theeverbored
Meteor
if a nerd has no avatar, does she still have a face?
Posts: 81
|
Post by theeverbored on Jul 5, 2010 7:15:19 GMT -5
While talking to Bombmaniac we got to thinking about some stuff…
There are so many environmentalists who are atheists; I figured I would pose this question. The argument about whether or not there is a god has been going on since the beginning of man, with neither side able to give a definitive answer. There is no clear answer either way, if you believe you believe, if you don’t you don’t. An idea was presented by French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Presented with this idea, most atheists would laugh in your face telling you that going through life, limiting yourself, and making yourself subservient to a god that may or may not exist, on the off chance that it does…is preposterous.
My question to the atheist environmentalist is: if you disregard Pascal’s wager, how then can you jump through so many hoops, and limit yourselves based on something that may or may not exist? There is science both ways on most environmental issues, which would provide proper indication for either perspective. As such, the most you can be doing, is wagering on the side of caution by “going green”. There is no doubt that in many cases “going green” is an inconvenience…so how can you allow yourself that inconvenience based solely upon a wager?
If your answer is that “we live on this world and if we do not accept that wager we will die”, then I ask you, suppose god is real, and suppose heaven and hell are real…would you take the chance? If there is indeed an eternal afterlife, would not a person’s life on this planet be insignificant in relation to that afterlife? Therefore, if you accept the wager for one, you should accept the wager on both. Your thoughts…
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 5, 2010 7:41:24 GMT -5
I like pascal's wager, it is why I am a deist. Though most atheists misunderstand the wager. Pascal was agnostic, but by today's standards would be considered a deist. According to the wager you merely must live life as if there was a god who would judge you at the end of your days, and your afterlife would be the sentence, based on that judgement. Pascal's wager does not use the Christian's jealous God to wager, so if you do make the wager, you need only believe that a god exist and live a life that could be deemed 'good', no worship or real limiting required.
As far as the environmental atheist perspective goes, you make a very good point. I mean, going green is good for the world and all, but after we humans die out, the world will return to natural order, regardless of how much trash is here. So, I think you make a good point. If one is willing to limit themselves on the products they use, and the method in which they live, simply to believe that they are doing better by the world, then why not also limit themselves to believe in a god and live a life that could be deemed good by that deity?
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 10:16:06 GMT -5
well, you have to ask yourself, ryan, what IS a good life by that diety? even if you take the ideas of a "jealous god" out of the equations, there are definitely things that you tell yourself not to do because of your desire to lead a good life by this diety...but that's a side issue which we can discuss in a different thread or in private message...also, im not sure what you mean "jealous god"...the concepts of afterlife in terms of heaven and hell are not because of jealousy...its simply that you require atonement, a form of payment for doing wrong. its not that because you "dissed" god by disobeying you deserve to fry...its more that look, you did something, and you are accountable for those actions, and as such there is a price to pay...but again. setting that aside for a different setting, and definitely not this thread...anyone else?
also i would like to say...i do not want this thread to turn into a debate over whether global warming is real or not...i dont want this to turn into both sides quibbling and nitpicking over the particulars of the global warming debate. please try and stick to the question asked. thank you, and i look forward to seeing your responses.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 5, 2010 10:27:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure I fully understand the question being asked but I'll give it a go anyway.
I've come to the conclusion as an atheist that if God really does exist that he is NOT by any means a "good" person. The way I see it is that it doesn't matter what God you worship he doesn't deserve our worship should he actually exist.
Every religion teaches that you should both love and fear God. This to me makes no sense and is impossible. I can not love something which I fear and I can not fear something which I love. They are two opposite emotions. Fear is the same as Hate.
It is also my understand that while they teach that God "loves everyone" that he does some very unloving things such as flood the earth, convince a man to murder his sons (he stopped the man before he actually did it but still he told the man to do it.), make a man sick just to settle a bet with Satan, and punish everyone on Earth for the sins of their ancestors.
So to my understanding God does not love everyone and it is not possible for me to love God.
That being said there's also the matter that God will forgive us for our sins because of Jesus which means that it really doesn't matter if we lead a good life, it only matters that we worship him and as previously stated I don't believe he deserves to be worshiped.
Whatever God you believe in does not reward the good and punish the bad. He rewards the people who worship him and punishes the people who don't. Of course that's only in the afterlife. In life he simply punishes everyone.
