atheist' is a matter of opinion and not one I particularly agree with but I would agree that for me personally, yes, it is harder to believe something purely on faith than to believe something with evidence behind it... obviously, I would have thought.

no i didnt

strobe

shadowcomplex wrote: »

no i didnt

What?

shadowcomplex wrote: »

its easier to be an athiest

You're adorable.

Littlehorny

Was once asked by a holy joe once "if you have no faith then why be nice to people?"
They just looked at me with total bewilderment cause i started laughing, could not fathom that you dont need a god to have love in your heart.

shadowcomplex

strobe wrote: »

What?



You're adorable.

oh yea, gotta give a guy a break , its a friday night and im on my 2nd bottle of wine

strobe

shadowcomplex wrote: »

oh yea, gotta give a guy a break , its a friday night and im on my 2nd bottle of wine

It's cool man.

Helix

strobe wrote: »

I'm feeling uncharacteristically altruistic (might have something to do with being stuck at home alone and sober at 10pm on a Friday night, not sure.) so...

What Shadowcomplex means is 'Faith is a difficult thing to maintain, God made that a reality on purpose so it could act as a test. I think it's easier to live your life without taking things on blind faith than to live your life while trying to maintain this faith.'

Of course he then extends this to saying 'it's easier to be an atheist' which would mean that not taking the God thing on faith is the only difference between being an atheist and a hobgodling. Which as Helix points out is not the only thing to take into account if you are in the humour for arguing over which is easier to be.

But despite his extension, if we take his original assertion in isolation i.e 'It's harder to take something on blind faith than to believe the thing when it's supported with strong evidence', I think I would probably agree with him (at least it is for me, I'm sure others find it easier). It would be harder for me to believe a stranger if he walked up to me on the street and told me "if you give me a thousand euro I will invest it for you and then track you down in three weeks and give you the one hundred thousand profits I will make for you" than it would be to believe a professional stock broker with a proven empirical track record of making ten fold returns telling me there was a good chance he could get me similar returns to the ones he usually gets for others.

So in conclusion, the statement that 'it's easier to be an atheist' is a matter of opinion and not one I particularly agree with but I would agree that for me personally, yes, it is harder to believe something purely on faith than to believe something with evidence behind it... obviously, I would have thought.

what you're saying would be true if religion was some new thing. it would obviously be a lot harder for johnny random to say to people "here, there's this god lad, and if you do what he says, you go to a utopia. all you need to do is believe and live according to this book" and have them believe him than it is for people to simply fall in line with millennium old dogma that is so ingrained in people's psyches that the vast majority of believers believe without question

Helix

Littlehorny wrote: »

Was once asked by a holy joe once "if you have no faith then why be nice to people?"
They just looked at me with total bewilderment cause i started laughing, could not fathom that you dont need a god to have love in your heart.

those people are the only sensible argument for religion that i can think of. there are plenty of these people who simply cannot fathom that you can be a decent person, and not run around stealing, raping and murdering without fearing that you'll be punished by god for it

these people are potentially very, very dangerous imo, so if it takes a fairy tale to keep them in check, then fine. the problem is that the leaders in their fairy tale world have too much power and say in how the world is.

strobe

Helix wrote: »

what you're saying would be true if religion was some new thing. it would obviously be a lot harder for johnny random to say to people "here, there's this god lad, and if you do what he says, you go to a utopia. all you need to do is believe and live according to this book" and have them believe him than it is for people to simply fall in line with millennium old dogma that is so ingrained in people's psyches that the vast majority of believers believe without question

Oh, I agree man. My point was, that 'faith' (not particularly faith in god or x or y) when taken as an idea in isolation is harder to maintain than it is to demand evidence. Which is why I started rambling about stock brokers and stuff.

The Quadratic Equation

Helix wrote: »

there are plenty of these people who simply cannot fathom that you can be a decent person, and not run around stealing, raping and murdering without fearing that you'll be punished by god for it

these people are potentially very, very dangerous imo.

