Arian Foster Breaks Ground By Admitting He Doesn’t Believe In God

[Deputy Fife]

Pertaining to your last paragraph, why? What is so wrong in believing in Jesus Christ, what he did, his death and angels? Why is that a dangerous path?

Sorry

 

[PKT_VOL]

Guessing is interesting but I'm not sure that or any "test" could reliably predict the sincerity of professed beliefs. Grief intensity to me seems an especially poor tool given the sheer complexity and diversity of responses.

Maybe hardly anyone actually believes, maybe most do, maybe most actually don't but really think they do. It's probably a big jumbled mess.

I didn't mean it in a literal sense. There is just a disconnect there by most "Christians" which I've never been able to fathom.

 

[rjd970]

Pertaining to your last paragraph, why? What is so wrong in believing in Jesus Christ, what he did, his death and angels? Why is that a dangerous path?

There is nothing really wrong per se, but the issue is two fold.

First, I see it as an all or nothing. There are harmless, and even beneficial parts of all religions. But is it really needed? Good people will be good, bad people will be bad. Religious doctrine will inevitably cause good people to do bad things when the doctrine is assumed to be infallible from the get go.

Second, as it pertains to Christ himself, I've always had a moral issue with a doctrine of somebody else paying form my sins. Again, it could be interpreted as the Amazon indian that never knew of the existence of Christ his entire life could be sentenced to fire and torment after death, while the serial killer accepts Jesus on his deathbed and lives in Heaven. It obviously could not be interpreted that way also, hence my point. Just do away with it all together.

Yes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, don't even put the baby in to begin with.

 

[Deputy Fife]

the Amazon indian that never knew of the existence of Christ his entire life

This is where my folks just throw their hands in the air and say that "God reveals himself to all."

So every non-Christian society consists chiefly of individuals who have consciously rejected your version of God? Is this view in any way helpful to cultivating peaceful relations in a global society? Can you show me evidence of a pre-Columbian Mesoamerican practicing Christianity?

Or maybe their opportunity for redemption arises posthumously, a special exception afforded those who lived and died in ignorance. Wouldn't such an obviously supernatural attempt have a near 100% success rate? Would missionary work put the unevangelized in peril by providing heathens with an opportunity to actively reject Christ under earthly conditions? It seems to me we should strive for maximum ignorance under this worldview.

What about those born with severe mental impediments? "Oh, they can't be held responsible."

Ok, let's take a child with a genetic predisposition to follow authority and never look back once indoctrinated into a specific faith at a young age. Unfortunately, this same kid also has a mutation for serious retardation which renders his other faculties void and unexpressed. However, we know that if we could just fix the mental impairment he'd be a regular, impressionable child.

Had this child been born in Jackhole Mississippi to a family of Baptists, his retardation would constitute a tragedy to be remedied at the earliest possible date furnished by the best medical science available. However, this little one was instead born to devout Hindu denizens of Agra, so any efforts to fix him would represent the most heinous barbarism imaginable.

Mom: I still love you

Grandma: loud noises

 

[Roustabout]

My litmus test has always been the sadness and grief over the passing of a Christian by another Christian. I can't conceive of ever being sad over another (deserving) person going to Paradise, forever.

Absurd and insulting. The feelings of loss we experience here doesn't necessarily indicate that a believer doesn't really believe.
If I lost my wife or child I would be devastated because of how much they are a part of my life. Cherishing life and wanting to live is not at conflict with how we view eternity. It's a pathetic argument and beneath your intelligence.

Just attended the service of a friend. It was a beautiful celebration of life. He suffered greatly in this life, but lived in the love and service of Christ.

 

[Roustabout]

Good points by many of our skeptics.

Religion doesn't make the world better, per se. Horrible things are done in the name of religion. That doesnt determine whether God exists or not. Saying, I don't like religious people, therefore god doesn't exist, is a non sequitur.

Also, thinking God doesn't exist because things aren't the way they should be (in your opinion) doesn't determine this either.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Absurd and insulting. The feelings of loss we experience here doesn't necessarily indicate that a believer doesn't really believe.
If I lost my wife or child I would be devastated because of how much they are a part of my life. Cherishing life and wanting to live is not at conflict with how we view eternity. It's a pathetic argument and beneath your intelligence.