So I would not take the wager because I don't care to worship the first ever jerk in the universe.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 10:41:01 GMT -5
your post...honestly...made me laugh you have never had parents. moving on...assuming there may or may not be heaven and hell...and it seems that even granting the point you choose not to believe in, or follow a diety...you say life sucks...right? whats 78 years (average lifespan in the USA) in comparison with eternity? so what if life sucks here...would it not be worth 78 years of...even absolute suffering if it meant you could an eternity with none? PS: i am in no way a proponent of pascal's wager...i think it is stupid...this whole thread, and my post is playing devils advocate. respond as if i am not. the reason i mention it is to avoid personal attacks. carry on...
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 12:43:24 GMT -5
come on...any environmentalists? by the way...an added thought to what rivalestro said you believe that everything that happens is pure chance...force of nature. therefore you are wagering with an earth that hates your guts...earthquakes..so scary...volcanoes...wow...THAT SHIRT is serious...if you can accept limitations to appease the big bad meanie earth...why can you not accept limitations for a big bad meanie god (as you may see god)? and if you reject one...you should reject the other
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 5, 2010 13:01:36 GMT -5
On the loving and fearing. I would venture to guess that all of us here love the earth, yet fear tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, land slides, avalanches, floods, lightning storms, and droughts. All of these things are included in the bundle of having our earth, and we love our earth, though we should fear and respect it. The whole "love and fear" for gods in most religions, is mostly so that followers love the god they worship, while fearing and respecting its awesome (which means fear instilling by the way) power. It is very easy to both fear and love, and while often fear leads to hate, fear is more easy compared to a path in which hate is simply one of many destinations.
I'll address the wager with you in a private message Asher.
|
|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 5, 2010 17:03:40 GMT -5
Welll by that he either means to live a good life or worship a diety just in case. For obvious reasons worshipping any random diet is stupid so I'll assume thats not it.
I'm going to assume that if the atheist is laughing in your face with his godless spit particle flying towards your face and landing upon, ruining your good naturedness with his sin then he just thought you meant you should worship the christian diety just because which I have already told you would be a stupid thing to do.
So as far as the enviorment goes there really is pollution and that really does have a bad effect on the environment. There's no science that disproves the thesis "Pollution is bad" therefore we need to stop polluting so much because if you're familiar with the Butterfly Effect (A butterfly flapping it's wings can cause a tornado on the other side of the world) then you know that little things can have a big effect, and seeing as we're polluting on an unprecedented scale and it's only getting worse we can assume that even if we're not doing any harm whatsoever by completely destroying this planet with our stupid bullshit when the population doubles or triples we'll probably begin to run into some problems.
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 5, 2010 17:13:36 GMT -5
Morals and ethics are not synonymous with religious beliefs and/or faith. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.
|
|
theeverbored
Meteor
if a nerd has no avatar, does she still have a face?
Posts: 81
|
Post by theeverbored on Jul 5, 2010 19:51:35 GMT -5
"Welll by that he either means to live a good life or worship a diety just in case. For obvious reasons worshipping any random diet is stupid so I'll assume thats not it." deity*
"Ruining your good naturedness with his sin then he just thought you meant you should worship the christian diety just because..." First off you assume that we're talking about a Christian deity, and second that this supposed religious person is condemning an atheists. While I could go on about how both of those assumptions were never apart of this thread it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
"So as far as the enviorment goes there really is pollution and that really does have a bad effect on the environment. There's no science that disproves the thesis "Pollution is bad" therefore we need to stop polluting..."
First I do also realize that there is pollution in the world, but it would be worth it to mention that you trust a scientist’s words just as much as any religious person trusts their beliefs. Again this is slightly off topic in that global warming is not limited to human pollution. Global warming is a theory that can't be entirely proven because there are so many variables. Again this is not the point of the discussion. The question asked is why some people (environmental atheist) willingly "go green" in believe in a theory that may or may not be true, while trying to serve a god that may or may not exist in case he does, is considered foolish.
As for morals, there's a pretty lengthy debate thread already posted for that discussion, this thread isn't talking about the origin of morals...
