What makes your life worth living?

[Crazy Anglican]

Huh? What makes your life worth living? If the answer is religion for some. Then the answer is religion. You don't have to defend that. It's a perfectly reasonable answer.



Still the same people are spouting the same lines on both sides.

[flash2015]

Yes, whatever floats your boat. And I am saying that as an agnostic/atheist.

[Jamiet99uk]

Because suffering is bad, Fluminator, and loss causes suffering. Why is suffering bad? Well, that's a philosophical question that I don't see the need to answer. I doubt that Jamiet99uk does either. I see my life's mission as to lessen the suffering of those around me. I've felt this way since I was quite young, and I've never been religious or even questioned the existence of gods or anything supernatural. Is trying to help people around me what makes my life worth living? I don't know. Sticking around to simply consume more knowledge can be a fulfilling endeavour in its own right. I try to lessen suffering or otherwise help people, but I do so without any expectation of reward or recompense. On the contrary, I know that doing the right thing can often bring me negative consequences.

This resonates with me enormously and articulates it better than I could.

@Fluminator: You may take JECE's answer as also my answer, if that helps.

[JRoz]

Ok so just to be clear, if a 6 month old baby gets a painful disease and dies, this is just and proper, because the baby is sinful and deserves to suffer. This is your view?

@Oct: See, as I mentioned, here is a Christian arguing that babies are sinful from birth.

Your assumption is that all suffering is a result of sin but that's not true. Some suffering is a result of sin but not all, and as we are not all knowing like God we often can't definitively say that any given moment of suffering is a result of sin.

All are sinful and fall short of the glory of God; nobody is born neutral or good. But all who believe are justified freely by the blood of Christ. All deserve judgement and God in His great mercy saves some.

I am not making an assumption about suffering and sin - I am attempting to interpret your words.

You say that "nobody is born neutral or good". For clarity, can we just confirm that, from your Christian perspective, you hold the view that a newborn baby is born evil / bad / sinful?

Yes, Psalm 51:5 (a Psalm of David) makes it clear that all are sinful, even in the womb.

Naturally the next question that arises is 'does that mean the anyone who dies before they have the capacity (the unborn, infants, and those with limited mental capacity) to believe in Jesus automatically condemned to hell? In relation to this question, I don't think this is some kind of gotcha moment that you might think it is. Romans 1:19-20 (paraphrased) says that God has shown Himself to humanity, therefore those who don't believe are without excuse. The use of 'therefore' is important because those without the capacity to believe have an excuse. I believe that God, in His great mercy and love, will not condemn those who don't have the capacity to believe; I believe that they will be covered by the blood of Jesus. This is a view many other Christians hold as well.

The other question that might arise is 'how can someone who can't comprehend/understand right from wrong be considered sinful?' To that I would answer that we are born into our sin nature. God, the only one who is all powerful, wise, righteous, and holy, is the one who sets the standards of righteousness not us. Who are we, as sinful humans with a limited mind, to tell an all knowing and perfectly righteous God who is sinful and who is not? Humanity's definition of right and wrong/sin is not God's; ours is incomplete and based on human 'wisdom', while God's is complete and perfect. Humans trying to declare someone as righteous (e.g. a baby) because we don't believe they are sinful is the equivalent of getting a test that you failed back, disregarding the teacher's mark, remarking it yourself and then declaring that you passed the test. It is the teacher's mark that counts, not ours. Similarly it is God's standards that count, not ours.

[Octavious]

Who are we, as sinful humans with a limited mind, to tell an all knowing and perfectly righteous God who is sinful and who is not? Humanity's definition of right and wrong/sin is not God's; ours is incomplete and based on human 'wisdom', while God's is complete and perfect. Humans trying to declare someone as righteous (e.g. a baby) because we don't believe they are sinful is the equivalent of getting a test that you failed back, disregarding the teacher's mark, remarking it yourself and then declaring that you passed the test. It is the teacher's mark that counts, not ours. Similarly it is God's standards that count, not ours.

And yet you seem to be doing a fine job of trying to do exactly that, except for the fact you're making a hash of it.

God gave us the Bible, which is a fantastic book and one of a handful of living books whose meaning changes through the ages giving relevant guidance to ancient Roman, dark age monk, and modern human alike. It does this by being flexible, and it makes its flexibility as obvious as humanly possible by having four gospels that can be rather different to each other and at times are blatantly contradictory. Thus God tells us that not everything in the Bible is set in stone, preferring to leave stuff that should be set in stone to stone tablets.

Because God's other gifts, which in many ways is infinitely more important, are our senses and a brain. We are thinking apes, made in God's image with the ability to reason. So who are we to judge what is and isn't sinful? We are exactly who God has chosen to do that very task. And what should be blatantly obvious to literally everyone whether they call themselves religious or not is that a baby has about as much sin as a Weight Watcher's vegan milkshake.