Just attended the service of a friend. It was a beautiful celebration of life. He suffered greatly in this life, but lived in the love and service of Christ.

If only you had kept reading:

I didn't mean it in a literal sense. There is just a disconnect there by most "Christians" which I've never been able to fathom.

Having said that, if I earnestly believed my wife and loved ones were going to Paradise forever, there wouldn't be a grieving bone in my body, let alone being "devestated". It would be quite the opposite; I'd be joyously celebrating! How could one be anything other than happy for their loved ones to finally reach Paradise?

As for your cherishing life objection, that makes no sense. You are supposedly cherishing a life of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc. instead of celebrating a joyous eternal life free of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc.

It makes no sense.

 

[volinbham]

Depends on what you mean by "Religion". If it is just sprirituality, I would say "No". If you mean specific doctrines, I say "Yes".

Believing in a higher power is one thing, the problems start when people claim specifics (Religious doctrine). I'm talking everything from suicide bombing to ID being taught in schools as legitimate science. Now, one can argue that those doctrines are not real doctrines...but the fact that there is even an argument and the numbers that believe these things are at the very least significant, should be telling. I can edit the Qu'ran or Bible in about 2 minutes and take the ambiguity away.

I don't discount having powerful spiritual experiences as part of the normal human experience. But I certainly believe regressing those out to beliefs of 1st century carpenters being crucified and prophets ascending to heaven on winged horses is a dangerous path.

I guess it depends on the extent to which my mother's side of the family represents Christians in general.

I have suspicions that many of them are like my mother in that they don't at all appear overly religious but give absurd, ultra-religious answers when pressed in a private environment conducive to candor.

I think a lot of Christians are only so because it's a culturally acceptable answer that can confer a sense of belonging and community.

What percent of Christian parents would actually worry about the eternal fate of an apostate child vs just worry what everyone else will think?

The ones who don't actually worry about their children going to Hell are, to me, fake Christians, atheists with respect to Yahweh.

For brevity I'll address some of the comments here together:

1) You both are advocates of rationality and scientifically proven truth yet both of you are drawing major conclusions about a) is religion a net good or bad and b) I'm defining Christians by my experiences with my mom.

Shouldn't you follow your own advice and draw conclusions on at least some objective data collection and analysis rather than selective perception and anecdotal evidence? At a minimum some objective cost/benefit analysis should be conducted no?

2) You both seem to see religion as all in or faking it. Again I see no data to suggest that is the case and in fact plenty of data through time showing wide variation in traditions and specific beliefs within a given religion.

Suggesting someone that doesn't fit your view of a hard core Christian is a fake Christian or just doing it because of social pressure is belittling. So far as I can tell, the only requirement to being a Christian is believing Jesus was sent by his father to die for people's sins and the path to salvation is via confessing your sin. All the other stuff is just add ons that some people buy into and some don't. There is a wide gamut and I see no reason to label anyone in that variety pack as fake.

In short - if you advocate data-driven "truth" via some type of scientific method than you ought to apply that approach to your theories about religious people.

 

[Gramps]

If only you had kept reading:



Having said that, if I earnestly believed my wife and loved ones were going to Paradise forever, there wouldn't be a grieving bone in my body, let alone being "devestated". It would be quite the opposite; I'd be joyously celebrating! How could one be anything other than happy for their loved ones to finally reach Paradise?

As for your cherishing life objection, that makes no sense. You are supposedly cherishing a life of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc. instead of celebrating a joyous eternal life free of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc.

It makes no sense.

Off topic. PKT I missed that you were getting married. Just wanted to say congrats and wish you two a long happy marriage.

 

[volinbham]

There is nothing really wrong per se, but the issue is two fold.

First, I see it as an all or nothing. There are harmless, and even beneficial parts of all religions. But is it really needed? Good people will be good, bad people will be bad. Religious doctrine will inevitably cause good people to do bad things when the doctrine is assumed to be infallible from the get go.

