Generally, theists, directly or indirectly, request that people take up a serious practice regimen, for the rest of their lives.

Some atheists object to this, saying "it's asking too much of anyone to devote their entire life to something when it may or may not ultimately benefit them any more than any other philosophy or way of life".


Question:

But why is that too much?
I'm not saying it isn't, I would just like to look into what the possible answers are why this is too much.
Why does it seem so egregious to be requested that one devote one's life to something one has no certainty of, but which is advertised as being the solution to biggest problem of life?

The cognitive dissonance required to follow theism will drive a person insane. Just look at any evangelical in public office, they are hypocritical sociopaths.

It is clearly a myth of a wish that an invisible unknown be a certain sure thing.

Finally, the myth is disproved since a Being cannot be first, that the basis of all was forever, precluding a Creator, and that there is literally nothing to make basics stuff out of. Add to this that what is supposed to be everywhere is seen nowhere. Science can even explain why some are prone to believe. 5:0.


P.S. It is not myth that will save the world [from the problems of myth defended].

Why does it seem so egregious to be requested that one devote one's life to something one has no certainty of, but which is advertised as being the solution to biggest problem of life?

The bottom line is that no-one can speak with any kind of authority on this matter simply because no one person can ever dedicate their entire existence to more than one religion or philosophy.

The bottom line is that no-one can speak with any kind of authority on this matter simply because no one person can ever dedicate their entire existence to more than one religion or philosophy.

Conversely, this would also suggest that no one person should ever be considered as a reliable source about knowledge of God. Which would suggest that all discussions about theistic topics are essentially useless, off-base as far as knowledge of God is concerned ...

I think theism had it a lot easier when people were more ignorant. To be an intelligent theist must be quite a challenge.

"But why is that too much?"

'cos I'm lazy, enjoy my creature comforts and deserve a lie in on a Sunday morning.

Oh and I don't believe in god.

Dee Cee

"To be an intelligent theist must be quite a challenge. "

Agreed.
Smacks of intellectual hypocrisy.

Dee Cee

How does one pretend to believe in something?

Or are you saying we should just go through the ceremonial motions, just in case? (ignoring the dilemma of having to choose which ceremony is right)

Conversely, this would also suggest that no one person should ever be considered as a reliable source about knowledge of God. Which would suggest that all discussions about theistic topics are essentially useless, off-base as far as knowledge of God is concerned ...

Yes, essentially useless, and even negatively useless, for these irrational beliefs vary, depending on the social, geographical, or familial source and thus conflict, causing problems, the others mere existence seeming to lessen one's own credibility of belief, so, 6:0.

I grant that on balance, in between wars, silliness, and disputes, one can gain some amount of emotional comfort, so 6:1, but the '1' is exaggerated in amount, since it is not even near a proof.

Point, game, set, match, and tournament.

How does one pretend to believe in something?

Or are you saying we should just go through the ceremonial motions, just in case? (ignoring the dilemma of having to choose which ceremony is right)

At this point, I'm not saying what anyone should do.

I just want to know why those who think that theists are asking too much, think so.

No-God has been proved to some, while God has not been proved at all, they going with God only by faith, with the rest perhaps either not caring or saying that they can’t know.

All are free to choose whatever meaning they can out of life, even the believers, for God is what they chose.

The firm believers may just go on pronouncing and proclaiming their notion as truth and fact, so 7:1. They may further try to affect laws with it, so 8:1. They indoctrinate young or unsuspecting people, so 9:1.

9:1 is asking way too much.

Legislating against thoughtcrime is especially too much. It's not enough that you don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, you can't even think about it.

And you can't covet their ass. 10:1

Dee Cee

Legislating against thoughtcrime is especially too much. It's not enough that you don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, you can't even think about it.

OK, such as when Jimmy Carter had lust. Religions cause bad psychological influence, so 10:1.

Now, religions may often be charitable, so 10:2, which is a real bonus, for people in general can be charitable; it's just that churches may funnel it better, after they pay their own huge expenses.

And you can't covert their ass. 10:1

Dee Cee

Moses tied his ass to a tree. (It says that in the Bible)

Yes, they are obstinate, for not only have some become immune to logical learning, they have an emotional groove on top of that, preventing it.

Since they are now two level away from reason, there is no traversing the gap, so, 11:2.