We are given senses to experience the world and brains to understand it. The Bible is best thought of as a kind of map. If you walk around with your head glued firmly to the map rather than absorbing where you are then you are truly lost.

[Fluminator]

I think one reason I find atheistic arguments so un-compelling is they are always tearing down other beliefs but they don't ever actually have any beliefs of their own they're willing to share. (And the few who do share, their beliefs are torn down usually just as easily.)

If you're ever interested in deconverting religious people, we need an alternate view that is more consistent with the world.

It reminds me of creationists poking holes at evolution. Completely unconvincing unless they give a better scientific alternative to evolution.

[Fluminator]

Not necessarily a response to anyone here

[JECE]

I think one reason I find atheistic arguments so un-compelling is they are always tearing down other beliefs but they don't ever actually have any beliefs of their own they're willing to share. (And the few who do share, their beliefs are torn down usually just as easily.)

If you're ever interested in deconverting religious people, we need an alternate view that is more consistent with the world.

It reminds me of creationists poking holes at evolution. Completely unconvincing unless they give a better scientific alternative to evolution.

What do you mean? At the Creation Museum you can find a triceratops with a saddle on its back. What's more convincing than that?

For the record, I am an atheist and I did provide a window into my personal beliefs above. Talk to more atheists, not necessarily about gods or anything like that. They may surprise you with how they don't fit into your preconceived notions.

Or are you wondering why nonbelievers don't discuss their beliefs about gods? It's sort of hard to talk about something that you don't believe exists. For me, and probably for many other nonbelievers, it's even a step further. While I do consider myself an atheist, it's technically not the case that I don't believe that gods exist, since the very words gods, God, fairies etc. have no meaning to me. How do you talk about something so nonexistent that the very concept has no meaning to you?

As for an alternative worldview, I don't know what to say. Start with the scientific method, I guess. That would at least get you to step away from unfalsifiable hypotheses.

[Fluminator]

I think one reason I find atheistic arguments so un-compelling is they are always tearing down other beliefs but they don't ever actually have any beliefs of their own they're willing to share. (And the few who do share, their beliefs are torn down usually just as easily.)

If you're ever interested in deconverting religious people, we need an alternate view that is more consistent with the world.

It reminds me of creationists poking holes at evolution. Completely unconvincing unless they give a better scientific alternative to evolution.

What do you mean? At the Creation Museum you can find a triceratops with a saddle on its back. What's more convincing than that?

For the record, I am an atheist and I did provide a window into my personal beliefs above. Talk to more atheists, not necessarily about gods or anything like that. They may surprise you with how they don't fit into your preconceived notions.

Or are you wondering why nonbelievers don't discuss their beliefs about gods? It's sort of hard to talk about something that you don't believe exists. For me, and probably for many other nonbelievers, it's even a step further. While I do consider myself an atheist, it's technically not the case that I don't believe that gods exist, since the very words gods, God, fairies etc. have no meaning to me. How do you talk about something so nonexistent that the very concept has no meaning to you?

As for an alternative worldview, I don't know what to say. Start with the scientific method, I guess. That would at least get you to step away from unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Lol, oh Ken Ham.

I do talk to atheists. I'm friends with a bunch of wonderful ones and we have good talks. I get out more than my persona on here might suggest lol. (And yes I know my proofs in the other thread are bad, I just like starting with those for easy bait to get to the more interesting premises in a natural way)
Most atheists are of the mindset of "how do we know what happened, just do your best and I don't overly care about any god stuff" which is fair enough but kind of a conversation ender. I think it's fun to try to figure out what's moat likely even though it's true we can never be 100% certain on anything.

In yours and Jamiet's response to suffering, you said figuring out exactly why suffering is bad is a philosophical question you don't really care about. (And that's 100% valid, I much prefer people be good to others without needing to epistemologically figure out why they should. Internet forums is a fun place to try to figure it out though as a hobby lol)
Although Jamiet is actively basing his proof against God existing on suffering, so for his points to have any convincing power, I need more from him on suffering than "I don't really care why it's bad, I just know it is"

The scientific method was originally created by religious people, so it's not really an alternative view. I do agree it can be used to provide strong evidence against many religions though.

[Jamiet99uk]

I am not making an assumption about suffering and sin - I am attempting to interpret your words.

You say that "nobody is born neutral or good". For clarity, can we just confirm that, from your Christian perspective, you hold the view that a newborn baby is born evil / bad / sinful?

Yes, Psalm 51:5 (a Psalm of David) makes it clear that all are sinful, even in the womb.