Second, as it pertains to Christ himself, I've always had a moral issue with a doctrine of somebody else paying form my sins. Again, it could be interpreted as the Amazon indian that never knew of the existence of Christ his entire life could be sentenced to fire and torment after death, while the serial killer accepts Jesus on his deathbed and lives in Heaven. It obviously could not be interpreted that way also, hence my point. Just do away with it all together.

Yes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, don't even put the baby in to begin with.

This is where my folks just throw their hands in the air and say that "God reveals himself to all."

So every non-Christian society consists chiefly of individuals who have consciously rejected your version of God? Is this view in any way helpful to cultivating peaceful relations in a global society? Can you show me evidence of a pre-Columbian Mesoamerican practicing Christianity?

Or maybe their opportunity for redemption arises posthumously, a special exception afforded those who lived and died in ignorance. Wouldn't such an obviously supernatural attempt have a near 100% success rate? Would missionary work put the unevangelized in peril by providing heathens with an opportunity to actively reject Christ under earthly conditions? It seems to me we should strive for maximum ignorance under this worldview.

What about those born with severe mental impediments? "Oh, they can't be held responsible."

Ok, let's take a child with a genetic predisposition to follow authority and never look back once indoctrinated into a specific faith at a young age. Unfortunately, this same kid also has a mutation for serious retardation which renders his other faculties void and unexpressed. However, we know that if we could just fix the mental impairment he'd be a regular, impressionable child.

Had this child been born in Jackhole Mississippi to a family of Baptists, his retardation would constitute a tragedy to be remedied at the earliest possible date furnished by the best medical science available. However, this little one was instead born to devout Hindu denizens of Agra, so any efforts to fix him would represent the most heinous barbarism imaginable.

Mom: I still love you

Grandma: loud noises

When I was church as a kid these issues came up and it was clear in my church at least that these examples were not condemned to Hell or denied salvation.

Further the notion that being a serial killer and just asking for forgiveness wasn't the point of what asking forgiveness meant.

We actually rarely (never?) talked about eternal damnation but instead talked about how to be a better person and how to seek guidance in doing so.

We talked about how evolution and the Creation were compatible. We didn't talk about Jesus riding a dinosaur. We never trashed other religions. We visited Synagogues. We did charity work.

Horrible I know - guess at that time I was one of the fake Christians.

(The church as Presbyterian though I had similar experiences at a Methodist and Lutheran church).

 

[Gramps]

When I was church as a kid these issues came up and it was clear in my church at least that these examples were not condemned to Hell or denied salvation.

Further the notion that being a serial killer and just asking for forgiveness wasn't the point of what asking forgiveness meant.

We actually rarely (never?) talked about eternal damnation but instead talked about how to be a better person and how to seek guidance in doing so.

We talked about how evolution and the Creation were compatible. We didn't talk about Jesus riding a dinosaur. We never trashed other religions. We visited Synagogues. We did charity work.

Horrible I know - guess at that time I was one of the fake Christians.

(The church as Presbyterian though I had similar experiences at a Methodist and Lutheran church).

The only sin Per the Bible that is unforgivable is blasphemy. Those that are teaching otherwise are not teaching what the Bible teaches.

 

[Sandvol]

If only you had kept reading:



Having said that, if I earnestly believed my wife and loved ones were going to Paradise forever, there wouldn't be a grieving bone in my body, let alone being "devestated". It would be quite the opposite; I'd be joyously celebrating! How could one be anything other than happy for their loved ones to finally reach Paradise?

As for your cherishing life objection, that makes no sense. You are supposedly cherishing a life of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc. instead of celebrating a joyous eternal life free of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc.

It makes no sense.

Maybe that's why many Christians pray for help with their "unbelief."

 

[rjd970]

For brevity I'll address some of the comments here together:

1) You both are advocates of rationality and scientifically proven truth yet both of you are drawing major conclusions about a) is religion a net good or bad and b) I'm defining Christians by my experiences with my mom.

Shouldn't you follow your own advice and draw conclusions on at least some objective data collection and analysis rather than selective perception and anecdotal evidence? At a minimum some objective cost/benefit analysis should be conducted no?