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 21:24:22 GMT -5
Morals and ethics are not synonymous with religious beliefs and/or faith. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. i like how you lumped morals and ethics together...but what does this have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by dandelions8910 on Jul 6, 2010 1:33:00 GMT -5
Okay, I only read the first post because I'm being a bit lazy at the moment but here's how I would feel, were I an environmentalist atheist(I'm only half of that). I would say, if I'm wrong about the existence of a god(let's not even go into which one or whatever), that decision and my actions following that decision only affect me(and perhaps the hypothetical deity) whereas if I'm wrong about the planet being fine, I not only affect my peers, but generations after me. Being the kind of person I am, I would be far more likely to take a gamble at risk of myself than at the risk of my entire race.
Also, it may just be me, but I feel like you're treating religion as means to an end, which may be the general decision in the world, but I've never agreed with it. While there is an end, the means should...well, mean something. To have a "good" life, to me, is not just to follow a set of rules and keep in line...that's boring and ridiculous. To have a good religious life, to me, is to believe in a future and a group of people, not in a set of rules. While most people may believe that simply going through the motions will get you somewhere [and maybe it will], I'd rather actually FEEL something from that relationship.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 6, 2010 1:47:39 GMT -5
your post...honestly...made me laugh you have never had parents. Yes I have and you should know that I have 0 respect for and hate my mother. My father on the other hand I love and respect but do not fear him. If anyone ever deserved to be worshiped it would be my father. Moving on... On the loving and fearing. I would venture to guess that all of us here love the earth, yet fear tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, land slides, avalanches, floods, lightning storms, and droughts. You would be wrong on 2 accounts. 1. I do not love the Earth I just live on it. I think it's rather silly to love a giant rock. 2. The Earth and the weather on Earth are two separate things. That's kinda like saying you love people when they're healthy but if they're sick you're afraid of them. And granted if they're contagious you should be afraid of catching whatever they have but you wouldn't actually be afraid of that person just of catching their illness. It's basically saying you're afraid of someone or something because of something they have no control over which is completely different than loving and hating someone because of what they can control.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 6, 2010 1:53:48 GMT -5
i pity you.
|
|
|
Post by standalone3 on Jul 6, 2010 2:13:15 GMT -5
your post...honestly...made me laugh you have never had parents. moving on...assuming there may or may not be heaven and hell...and it seems that even granting the point you choose not to believe in, or follow a diety...you say life sucks...right? whats 78 years (average lifespan in the USA) in comparison with eternity? so what if life sucks here...would it not be worth 78 years of...even absolute suffering if it meant you could an eternity with none? PS: i am in no way a proponent of pascal's wager...i think it is stupid...this whole thread, and my post is playing devils advocate. respond as if i am not. the reason i mention it is to avoid personal attacks. carry on... You misunderstand the usage of the word "fear" which is the problem a lot of athiests have, they don't read enough into a religion and just go with what their told, in more recent versions of the Bible this word has been changed because of it's less common usage. It used to be used as a synonym for "obey" and you had some form of parents growing up that you "feared" but you also "loved" because they gave you everything you needed to live. On to the question posed, I believe that most Athiest environmentalists would say something to the tune of "Well, the world is more important to me, and it will affect my life" because they don't realize that religion would also affect their life and would probably give them a better reason to keep on living it.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 6, 2010 5:54:29 GMT -5
your post...honestly...made me laugh you have never had parents. moving on...assuming there may or may not be heaven and hell...and it seems that even granting the point you choose not to believe in, or follow a diety...you say life sucks...right? whats 78 years (average lifespan in the USA) in comparison with eternity? so what if life sucks here...would it not be worth 78 years of...even absolute suffering if it meant you could an eternity with none? PS: i am in no way a proponent of pascal's wager...i think it is stupid...this whole thread, and my post is playing devils advocate. respond as if i am not. the reason i mention it is to avoid personal attacks. carry on... You misunderstand the usage of the word "fear" which is the problem a lot of athiests have, they don't read enough into a religion and just go with what their told, in more recent versions of the Bible this word has been changed because of it's less common usage. It used to be used as a synonym for "obey" and you had some form of parents growing up that you "feared" but you also "loved" because they gave you everything you needed to live. On to the question posed, I believe that most Athiest environmentalists would say something to the tune of "Well, the world is more important to me, and it will affect my life" because they don't realize that religion would also affect their life and would probably give them a better reason to keep on living it. Your quote seems to be seriously broken. I can see bits of what I said mixed in with another person's post. Please fix your