Naturally the next question that arises is 'does that mean the anyone who dies before they have the capacity (the unborn, infants, and those with limited mental capacity) to believe in Jesus automatically condemned to hell? In relation to this question, I don't think this is some kind of gotcha moment that you might think it is. Romans 1:19-20 (paraphrased) says that God has shown Himself to humanity, therefore those who don't believe are without excuse. The use of 'therefore' is important because those without the capacity to believe have an excuse. I believe that God, in His great mercy and love, will not condemn those who don't have the capacity to believe; I believe that they will be covered by the blood of Jesus. This is a view many other Christians hold as well.

The other question that might arise is 'how can someone who can't comprehend/understand right from wrong be considered sinful?' To that I would answer that we are born into our sin nature. God, the only one who is all powerful, wise, righteous, and holy, is the one who sets the standards of righteousness not us. Who are we, as sinful humans with a limited mind, to tell an all knowing and perfectly righteous God who is sinful and who is not? Humanity's definition of right and wrong/sin is not God's; ours is incomplete and based on human 'wisdom', while God's is complete and perfect. Humans trying to declare someone as righteous (e.g. a baby) because we don't believe they are sinful is the equivalent of getting a test that you failed back, disregarding the teacher's mark, remarking it yourself and then declaring that you passed the test. It is the teacher's mark that counts, not ours. Similarly it is God's standards that count, not ours.

So a newborn baby is born sinful due to a specific decision that Adam made - the decision to eat the forbidden fruit against God's instruction - despite the fact that God created Adam, and God knew that Adam would make that choice.

Why is a newborn baby, today, held to blame for Adam's sin aeons ago? The baby has committed no offence. It did not decide to eat the forbidden fruit. Why does God punish the baby for the sins of another?

[Jamiet99uk]

1. Christians say that God is perfect.
2. Christians say that God is omniscient and knows what will happen in the future.

3. Christians say that God created Adam. If (1) is true, then God's design for his creation, Adam, must be perfect.
4. If (2) is true, then God knows, in advance, every decision Adam will make.

5. God creates a forbidden fruit. He knows that Adam will eat it. All the same, he tells Adam not to eat it. He knows Adam will disobey him but still he goes ahead and sets up this stupid situation.

6. Adam eats the fruit, as God absolutely knew he would.

7. God acts all angry and surprised and punishes Adam for the sin of acting exactly as God foresaw when he created Adam and the fruit.

8. None of this is God's fault, apparently.

Just what the actual fuck.

[JECE]

even though it's true we can never be 100% certain on anything.

I am 100% certain that gods don't exist. I do not, however, expect everyone else to come to that same conclusion.

The scientific method was originally created by religious people, so it's not really an alternative view. I do agree it can be used to provide strong evidence against many religions though.

It's an alternative view in the sense that you are supposed to start with observations. Only then does it make sense to pose a hypothesis. How would you get to the hypothesis 'exactly one god exists' from your daily observations alone?

[Fluminator]

even though it's true we can never be 100% certain on anything.

I am 100% certain that gods don't exist. I do not, however, expect everyone else to come to that same conclusion.

The scientific method was originally created by religious people, so it's not really an alternative view. I do agree it can be used to provide strong evidence against many religions though.

It's an alternative view in the sense that you are supposed to start with observations. Only then does it make sense to pose a hypothesis. How would you get to the hypothesis 'exactly one god exists' from your daily observations alone?

I'm impressed you are that confident. Considering we have only existed as a speck on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe for around 30-60 years in a timeline that's probably over 1000000000 years, - to be so confident you understand a major mysterious aspect of the universe to a degree of 100% is quite extraordinary.
I don't think humans are even near to scratching the surface of the mysteries, much less actually at a 100% level.

My standards for God are high and I would not accept anything less than perfect. Only a perfect God would be worthy of worship for me - otherwise it's nothing more than an advanced alien.
With those standards, there's only one thing that could be perfect (if there were two, they'd be the exact same entity and thus still be one). Thus I'm a monotheist.

1. Christians say that God is perfect.
2. Christians say that God is omniscient and knows what will happen in the future.

3. Christians say that God created Adam. If (1) is true, then God's design for his creation, Adam, must be perfect.
4. If (2) is true, then God knows, in advance, every decision Adam will make.

5. God creates a forbidden fruit. He knows that Adam will eat it. All the same, he tells Adam not to eat it. He knows Adam will disobey him but still he goes ahead and sets up this stupid situation.

6. Adam eats the fruit, as God absolutely knew he would.

7. God acts all angry and surprised and punishes Adam for the sin of acting exactly as God foresaw when he created Adam and the fruit.

8. None of this is God's fault, apparently.

Just what the actual fuck.