2) You both seem to see religion as all in or faking it. Again I see no data to suggest that is the case and in fact plenty of data through time showing wide variation in traditions and specific beliefs within a given religion.

Suggesting someone that doesn't fit your view of a hard core Christian is a fake Christian or just doing it because of social pressure is belittling. So far as I can tell, the only requirement to being a Christian is believing Jesus was sent by his father to die for people's sins and the path to salvation is via confessing your sin. All the other stuff is just add ons that some people buy into and some don't. There is a wide gamut and I see no reason to label anyone in that variety pack as fake.

In short - if you advocate data-driven "truth" via some type of scientific method than you ought to apply that approach to your theories about religious people.

I've posted polling before on opinions on suicide bombing in Muslim countries, as well as polling on creation and evolution in this country. This data was largely met with contempt and nit picked on phrasing around here. All of it was mostly countered with anecdotes and personal experiences like your previous posts. I can point to data and peer reviewed research showing the simple incompatibility with a religious creation narrative and evolution.

As I said before, a higher power belief or spiritual belief of some sort is simply being human. But when lines are drawn, specifics touted, and scripture quoted, the negative end net result outweighs the good. There are a host of geopolitical and social issues alone that get easier over night if specific religious doctrine doesn't exist in the discussion.

 

[volinbham]

I've posted polling before on opinions on suicide bombing in Muslim countries, as well as polling on creation and evolution in this country. This data was largely met with contempt and nit picked on phrasing around here. All of it was mostly countered with anecdotes and personal experiences like your previous posts. I can point to data and peer reviewed research showing the simple incompatibility with a religious creation narrative and evolution.

As I said before, a higher power belief or spiritual belief of some sort is simply being human. But when lines are drawn, specifics touted, and scripture quoted, the negative end net result outweighs the good. There are a host of geopolitical and social issues alone that get easier over night if specific religious doctrine doesn't exist in the discussion.

this conclusion doesn't follow from what you've presented.

you also ignore all the good works that are done in the name of religion and through religious organization and organizations.

this is why I say there is selective perception here - focus on the negatives, ignore the positives.

In the end the net good vs net bad is not empirically validated and it comes down to predetermined attitude about religion.

 

[rjd970]

The only sin Per the Bible that is unforgivable is blasphemy. Those that are teaching otherwise are not teaching what the Bible teaches.

This is kind of my point. It's an unforgivable sin, yet right here and now it is largely imaginary. I could blasphemy ever single day and never harm, or otherwise cheat another human being on this planet. I might offend somebody, sure, but I assume this is indifferent on the setting. In the privacy of my own home or on the street it should carry the same weight. Out of all the suffering and misery in this world, why put this at number one on the most wanted?

Things get out of wack when we start labeling our spiritual tendacies with specifics.

 

[rjd970]

this conclusion doesn't follow from what you've presented.

you also ignore all the good works that are done in the name of religion and through religious organization and organizations.

this is why I say there is selective perception here - focus on the negatives, ignore the positives.

In the end the net good vs net bad is not empirically validated and it comes down to predetermined attitude about religion.

Whose to say the good wouldn't happen anyway? On the other hand it should be pretty clear the bad that happens specifically because of specific religious beliefs.

As I said, good people are good no matter what. Bad people are bad. Both of those are irrespective of religious beliefs. And if a good person is good because of religious belief, are they really good?

Meanwhile, otherwise good people are drawn to do bad things specifically because of religion. The 911 hijackers were largely middle class, educated individuals. Are you saying you don't believe without empirical evidence they would have done that without the promise of paradise? Polling in the Middle East says otherwise.

Perhaps the question should be what good is done specifically because of religion that otherwise wouldn't exist?

And followed with what bad is done because of religion that wouldn't be done otherwise?

The second is a lot easier than the first.

 

[Gramps]

This is kind of my point. It's an unforgivable sin, yet right here and now it is largely imaginary. I could blasphemy ever single day and never harm, or otherwise cheat another human being on this planet. I might offend somebody, sure, but I assume this is indifferent on the setting. In the privacy of my own home or on the street it should carry the same weight. Out of all the suffering and misery in this world, why put this at number one on the most wanted?