Well spotted, and not discussed often enough.
In my opinion there is a huge percentage of the population exactly like that.
Survival of the fittest and achievement of their own and famailies material goals at any cost, would be their default mode. As far as they would be concerned, if there is no external moral standard and no day of reckoning, they would invent their own to suit each any every circumstance, and the ends would always justify the means.

Dades

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Well spotted, and not discussed often enough.
In my opinion there is a huge percentage of the population exactly like that.
Survival of the fittest and achievement of their own and famailies material goals at any cost, would be their default mode. As far as they would be concerned, if there is no external moral standard and no day of reckoning, they would invent their own to suit each any every circumstance, and the ends would always justify the means.

Your post, quoting the post you did, makes no sense. Only makes me fear for your continuation in this forum.

Want to explain?

Helix

quoting my post it does make sense, he's talking about where i refer to people who need something like an all seeing god to keep them on the straight and narrow. take god out of the equation, by removing religion, and these people become seriously dangerous

now im not talking about them all, just those who bring up the "if you dont believe in god why dont you do what you want" argument. those who cant understand that being a decent person and being religious are not the same thing

granted, im a good person for selfish reason. i think everyone else to a certain extent. ive seen enough of the world to know that if im an utter bastard to people, my life will be a lot harder. or if i go around braking loads of laws, im likely to get chucked in jail. ultimately, i dont want that, so i adhere to the rules

Dades

Wait, so TQE is suggesting a large amount of the population need a god to keep them on the straight and narrow?

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

Wait, so TQE is suggesting a large amount of the population need a god to keep them on the straight and narrow?

"Not discussed often enough." :rolleyes:

Newsite

Helix wrote: »

quoting my post it does make sense, he's talking about where i refer to people who need something like an all seeing god to keep them on the straight and narrow. take god out of the equation, by removing religion, and these people become seriously dangerous

now im not talking about them all, just those who bring up the "if you dont believe in god why dont you do what you want" argument. those who cant understand that being a decent person and being religious are not the same thing

granted, im a good person for selfish reason. i think everyone else to a certain extent. ive seen enough of the world to know that if im an utter bastard to people, my life will be a lot harder. or if i go around braking loads of laws, im likely to get chucked in jail. ultimately, i dont want that, so i adhere to the rules

Yes - so you admit that the human standard is a selfish one.

Newsite

Dades wrote: »

Your post, quoting the post you did, makes no sense. Only makes me fear for your continuation in this forum.

Want to explain?

Not speaking for TQE, but an explanation could be:

'I have no moral standard only that which I hold to be my own, and/or possibly bits and pieces of that handed down to me to varying degrees. While I may abide to this moral standard to a high degree, it is subject to my own interpretation and is fit to be adjusted and adapted to fit my own natural self-interest dependent on the circumstances I find myself in'.

strobe

Newsite wrote: »

Yes - so you admit that the human standard is a selfish one.

Helix doesn't speak for humanity. The Helix standard is (apparently) a selfish one. That's all you can draw from his statement.

The god standard on the other hand is objectively selfish. Thoughts?

Newsite

strobe wrote: »

Helix doesn't speak for humanity. The Helix standard is (apparently) a selfish one. That's all you can draw from his statement.

The god standard on the other hand is objectively selfish. Thoughts?

You couldn't honestly say that the standard he describes isn't the standard of pretty much everyone. Or what I described isn't as such.

God's standard - several rules which are accepted even by secular society as being good for society. His requirement to you to be saved and to get to have eternal life (as opposed to the opposite) - believe in Him. Sure doesn't seem selfish to me.

parrai

strobe wrote: »

Helix doesn't speak for humanity. The Helix standard is (apparently) a selfish one. That's all you can draw from his statement.

The god standard on the other hand is objectively selfish. Thoughts?

I see what you mean, but if you are true in your heart, (ie not a bastard to everyone for no reason when it suits, and for no other reason than being a bastard), decent, so to speak, there should be no need for objective selfishness, otherwise one would be a hypocrite, hence not a real christian at all. Religion shouldn't even come into it, as this is the way one would naturally be, if one was to believe in faith.