Legislating against thoughtcrime is especially too much. It's not enough that you don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, you can't even think about it.


And you can't covet their ass. 10:1

Dee Cee
Drag, 'cus my neighbor's wife has a nice ass.

...Jimmy Carter...lust....

Two words I would have never thought would appear in the same sentence.

So, it can be predicted that we may see, as usual, from believers, nothing but a wide expanse of fables, faith, hoaxes, lies, imaginations, fictions, guesses, foggy notions, concoctions, phantasms, fantasies, falsehoods, conceptions, decrees, fiats, misrepresentations, dead ideas, magic, proclamations, wild tales, anecdotes, revelations, untruths, revelations, hearsay, scrap heaps, yarns, and fish stories stated as beliefs in that unseeable supernatural station through faith’s without knowledge ration—all figmentations of the imagination.

"Drag, 'cus my neighbor's wife has a nice ass."

Athiests can covet all day long. C'mon over to the dark side gmilam you know it makes sense.

Dee Cee

Legislating against thoughtcrime is especially too much. It's not enough that you don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, you can't even think about it.
If you do it in public view we all will know you did by your body language of your tongue hanging out of your mouth and you will be punished by your peers for doing it. You might get some action from a neglected wife too!!

Guilty.

It's also a little much to think that God created the universe especially for us, and yet for most of human history, most of us died during childbirth.

"Drag, 'cus my neighbor's wife has a nice ass."

Athiests can covet all day long. C'mon over to the dark side gmilam you know it makes sense.

Dee Cee
Actually, I'm already on the dark side.

But even when I was a Xian, I thought people had Jesus all wrong. IMHO, he wasn't condeming anyone except those who thought they were better than everyone else. He was basically telling them, "So what if you haven't actually done it - you've wanted to... so STFU."

Some of our Presidents made decisions by consulting with a "Higher Father", so 12:2.

Actually, I'm already on the dark side.

But even when I was a Xian, I thought people had Jesus all wrong. IMHO, he wasn't condeming anyone except those who thought they were better than everyone else. He was basically telling them, "So what if you haven't actually done it - you've wanted to... so STFU."

why did you stop being a christian? this is a christian's ethics. everyone is considered to be equally guilty no matter what deed it is so therefore what the worst things people do don't matter. however, you are holier than thou by being in god's club.

talk about skirting ethics. actually this has nothing to do with ethics at all, it's do as you want using the excuse there is someone out there who has thought of it too, so therefore it justifies what i do. i just need to use my lip service and ask good ol god for forgiveness. if you do something wrong, how dare someone accuse you since everyone is guilty because they might have thought of doing the same. oh really? so everyone has thought of wanting to murder, rape etc? oh, that's convenient to believe that delusion. makes one feel self-righteous. oh yeah, sociopaths will accuse others of being self-righteous just because at least they are trying NOT to hurt people. this justifies in their dishonest mind by bringing the common denominator lower to their level of comfort or to justify how they don't want to stop doing what they do. so therefore, the contrived excuse is that even self-restraint means nothing. they scoff at it, not because they don't know it's bullshit but to justify their own sins and their own lack of restraint.

this is what my christian sociopath told me, stealing a pencil even unintentionally is the same thing as stealing someone's last dollar on purpose. this is to separate the technical 'sin' of theivery without regard to actual degree. since everyone is probably guilty of it in some way, that's what they are going to use as an excuse for their intentional machinations. this type of cold logic works for them because it falsely equalizes the more graver shit they want to do.

i know so much about how these people think and what excuses they use. i've watched them try so many different ones. they are pretty dishonest.

why did you stop being a christian?
Because after serious study I came to the conclusion that it is all a myth.


this is a christian's ethics. everyone is considered so therefore what the worst things people do don't matter. however, you are holier than thou by being in god's club.

talk about skirting ethics. actually this has nothing to do with ethics at all, it's do as you want using the excuse there is someone out there who has thought of it too, so therefore it justifies what i do. i just need to use my lip service and ask good ol god for forgiveness. if you do something wrong, how dare someone accuse you since everyone is guilty because they might have thought of doing the same. oh really? so everyone has thought of wanting to murder, rape etc? oh, that's convenient to believe that delusion. makes one feel self-righteous. oh yeah, sociopaths will accuse others of being self-righteous just because at least they are trying NOT to hurt people. this justifies in their dishonest mind by bringing the common denominator lower to their level of comfort or to justify how they don't want to stop doing what they do. so therefore, the contrived excuse is that even self-restraint means nothing. they scoff at it, not because they don't know it's bullshit but to justify their own sins and their own lack of restraint.