quote tags. Now onto the rest of your reply... fear and obey are not the same thing. You can obey because of fear but fear is not needed to make someone obey. Haven't you ever heard the saying that it is better to be loved than feared. This is usually directed at world leaders meaning that you'll have a stronger following if your people love you rather than fear you. When you're feared it's inevitable that you're people will revolt and overthrow your rule over them. There's evidence of this throughout history. However it's kinda hard to step up against an omnipotent being which may be the only reason people worship him at all. That being said why exactly are we so afraid of someone that we can't prove even exists? I mean we use logic and science with everything else in life. We don't just blindly believe what other people tell us is true. But when it comes to God and Religion people are willing to throw logic and science out the window to blindly worship some all mighty being no one can prove the existence of. The original question doesn't make allot of sense to me but this is my question to the religious people. It doesn't matter what religion you are or even if you're not part of an organized religion, just anyone who believes in any kind of God. Why is it that you believe in the existence of God with no proof but with everything else you need proof to believe it? Believing God to me is like believing that Santa Claws, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and all them really exist. And it's much easier to believe in Santa Claws when you've met the guy... until someone yanks his beard off... but still seeing is believing.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 6, 2010 11:22:28 GMT -5
there are many indications that god exists. i will not post them here, because the debate club already has a lengthy discussion on god. i can understand why a person would disregard god, and i understand why a person would believe in him. there is no concrete answer as to whether there is a god or not. each person has to decide for themselves. its not like santa claus at all. as far as i know, there are no people out there who would say OMG! LOOK WHAT SANTA DID! SHE CURED MY SISTER'S CANCER!!! no. yet...you will find countless people claiming that of god. as for seeing is believing, check out the thread here in the debate club "problems i have with religion" or something like that. it is very untrue that fear engenders a hatred to the point of revolt. i am honestly surprised that you have never been in a situation where you have felt fear, respect, and love for one person...they are in no way contradictory...but i'm not going to sit here explaining it. you have to experience it. one day you will be in such a situation. again, i'm not interested in turning this thread into an "existence of god" argument, we already have plenty of those. in case you are REALLY REALLY REALLY interested in the idea of indications that god exists without empirical proof...i suggest you read "permission to believe" by lawrence kelerman. you may disregard god out of hand, but that book may explain why many people do not. by the way...what sense didn't the original question make? standalone3 more recent versions of the bible...i lol'd
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jul 6, 2010 16:49:36 GMT -5
there are many indications that god exists. i will not post them here, because the debate club already has a lengthy discussion on god. i can understand why a person would disregard god, and i understand why a person would believe in him. there is no concrete answer as to whether there is a god or not. each person has to decide for themselves. its not like santa claus at all. as far as i know, there are no people out there who would say OMG! LOOK WHAT SANTA DID! SHE CURED MY SISTER'S CANCER!!! no. yet...you will find countless people claiming that of god. as for seeing is believing, check out the thread here in the debate club "problems i have with religion" or something like that. it is very untrue that fear engenders a hatred to the point of revolt. i am honestly surprised that you have never been in a situation where you have felt fear, respect, and love for one person...they are in no way contradictory...but i'm not going to sit here explaining it. you have to experience it. one day you will be in such a situation. again, i'm not interested in turning this thread into an "existence of god" argument, we already have plenty of those. in case you are REALLY REALLY REALLY interested in the idea of indications that god exists without empirical proof...i suggest you read "permission to believe" by lawrence kelerman. you may disregard god out of hand, but that book may explain why many people do not. by the way...what sense didn't the original question make? It is exactly like Santa Claws. As children we are made to believe that Santa brings us presents when really our parents and other members of the family bought them. With God people often give credit to him for things done and made by man. I've even heard doctors thank God and call it a miracle when someone has lived they a surgery and I'm just sitting at home watching this on TV going, you idiot, you saved that person's life God didn't do a damn thing what the hell are you thinking him for? Note I'm not calling that man an idiot because he believes in God, I'm calling him an idiot for giving credit to someone else for something he did. It is very true that Fear leads to Revolt. Didn't you ever take History in school? I'm not good with remembering names and dates but I do know that throughout history no one has ever been both loved and feared, it is always one or the other. It simply is not possible to do both. And the original post was rather long winded and kinda read like big joke that I missed the punch line to.
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Jul 6, 2010 17:00:30 GMT -5
Some things can't be unseen.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 6, 2010 17:03:12 GMT -5
|
|