1. Accurate, although I'll say there was once a very major sect of Christianity (Gnostic Christianity) that disagreed and thought the creator of this world was not the supreme perfect deity. Most of the gnostics got killed though which is why I'll just leave this as accurate.

2. Not all Christian sects but for the sake of argument I'll agree. (Open theists are a branch in Christianity)

3. I don't know any Christians who believe everything God creates must be perfect. Anything that is not omnipotent/omniscient/ etc. isn't perfect. Only God is perfect in the Christian tradition.

4. I'll agree with this yeah.

5. You're taking that story way too literally lol. But yeah, most Christians believe God gave humans free will to go their own path knowing they would do so.

6. Yes

7. God is not surprised lol? And the Bible implies the suffering is a natural side effect to humans choosing to be nasty and evil.

8. I'll take this over not being created at all, so I think it will still be a net good in the long run. If God was to remove all imperfection, we'd be eradicated from existence forever.

[JECE]

even though it's true we can never be 100% certain on anything.

I am 100% certain that gods don't exist. I do not, however, expect everyone else to come to that same conclusion.

The scientific method was originally created by religious people, so it's not really an alternative view. I do agree it can be used to provide strong evidence against many religions though.

It's an alternative view in the sense that you are supposed to start with observations. Only then does it make sense to pose a hypothesis. How would you get to the hypothesis 'exactly one god exists' from your daily observations alone?

I'm impressed you are that confident. Considering we have only existed as a speck on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe for around 30-60 years in a timeline that's probably over 1000000000 years, - to be so confident you understand a major mysterious aspect of the universe to a degree of 100% is quite extraordinary.
I don't think humans are even near to scratching the surface of the mysteries, much less actually at a 100% level.

My standards for God are high and I would not accept anything less than perfect. Only a perfect God would be worthy of worship for me - otherwise it's nothing more than an advanced alien.
With those standards, there's only one thing that could be perfect (if there were two, they'd be the exact same entity and thus still be one). Thus I'm a monotheist.

There is nothing mysterious to me about a word that has no meaning. It has no relevance to the universe that I inhabit.

You misunderstood my point. How do you get from your daily observations to any hypothesis at all that has anything to do with gods?

[Fluminator]

There is nothing mysterious to me about a word that has no meaning. It has no relevance to the universe that I inhabit.

You misunderstood my point. How do you get from your daily observations to any hypothesis at all that has anything to do with gods?

Are you a nihilist then? I admit nihilism is internally consistent, but most people live a life that contradicts nihilism so I prefer alternatives that are more consistent with human nature.
I'd encourage you to spend a few more years looking for a meaning before deciding there isn't one!

I've witnessed miracles and "supernatural events", I've looked at historical evidence for supernatural events, I've seen the power of prayer, I've heard testimonies of people I trust. It all makes me believe there's a personal higher power.
A monotheistic deity makes the most sense as an explanation compared to some impersonal force, but the exact nature of this higher power is definitely not something I have nailed down and I doubt I ever will in this life.

[Jamiet99uk]

3. I don't know any Christians who believe everything God creates must be perfect. Anything that is not omnipotent/omniscient/ etc. isn't perfect. Only God is perfect in the Christian tradition.

Why would a perfect creator deliberately create bad, imperfect things?

[JECE]

There is nothing mysterious to me about a word that has no meaning. It has no relevance to the universe that I inhabit.

You misunderstood my point. How do you get from your daily observations to any hypothesis at all that has anything to do with gods?

Are you a nihilist then? I admit nihilism is internally consistent, but most people live a life that contradicts nihilism so I prefer alternatives that are more consistent with human nature.
I'd encourage you to spend a few more years looking for a meaning before deciding there isn't one!

I've witnessed miracles and "supernatural events", I've looked at historical evidence for supernatural events, I've seen the power of prayer, I've heard testimonies of people I trust. It all makes me believe there's a personal higher power.
A monotheistic deity makes the most sense as an explanation compared to some impersonal force, but the exact nature of this higher power is definitely not something I have nailed down and I doubt I ever will in this life.

Let's see

nihilism noun
ni·​hil·​ism | \ ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm , ˈnē- \
Definition of nihilism
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
// Nihilism is a condition in which all ultimate values lose their value.
— Ronald H. Nash
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

1 a : No, this is contrary to my political beliefs
1 b : No, I believe in objective truth and the latter part is contrary to my political beliefs
2 a : Definitely not
2 b : Yes, this describes me very well

[Fluminator]

Ok
To clarify and make sure I'm not strawmanning you.

Do you believe the universe is meaningless?

[JECE]

That's a very vague question.

[Jamiet99uk]

I believe the universe is meaningful. It is certainly very important to me.