The Quadratic Equation

Helix wrote: »

quoting my post it does make sense, he's talking about where i refer to people who need something like an all seeing god to keep them on the straight and narrow. take god out of the equation, by removing religion, and these people become seriously dangerous

now im not talking about them all, just those who bring up the "if you dont believe in god why dont you do what you want" argument. those who cant understand that being a decent person and being religious are not the same thing

Sin é

Fbjm

Newsite wrote: »

You couldn't honestly say that the standard he describes isn't the standard of pretty much everyone. Or what I described isn't as such.

God's standard - several rules which are accepted even by secular society as being good for society. His requirement to you to be saved and to get to have eternal life (as opposed to the opposite) - believe in Him. Sure doesn't seem selfish to me.

My god newsite, have you not figured it out yet? This is the atheist forum, none of us believe in god. All I've seen you do since I started posting in this forum is try to convert people, you even threw a couple of biblical threats my way in a post of mine last week - 'and the pilgrims said, leave us as we pay no heed to your beliefs' or something. Surely you could come up with less annoying, more helpful posts if you're insistent upon following this forum?

The Quadratic Equation

Dades wrote: »

Only makes me fear for your continuation in this forum.

"Quickly - Stone Him!" eh ?

As suspected you read what you wanted to, but it's not the pseudo excuse you are clearly so desperate for.

strobe

Newsite wrote: »

God's standard - several rules which are accepted even by secular society as being good for society. His requirement to you to be saved and to get to have eternal life (as opposed to the opposite) - believe in Him. Sure doesn't seem selfish to me.

God's standard is - believe or else. It's entirely selfish. God 'loves' everyone (it takes such a twisting of the concept of love here that it makes the word meaningless in a human understanding. Should really use another word. Would solve a lot of the problems inherent in Christianity.) God want's people to end up in Heaven because God 'loves' people and seeing people happy makes God satisfied (not happy). He wants it to happen because He wants it to happen. It is entirely self indulgent, which is entirely in character for Him.

=========
=========

Not in any way un-related here, for the purpose of the discussion could anyone that replies to this make an attempt at defining 'love'?

strobe

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

"Quickly - Stone Him!" eh ?

As suspected you read what you wanted to, but it's not the excuse you are desperate for.

Now now, TQE. You are well aware that your purpose in posting here is 'having a go at the atheists' rather than 'spreading the good word' or 'defending the teachings of Jesus' as some other religious people that post (often on a regular basis) here do.

The Quadratic Equation

strobe wrote: »

Now now, TQE. You are well aware that your purpose in posting here is 'having a go at the atheists' rather than 'spreading the good word' or 'defending the teachings of Jesus' as some other religious people that post here do.

I'm here to debate and discuss, but true to form, some people people can't handle that, so they then go for the personal option. Unlike them, I have a go at ideas I disagree with, not people. This is the atheism forum, not the atheists forum, but if you want it to be a personal echo chamber, then ban me. Now you can continue to try and make this thread about me, or you can get back to on topic discussion.

strobe

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I'm here to debate and discuss, but true to form, some people people can't handle that, so they then go for the personal option. Unlike them, I have a go at ideas I disagree with, not people. This is the atheism forum, not the atheists forum, but if you want it to be a personal echo chamber, then ban me. Now you can continue to try and make this thread about me, or you can get back to on topic discussion.

If that's true, then good... seriously. If it's not try to remember you claimed it was.

That staying on topic stuff I also liked. Let's try.

Now you can continue to try and make this thread about me

Quo Vadis, buddy?

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

God's standard is - believe or else.

God's standard is believe and get God and all he stands for. Or remain in disbelief and get everything that God doesn't stand for.

It's entirely selfish.

It's entirely up to you.