this is what my christian sociopath told me, stealing a pencil even unintentionally is the same thing as stealing someone's last dollar on purpose. this is to separate the technical 'sin' of theivery without regard to actual degree. since everyone is probably guilty of it in some way, that's what they are going to use as an excuse for their intentional machinations. this type of cold logic works for them because it falsely equalizes the more graver shit they want to do.

i know so much about how these people think and what excuses they use. i've watched them try so many different ones. they are pretty dishonest.
Don't have a clue as to what you're ranting about here. But to me, the entire point was to quit passing judgment on other people and clean up your own act.

Because after serious study I came to the conclusion that it is all a myth.


Don't have a clue as to what you're ranting about here. But to me, the entire point was to quit passing judgment on other people and clean up your own act.

lol. you called it a rant as if it makes no sense, when it was pretty clear to understand.


he wasn't condeming anyone except those who thought they were better than everyone else. He was basically telling them, "So what if you haven't actually done it - you've wanted to... so STFU."


this doesn't coincide with your changed tune but good save. you'd make a fine christian.

lol. you called it a rant as if it makes no sense, when it was pretty clear to understand.

I think he called it a rant because your extrapolation became completely disconnected from what he actually said. But a "rant" is usually angry and pompous so maybe it wasn't exactly the right word to use.

Ah. Are atheists and agnostics incapable of introspection or what??!

Ah. Are atheists and agnostics incapable of introspection or what??!

What prompted that question?

If people would say, for example:
I feel too anxious when I read or listen to theistic doctrine, I can't do it, the theists are asking too much.
or
Listening to theistic doctrine brings up a lot of questions for me, but there is nobody in my life whom I could ask, and the theists that I know expect me to just believe. They are asking too much.
or
I don't have the time and money to afford researching these things.
or
I just don't care about all this theistic stuff.

- then this would be understandable answers, such answers show that the people are owning their answers.
"Asking too much" is a personal assessment, and as such, needs to be personally addressed.

But resorting to some presumed objectivity (E.g. "Theism is all a hoax and fables", "Cognitive dissonance is required") depersonalizes the whole issue and places it into a context where it cannot possibly be addressed and resolved.

If people would say, for example:
I feel too anxious when I read or listen to theistic doctrine, I can't do it, the theists are asking too much.
or
Listening to theistic doctrine brings up a lot of questions for me, but there is nobody in my life whom I could ask, and the theists that I know expect me to just believe. They are asking too much.
or
I don't have the time and money to afford researching these things.
or
I just don't care about all this theistic stuff.

- then this would be understandable answers, such answers show that the people are owning their answers.
"Asking too much" is a personal assessment, and as such, needs to be personally addressed.

But resorting to some presumed objectivity (E.g. "Theism is all a hoax and fables", "Cognitive dissonance is required") depersonalizes the whole issue and places it into a context where it cannot possibly be addressed and resolved.

Haven't we all, though, already decided to live out our lives according to one philosophy (or a collection of philosophies)? I know I have. So my honest (and I feel legitimate) answer is simply that there is no compelling reason to abandon what is working for me now for something that may or may not be any more ultimately rewarding, being that I only have one life to live.

Haven't we all, though, already decided to live out our lives according to one philosophy (or a collection of philosophies)?

I don't think so.

Two words I would have never thought would appear in the same sentence.I trust this is intentional facetiousness.
Our younger lurkers may not remember that famous quote of his:

"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times"

lol. you called it a rant as if it makes no sense, when it was pretty clear to understand.




this doesn't coincide with your changed tune but good save. you'd make a fine christian.
Changed tune? I've been playing the same tune for years... And I still don't see any connection to what you went off about - but whatever.

Generally, theists, directly or indirectly, request that people take up a serious practice regimen, for the rest of their lives.

Some atheists object to this, saying "it's asking too much of anyone to devote their entire life to something when it may or may not ultimately benefit them any more than any other philosophy or way of life".


