Kevin's Watch

How many atheists and agnostics really even fulfill the modern definition? Are agnostics really ambivalent about the existence of God, or just the nature of God? Do atheists really believe there is no God, or do they simply not believe that God is not of any of the natures described by the world religions?

I would like to get more into this thread in general, but for now I'm just gonna respond to this.

I'm not sure, but I think that agnostics as often simply don't have a belief in god. It's not that they are ambivalent, it's just that they don't feel they can commit to saying god does or doesn't exist.

Atheists I'm not sure. However I think some (buddhist atheists? or something?) believe in a certain reliable structure to the universe which some would call god. Maybe?

Hmm. I usually call myself a nontheist. I'm not actually sure what the technical definition of that is, but it sounds right. Basically, I say that I would follow my own moral code regardless of my knowledge god's existence (or I'd like to believe I would) and so the existence of god isn't something I need to worry about right now.

A neat little story that sums it up ok (no idea of the roots...I was told it's some far east something or other guy, but using google I find that marquis de sade wrote something called "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man"...hmm, not a very good spokesman )

A soldier, injured during a battle, has crawled out of the fray and lies bleeding on the ground. A priest approaches. The soldier, sure his death is coming asks the priest to say prayers over him so he can go on to the next world in peace.

The priest ignores the soldier. He treats the wound, saving the soldier's life. When he's done, he states "if I had taken the time to pray for you, you would have died."

Of course this is all just puffing myself up to look more serious than I am, I'm not really going around pulling arrows out of people and saving the world (though it'd be cool if I was, huh?) w/ good works.

Hmm, I think I only call myself a nontheist because I always thought that idea of agnostic I gave above (not sure one way or the other) was it. But "ambivalent to religious beliefs at the moment, sort of" might sum it up ok.

rusmeister wrote:...To an extent you WILL be judged by your works, but it is not your works that actually save you - in the end it is only by His mercy and grace...

This, ultimately, is where I have to part ways from a Christian view point. Any god who cares more that I believe in him than that I have lived a "good" life is not a god I could follow. *shrug*

--A

Basically, I say that I would follow my own moral code regardless of my knowledge god's existence

That's basically how I feel. Morality serves humanity, not God. I would call you a Deist son!

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:...To an extent you WILL be judged by your works, but it is not your works that actually save you - in the end it is only by His mercy and grace...

This, ultimately, is where I have to part ways from a Christian view point. Any god who cares more that I believe in him than that I have lived a "good" life is not a god I could follow. *shrug*

--A

Again, you're re-interpreting what I'm saying into something that I'm not.
Your understanding of the Christian POV would be much more correct if you said "Any god that recognizes my small efforts to please him and accepts them for much more than they are actually worth is... (a god I could follow or not?).

Holsety, a priest that COULD treat wounds would be praying WHILE treating the wounds, not 'instead of'.

rusmeister wrote:Again, you're re-interpreting what I'm saying into something that I'm not.
Your understanding of the Christian POV would be much more correct if you said "Any god that recognizes my small efforts to please him and accepts them for much more than they are actually worth is... (a god I could follow or not?).

But those efforts aren't to please god. They have nothing to do with god, nor do I see why I should please him. Or worship him.

My point is that, (positing the existence of a god) if my efforts, made out of my own principles, are pleasing to a god, and yet the fact that I don't worship him negates the effect of those efforts on his opinion of me, albeit that they are in accord with his wishes, then is good opinion is not one I wuld worry about.

--A

I have actually talked to Evangelicals who say that God doesn't *need* your worship. That would honestly be pretty petty of him. Most of the Evangelicals I talk too honestly care about your Immortal soul, and feel it is their responsibility to save as many people as they can. As misguided as some of us think they are, when someone is acting from such a place (and earnestly acting from such a place) I find it hard to be offended by them.

So if he doesn't need it, why enforce it?

Anyway, I agree with your post...sometimes I've even been quite touched by some attempts. At least these days I let them down easy.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Again, you're re-interpreting what I'm saying into something that I'm not.
Your understanding of the Christian POV would be much more correct if you said "Any god that recognizes my small efforts to please him and accepts them for much more than they are actually worth is... (a god I could follow or not?).

But those efforts aren't to please god. They have nothing to do with god, nor do I see why I should please him. Or worship him.

My point is that, (positing the existence of a god) if my efforts, made out of my own principles, are pleasing to a god, and yet the fact that I don't worship him negates the effect of those efforts on his opinion of me, albeit that they are in accord with his wishes, then is good opinion is not one I wuld worry about.