God 'loves' everyone (it takes such a twisting of the concept of love here that it makes the word meaningless in a human understanding. Should really use another word. Would solve a lot of the problems inherent in Christianity.) God want's people to end up in Heaven because God 'loves' people and seeing people happy makes God satisfied (not happy). He wants it to happen because He wants it to happen. It is entirely self indulgent, which is entirely in character for Him.

The truest of loves is prepared for the beloved to reject it. And makes provision to ensure rejection is possible should the beloved desire to reject. That this means the beloved destroys him/herself in the process isn't the fault of God. God is holy and can't prevent sinner being consumed by the fire of his presence.

The truest of loves sacrifices the most precious thing it has in order to save the beloved. It cost God to save - whatever about simplistic "sure he was only dead a couple of days" ideas.

Not in any way un-related here, for the purpose of the discussion could anyone that replies to this make an attempt at defining 'love'?

See above.

Dades

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

"Quickly - Stone Him!" eh ?

As suspected you read what you wanted to, but it's not the pseudo excuse you are clearly so desperate for.

In case you missed it (rather than selectively edit it out), I did ask you to clarify.

Dades wrote: »

Your post, quoting the post you did, makes no sense. Only makes me fear for your continuation in this forum.

Want to explain?

Stop being oppressed and clarify.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above.

How about this one man?

Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

Have you any particular objection?

===========
===========

Also, now that I have you here, 'living the conclusion'?

uncleoswald

If faith it's what is required...

Then why is it that many religious people are always tying to point to things that supposedly proves God's existence? Such as saying the complexity of life is proof of an intelligent designer or that if the universe exists then there must be a God etc...

So can we agree that the leap of faith is an important idea in Christianity and let some very smart people continue to study the world around us unimpeded?

the christian posters drive me further and further toward atheism every time i see their posts, they really do

Ellis Dee

There's nothing easy or difficult about being an atheist at all. You either believe all that stuff and nonsense about an all-powerful, all-caring, all-knowing invisible being, for the existence of which there is and never could be any proof, or you don't.:rolleyes:

housetypeb

Newsite wrote: »

God's standard - several rules which are accepted even by secular society as being good for society.

You've got that backwards-rules which are good for society have been claimed by the religious.

MrPudding

shadowcomplex wrote: »

then wouldnt God make it difficult?hence why its easier to be an athiest

But for believers faith is simply the cost of doing business, so if it is hard you can't really complain about it. And besides, you need to look at the difficulty of the test versus the prize you receive.

If you find faith difficult then it is probably because deep down you realise it is all a load of bollix the difficulty you experience is simply your rational mind rejecting the bullsh1t you are trying to feed it.

As for it being easier to be a atheist, I am not so sure. Certainly we do not have to carry out the complex mental gymnastics that a christian must to reconcile the supposedly good god they believe in with what they see in the world around them, but we have it fairly difficult as well.

It can make one quite sad to think atheism through to its logical conclusion (that is the atheistic logical conclusion and not the sky wizard logical conclusion, so no, I don't mean hell). I won't see all my dead loved ones, I won't be able to watch my children grow up through some magical giant flatscreen TV in heaven, death really is the end. That bit can be hard, very hard.

That said, it is also an amazingly freeing feeling being an atheist. And I don't mean in the sense that because I don't believe in a sky wizard nor do I believe in hell that I can do whatever I want. I mean it simply from the perspective of this life is meant for living. It is not a rehearsal, it is not some obscene test that the vast majority of people born with automatically fail. It is simply our life for us to do with what we choose.

I take pride in the fact that I am an honest, ethical hard working father trying to do his best for his family and fellow man. I take pride in the fact that I do this simply because I genuinely believe it is the right thing to do. I don't do it because of the carrot of eternal life or the stick of eternal damnation. I do it simply because it is right.

So in that respect perhaps yes, atheism is easier than faith. We have our difficulties, we don't have your nice fairytales about what happens after we die to give us a false sense of happiness and contentment. But then we don't have supernatural threat hanging over us. Perhaps it all evens out...?

MrP