Question:

But why is that too much?
I'm not saying it isn't, I would just like to look into what the possible answers are why this is too much.
Why does it seem so egregious to be requested that one devote one's life to something one has no certainty of, but which is advertised as being the solution to biggest problem of life?

Its like doing a PhD. You may work on it for 10 years but ultimately, you know a whole lot about stuff that 99.99% of people have no clue about but still expect you to have all the answers for without expending any of the effort that you did. Moreover, that whole lot of stuff you know is actually so infinitesimal as to be mostly irrelevant by itself. Except for you, of course.

Its like doing a PhD. You may work on it for 10 years but ultimately, you know a whole lot about stuff that 99.99% of people have no clue about but still expect you to have all the answers for without expending any of the effort that you did. Moreover, that whole lot of stuff you know is actually so infinitesimal as to be mostly irrelevant by itself. Except for you, of course.

In a sense, I agree.

But should theism not be easier than doing a PhD? After all, a person's life - eternal life - is said to depend on their relationship with God, a PhD does not come close in that regard.

"But resorting to some presumed objectivity (E.g. "Theism is all a hoax and fables", "Cognitive dissonance is required") depersonalizes the whole issue and places it into a context where it cannot possibly be addressed and resolved."

Err..
Why does it need to be addressed resolved?
Is it really that important to you?
Thats the beauty of the hoax and fables theory I get to eat ice cream in the park while all you heavy thinkers sit indoors tapping on your keyboards like theological vampires.

Check out my tan, pale face.
Dee Cee

Check out my tan, pale face.

I am sure that when you get older, get sick and will be about to die, that tan and that ice cream are going to help you so much!

:eek:

But I'll be glad I had them before I go.
Besides we all get old sick and die. it ain't really worth worrying about.

BTW The faithfull can still call for mummy when the end comes.

I've spent a lot of time around the sick and the dying but I gave it up after 20 years because it got kind of predictable and boring. When your bored of terminal care it's time to find a new job.

Very rarely was god a comfort to the afflicted but you never could tell. 10 mg of diamorph and a medazolam chaser was generally much more effective than your average mark one belief system.
God was very useful to the bereaved however.

Dee Cee

Very rarely was god a comfort to the afflicted but you never could tell.

If a person starts thinking about these things no sooner than on their deathbed, that is rather late.

After all, a person's life - eternal life - is said to depend on their relationship with God
That's what the marketing department of religions tell us. And the marketing department of Head and Shoulders says I won't have any friends if I get dandruff. Both are trying to sell a product.

Trying to sell a product isn't necessarily bad, though. You might benefit, and greatly so, from the product.

Ah. Are atheists and agnostics incapable of introspection or what??!

I can only speak for myself. I have done plenty of introspection when by myself, introverting deeply, although I am an outright extrovert around people. In poetry, one may take felt sensations and write of them, which I freely do, exulting in many romantic excesses for emotion's sake, and, yet, I can tell fantasy from reality, for introspection cannot tell all, all by itself, for it is but the "second story", and so we must ever be informed by science and what exists outside of us, even of that which composes the "first floor" of us.

In a sense, I agree.

But should theism not be easier than doing a PhD? After all, a person's life - eternal life - is said to depend on their relationship with God, a PhD does not come close in that regard.

Its upto you to decide if you just want to get through high school or struggle all the way through a PhD with lots of options in between. Like life, theism is a matter of choice and you can skim over the surface, turn away, ignore or delve deeply, as you wish. After all, our eternal life or corporal life is most important only to ourselves whether we choose to make something of it or just while it away.

"You might benefit, and greatly so, from the product."

Or you may find your allergic to one or more of the ingredients and come up in a rash.

Dee Cee

Its upto you to decide if you just want to get through high school or struggle all the way through a PhD with lots of options in between. Like life, theism is a matter of choice and you can skim over the surface, turn away, ignore or delve deeply, as you wish. After all, our eternal life or corporal life is most important only to ourselves whether we choose to make something of it or just while it away.

My point is that there are enormous differences among people, within the same congregation.

For some, convinction came easily, without much studying, discussion and practice. They read one short book, and "that was it" - and then they walk around in confidence that they are right.