--A

I'm just trying to state the correct understanding of the Christian POV. You are not forced to believe it, but you shouldn't say that Christianity is actually saying something it's not. If you're going to reject the Christian faith, at least reject it for what it really is, rather than for what you imagine it to be.

rusmeister wrote:I'm just trying to state the correct understanding of the Christian POV. You are not forced to believe it, but you shouldn't say that Christianity is actually saying something it's not. If you're going to reject the Christian faith, at least reject it for what it really is, rather than for what you imagine it to be.

Except of course that this is the correct understanding only from some points of view. The Catholics and the Baptists and whoever else all have their own correct understanding too.

Anyway, your understanding is still telling me the same thing: How you live your life isn't an important enough factor compared to worshipping god.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I'm just trying to state the correct understanding of the Christian POV. You are not forced to believe it, but you shouldn't say that Christianity is actually saying something it's not. If you're going to reject the Christian faith, at least reject it for what it really is, rather than for what you imagine it to be.

Except of course that this is the correct understanding only from some points of view. The Catholics and the Baptists and whoever else all have their own correct understanding too.

Anyway, your understanding is still telling me the same thing: How you live your life isn't an important enough factor compared to worshipping god.

--A

Regarding the first (correct understandings), if this is the case, then you should have no problems with the faiths that do not have the elements that you object to!

Regarding the second, I'll say you still don't understand, as this is not what Orthodoxy says.

rusmeister wrote:To an extent you WILL be judged by your works, but it is not your works that actually save you - in the end it is only by His mercy and grace...

Emphasis mine. And of course, by "saved" I assume you mean from hell.

(Oh, , I've never found one yet. )

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:To an extent you WILL be judged by your works, but it is not your works that actually save you - in the end it is only by His mercy and grace...

Emphasis mine. And of course, by "saved" I assume you mean from hell.

(Oh, , I've never found one yet. )

--A

It looks like you are placing a simplified meaning onto my words. I apologize - the ability to express one's self has never been my forte. I would suggest you talk to a priest about that issue (faith vs works and the role of one's actions in one's salvation). I think you would probably be surprised to discover how well-educated and informed they are on this stuff, and to a level you've probably not thought to.

So, for what it's worth...
www.orthodoxyinamerica.org/
(If you're not actually in America, I could try to find you another resource. If you really want a serious understanding of these questions, of course.)

Coming from the perspective of Middle American Catholicism, I have never seen a priest claim much knowledge of the will of God. We have rules of behavior he has handed down to us, a promise of salvation, and certainty that God loves humanity. The methods we use to comprimise this forms a lot of the differences between Christian denominations.

I can tell you at least that I am a Catholic (I am probably not your perfect example...) and I have no idea what the criterion are for salvation. However, from personal taste I must believe that people should be judged more by the content of their character than by the words they can regurgitate, the religion they lobby for, and their pretentions of rightiousness.

That's the God I want for sure.

The Dreaming wrote:Coming from the perspective of Middle American Catholicism, I have never seen a priest claim much knowledge of the will of God. We have rules of behavior he has handed down to us, a promise of salvation, and certainty that God loves humanity. The methods we use to comprimise this forms a lot of the differences between Christian denominations.

I can tell you at least that I am a Catholic (I am probably not your perfect example...) and I have no idea what the criterion are for salvation. However, from personal taste I must believe that people should be judged more by the content of their character than by the words they can regurgitate, the religion they lobby for, and their pretentions of rightiousness.

That's the God I want for sure.

I don't think anyone would argue with what you are saying about character - it seems axiomic and obvious. (And Orthodoxy, at least, tells us that that IS the kind of God we have.)

The things I think other Catholics would probably debate with you would be on the presentation of Catholicism as a set of rules and question what you mean by the promise of salvation. Given what is common to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I sure would.

I'm not sure you intend this, but it could be taken from your words that a person who 'has good character' (How do you define that? How do we agree on and measure what is 'good'?) doesn't need to trouble to learn the tenets of their faith.

Granted that priests would not claim to know the will of God (in the sense of the mind of God). But I am sure that they will tell you that they know the will of God in the sense of knowing what He has revealed to us and what, in general terms, His will for our lives is (for non-Christians, this means that we should know the proper operating parameters from the user's guide if we want our lives to be truly happy). It is here that education and theology do make a difference, and the average Joe who rarely attends church is going to find that these people (on the whole) know more and have thought things through that never crossed Joe's mind or that he only understands on a primitive level.

We have no problem acknowledging that a sociologist or historian has attained (through education) a degree of a given body of knowledge involving not only opinions and points of view, but scholarship as well. Why should priests not be accorded similar respect?

(Again, I'm merely responding to a lack of clarity on your meaning.)