Things get out of wack when we start labeling our spiritual tendacies with specifics.

It is unforgivable for one reason. A person that does not believe in God , can not ask God to forgive them of their sins.

I do think one can have a change of heart , start believing in God, ask God to forgive him/her and if the person is sincere God will forgive them.

I can understand the unbeliever feeling the way they do about religion, Christianity in general. Groups like Westboro displaying their ignorance and hate. So call Christians that have that holier than thou attitude. Those that appear to forget we all sin yet condemning those that practice certain sins to hell.

Christians are what is wrong with Christianity. So many put aside that simple to understand "Free Will to live our lives as we choose" thing.

We Christians are on display. We must strive to live our lives in a Christ like manner in order to bring people to God instead of driving them away with our ignorance.

 

[volinbham]

Whose to say the good wouldn't happen anyway? On the other hand it should be pretty clear the bad that happens specifically because of specific religious beliefs.

As I said, good people are good no matter what. Bad people are bad. Both of those are irrespective of religious beliefs. And if a good person is good because of religious belief, are they really good?

Meanwhile, otherwise good people are drawn to do bad things specifically because of religion. The 911 hijackers were largely middle class, educated individuals. Are you saying you don't believe without empirical evidence they would have done that without the promise of paradise? Polling in the Middle East says otherwise.

Perhaps the question should be what good is done specifically because of religion that otherwise wouldn't exist?

And followed with what bad is done because of religion that wouldn't be done otherwise?

The second is a lot easier than the first.

Just as bad would still happen without religion; good would still happen without religion.

I'd suggest making a list off the top of our heads would not qualify as any type of objective determination of net benefit/cost. So for every 9/11 hijacker I could probably find a charitable act motivated by religion. How might have a non-religious Gandhi approached things? It's all speculation.

Further, given the inability to accurately determine what would occur with or with out it would simply be an exercise in speculation and thus not reveal any truth.

 

[Roustabout]

If only you had kept reading:



Having said that, if I earnestly believed my wife and loved ones were going to Paradise forever, there wouldn't be a grieving bone in my body, let alone being "devestated". It would be quite the opposite; I'd be joyously celebrating! How could one be anything other than happy for their loved ones to finally reach Paradise?

As for your cherishing life objection, that makes no sense. You are supposedly cherishing a life of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc. instead of celebrating a joyous eternal life free of pain, discomfort, injustice, filth, etc.

It makes no sense.

So, you tell me to keep reading and then amplify the very point you are saying you didn't say. Um Kay.

You're being obtuse.

 

[McDad]

This thread will last longer than Foster's atheism.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Off topic. PKT I missed that you were getting married. Just wanted to say congrats and wish you two a long happy marriage.

Thank you, Gramps. :hi:

Glad to see your health improving. Keep posting. We need more sane posters in this neck of the woods.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Maybe that's why many Christians pray for help with their "unbelief."

Sure. The point being that various disconnects seem to point to there being more inner doubts than outwardly expressed.

I think a significant portion of this seemingly skewed manifestation of ideals is due to the cannibalistic nature of many religious social groups (it could be religious institutions, religious denomination, religious social circle, etc). Basically, if you don't toe the line of ideas or doctrines X, Y, and Z fully, then you either aren't a real (fill in the blank) or you're a heretic worthy of God's punishment.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Groups like Westboro displaying their ignorance and hate.

They are neither ignorant nor especially hateful:

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLdjeOUeZM[/youtube]

 

[Deputy Fife]

Saying, I don't like religious people, therefore god doesn't exist, is a non sequitur.

Also, thinking God doesn't exist because things aren't the way they should be (in your opinion) doesn't determine this either.

Yes Captain Obvious. The relevant questions are:

1. "Is there any evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of the creator of all things?"

2. "If the Biblical God did exist, would I follow him?"

The answer in both cases is no, and I've yet to encounter a non-believer who couldn't keep the two questions separate.

 

[apevol]

Yo Barn, you turn 21 yet?