Some other people study, pray, fast, for years, and it seems to bring nothing; they don't arrive at the comfort and confidence of others, they only have a tiny fraction of that in comparison to others.

And to me, this is unfair.

Why wasn't that one book enough for me, while it was enough for so many others?
I feel like I am "one of God's lesser children", the idiot who has to study thick books of philosophy, invest enormous efforts into practice, and still have basically nothing to show for.

Why wasn't that one book enough for me, while it was enough for so many others?
I feel like I am "one of God's lesser children", the idiot who has to study thick books of philosophy, invest enormous efforts into practice, and still have basically nothing to show for.

Because you are not "lesser", but have an inquiring mind that doesn't just halt at a word or a book.

Generally, theists, directly or indirectly, request that people take up a serious practice regimen, for the rest of their lives.

They do?

My impression of Protestant Christianity at any rate, which is where most of the evangelists come from, is that it's prone to preaching what Bonhoeffer called 'cheap grace'. There's this idea that 'faith' and 'works' are distinct and opposed, and that Christianity is a matter of the former rather than the latter.

I'm not sure what Luther was up to when he emphasized that idea. Maybe he sought a deeper transformation of the heart, as opposed to simply going through the motions.

But in subsequent history, it seems to have degenerated into the idea that one is saved by simply calling upon Jesus, or even that some have always been predestined to be saved. So what people actually do, what their religious practice is, simply doesn't matter.


Some atheists object to this, saying "it's asking too much of anyone to devote their entire life to something when it may or may not ultimately benefit them any more than any other philosophy or way of life".

Anybody's going to need to have a persuasive reason before they decide to make big changes in their lives. That doesn't really have anything to do with whether they are atheists or not.


But why is that too much?

Ah, there you go again Signal. You say that you aren't a theist, but you sure sound like one sometimes.


I'm not saying it isn't, I would just like to look into what the possible answers are why this is too much.
Why does it seem so egregious to be requested that one devote one's life to something one has no certainty of, but which is advertised as being the solution to biggest problem of life?

It's not egregious. It's just kind of empty and pointless for those of us that don't believe whatever mythic system we are supposed to orient our lives around.

If somebody wants me to voluntarily transform my whole life, then they are going to have to convince me why I should. It's as simple as that. I have absolutely no obligation to justify my failure to convert to a religion that I don't believe in, nor is there any reason for me to feel guilty about it.

Because after serious study I came to the conclusion that it is all a myth.


Don't have a clue as to what you're ranting about here. But to me, the entire point was to quit passing judgment on other people and clean up your own act.

then that's what you should have said and have made a more clear and clarified statement if that is what you mean. you didn't. so don't pawn this crap onto me as if another is misunderstanding it.


He was basically telling them, "So what if you haven't actually done it - you've wanted to... so STFU."


this is not necessarily the above! otherwise, anyone guilty of committing murder can tell another to STFU because they've wanted to do it too. what one thinks and what one does are not the same thing!

i have no education and have better critical thinking ability!



I think he called it a rant because your extrapolation became completely disconnected from what he actually said.

Ah. Are atheists and agnostics incapable of introspection or what??!

totally ass backwards. no wonder the world is so fucked up. it did not become disconnected, it just expounded on it but you weren't following perhaps, maybe ADD. the lack of introspection was the other party's post.

but you weren't following perhaps, maybe ADD.

birch was making perfect sense. You decided to pick a fight. That's just the way it went down.

birch was making perfect sense. You decided to pick a fight. That's just the way it went down.

don't you mean gmilam? you've been defending his post.

They do?

This is how I understand it, even, and esp., the Protestants.

"Calling upon Jesus" is a philosophical and practical nightmare for me.




But why is that too much?

Ah, there you go again Signal. You say that you aren't a theist, but you sure sound like one sometimes.

My question was not merely rhetorical. I am interested in why something is deemed "too much".



It's not egregious. It's just kind of empty and pointless for those of us that don't believe whatever mythic system we are supposed to orient our lives around.

If somebody wants me to voluntarily transform my whole life, then they are going to have to convince me why I should. It's as simple as that. I have absolutely no obligation to justify my failure to convert to a religion that I don't believe in, nor is there any reason for me to feel guilty about it.

I suppose you are not afraid that you could be wrong.
If this is so, do you know how come, whence the confidence in living your life as you see fit?