I'm not in America, But I'm not serious either...just curious. Which is why I prefer discussing it here.

I really don't see the confusion...either your works and your character save you, regardless of your belief, or your works and character are insignificant compared to your belief.

The first, I'd find more than acceptable. The second, unacceptable.

--A

Avatar wrote:I'm not in America, But I'm not serious either...just curious. Which is why I prefer discussing it here.

I really don't see the confusion...either your works and your character save you, regardless of your belief, or your works and character are insignificant compared to your belief.

The first, I'd find more than acceptable. The second, unacceptable.

--A

FTR, Orthodoxy insists that it is both. This either-or dichotomy is a western construct (especially endemic among Protestants and their understanding of Orthodoxy and even Catholicism - it also explains why you would be really turned off to most Protestant evangelicals). Your works and character are natural products of what you REALLY believe - not merely what you profess to believe. So it really can be both.

As to discussing it with me - fine. But...
1) you're not seeking out the best sources of information, and information and knowledge are only one aspect of it anyway - it needs to be experienced (ie, you should go and observe an Orthodox liturgy); academic understanding is not enough. As to discussing it here, I might express ideas inaccurately or you might understand them incorrectly.

2) It's really a waste of time until you are serious - when you reach a point where you realize that life is indeed serious - and too short to play academic games with faith. Until you're at that point, what I'm saying will come across as unintelligible growls and roaring (to cop a thought from Lewis's "The Last Battle").

No, life is not serious, but I'll get back to that.

So, if I understand you, what you profess to believe isn't important compared to the actions that spring from what you really believe?

So, in theory, if I as an atheist acted in accordance with the principles god laid out, without ever claiming faith in god, I could nonetheless be saved?

(As for expressing inaccurately or misunderstanding, that's why we discuss it. To iron out those wriinkles. )

To return to my first point, I think if everybody took life a little less seriously, things would be a lot better.

--A

Malik23 wrote: I honestly think that most of the Christians today, if they had been born as members of the Mayan civilization, they'd be performing human sacrifices. The need for a supernatural belief system is nearly universal. But the fact that people can't make up their minds about what to do with this yearning shows that it's perhaps our single biggest weakness. Unless every single religion on earth is correct simultaneously, then this is the single most misleading yearning in the history of mankind, because given this "universal" yearning, we pursue it in a 1000 different ways. And according to most of these different sects, all the other guys are wrong.

Well, I don't think the yearning is the weakness, but rather the stopping at point B in thinking about theology, and not having any curiosity about C, D, E, F, etc. Understanding C, D, E, F, etc. goes a long way in not only advocating one's beliefs, but in avoiding the potential misapplications.

Avatar wrote: No, life is not serious, but I'll get back to that.

So, if I understand you, what you profess to believe isn't important compared to the actions that spring from what you really believe?

So, in theory, if I as an atheist acted in accordance with the principles god laid out, without ever claiming faith in god, I could nonetheless be saved?

(As for expressing inaccurately or misunderstanding, that's why we discuss it. To iron out those wriinkles. )

To return to my first point, I think if everybody took life a little less seriously, things would be a lot better.

--A

You're getting closer!
Scripture indicates that those without the Gospel will be judged by "the law written on their hearts", so theoretically, yes. God can save whom He will. Doing the right magic spells is no guarantee of salvation.

However... in the case of those who on some level HAVE been exposed to the Gospel, and deliberately reject it, that makes such salvation less likely. Scripture does indicate the necessity of faith - of making a conscious choice to 'let go of the branch' - when you become aware of this, you take on the responsibility for it. Now God is the final Judge, not us, so Orthodox Christians would not take on themselves to say for sure who will be saved. The only thing we can be sure of is that if we do truly acknowledge our sinful state (that which impels us to choose self over others) and truly repent (make a definite determination to turn away from that and strive to become what God has designed us for, rather than what our own wills want for ourselves) and join ourselves to the Church, we can be saved. As to those who consciously reject this, their salvation would be contemplated (as I think I already said) like that of a Titanic survivor that refused a helping hand onto the Carpathia and they float away on their little piece of driftwood. Of course we hope that all will be saved. It just seems unlikely.

The whole point is that we have to give up the idea of saving ourselves - the whole "I don't NEED God" attitude. Of course we don't need God when our life is going on just fine on its own, thank you. It is only when we discover that we don't really control our own lives - when things spin out of our control and we can't help ourselves that we would see a need to turn to God.

I agree on the need for levity in life. But there are times when seriousness is called for.

Hrm, ever read Speaker for the Dead? That is an example of a secular morality that I consider equal to any judeo-christian one. That was the book that made me believe morality without God was posible.