I think what people mean when they tell you you always think you're right is that you cannot be persuaded otherwise, or that it is very difficult to persuade you. I don't necessarily think this, but that's neither here nor there.

The problem with a given thought process for one person being "right" for that person, and another thought process being "right" for another person, is that you end up with a million different "rights" from a million different people, which results in murder, rape, ect. Basically and ultimately, it results in selfishness...only satisfying what YOU want. See, assuming this mindset, YOU form your religion into what YOU want it to be by "defining what's right for yourself."
You said in your entry,

"Yes, I do feel like whatever I think is right, and I expect everyone who's in their right mind to think whatever they think is right. I don't see anything at all wrong with that."

Indeed, I think this is the entire problem. No one wants to admit that they can be wrong, because they think so highly of themselves and are too proud. This results in lawlesness, etc. But you also said,

"I do realize what I think is right might not be right."

So you're saying that you may not be right after all....
If possibly you're not right, what then? If you say you could be wrong, and you're an Atheist, and believe there's no god, how does that work? If one is an Atheist, he defines what is right for himself, because there is no higher authority. We've already been through what happens when you get millions of people believing that...

Let me ask you something else. If you believe in no god, how did "right" and how did "wrong" come to be? How do you define right and wrong for yourself, if there is no higher authority to guide you?

Bottom line is, there is only one true answer for all this. The world is so twisted anymore that it is hard to weed it out. And believe me, there is no "right" answer for one person, and a different "right" answer for another person when it comes to religion and philosophy. There is only one right, and one true answer, and if you decide to ignore it and shut it out because "it doesn't fit your style" or because you don't want to "change your image" or whatever, than you are screwed in the end. (I'm not directing this at you Vova, it's to everybody).

This is just to get you thinking...

We get so tied into ordinary life, and life here on Earth, that it's so hard to break out of the shell for a little while and think about what will happen after we die. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm trying to be realistic. It's going to happen to all of us. So just think about where your Atheist belief will put you if there is a God...

Your belief in no God isn't going to change whether there is one or not...

Vova,

You should talk to me more often, I am a philosopher.
There are many times in my life where I have to make the right decision. Fore example, I see a 100$ bill on the ground, the smart desision would be to take it and keep it if you know know one is waching you and the right reason would be to look for the owner.-That's my opinion anyway. I got to get back to my machine.....

Anonymous, I'd like to discuss everything you just said because, although it isn't directed at me, it poses as a direct insult towards those who do not believe in a God.

When we make decisions, at the point of the decision we have automatically ruled out in our brain that this is best possibility with the knoledge we currently have. This is one of the fundamentals of economics. Although this decision might not have benefited the human race by perception of other human beings, it was the decision of this single individual, who at the time felt this action was neccesary. With time this person may change his perception, or rather widen it by the perceptions of others, as humans are naturally social animals, and naturally do what is best for the whole, rather than the individual. There are some cases where individuals lack this social nature due to either enviromental disturbances (for example a neglected or abused childhood) or genetic disorders (a sociopath for example). The enviromental disorders of course are due to a destructive enviroment caused by those who themselves have been brought up in a poor enviroment, and the chain continues for generations. The root of this comes from opressive societies. Society itself can most definitely be wrong in the sense that it is harmful for the human race (in the context that the quality of life is identified by stress levels, pleasure releases, and various other factors which would take too long to describe). Opressive societies root from leaders who fail to gather adequate knoledge of their own society and distribute power amongst many individuals instead of just one (Groups of people obviously are more inclined to benefit the society).

Anyways, that's part of the reason why we have rapists, murderers, ect. The second reason I find, is because some form of leader within the society distributes information which destroys the insides of society (which is of course the individual). This has to be caused by either propoganda , or by religeon. I seperate the two as propoganda is an intentional disruption or narrowing or absolute truth, while religeon tends to make truth of an unknown. I will take up religeon instead of propoganda, as it is relevant at this moment. Religeon causes segregated groups within the global society. Religeon works both conciously and subconciously. Consciously Religeon will do its best to make an abstract concrete. First in questions such as the afterlife, origins of the universe, ect. Then the way that each individual should live his or her life to obtain the acceptance of the God in which they worship. This code of course is interpreted by a higher member of this religeon, and therefore is a form of leadership, which can easily be corrupted as in normal society, but even easier due to the fact that everyone is vulnerable to the unknown. In many cases the ideal way of life is vastly different from one religeon to another, which causes great clash, especially as one group believes they know a divine truth which matters more than any earthly truth. Subconciously people in religous groups feel closer to one other, and therefore feel more empathy for their own sect of people rather than a sect of people with a different religeon.

The reason I made the argument that religeon hurts people is to show that we as humans do not need a "God" figure to find out what is right and what is wrong. The way we find this out is by the mistakes of others (or what we interpret as mistakes anyways). If we blind ourselves to our concrete past the yes, society as a whole will fall. It is up to one's interpretation whether this is Good or not. Our biggest influence on "right and wrong" comes from our parents though. It is up to us to examine whether the choices they made were good ones. This of course will vary among families and cultures.

I also must point out that morality itself is completely subjective. If I murder someone, and the rest of my enclosed society agrees with me, then socially I am doing a moral good. Culture is so vast within the world that morality itself cannot be tied with any fundamental truth. All morality can lie back on is perception of each individual cultures belief of what is right and wrong. Therefore when you see murderers as horrible people, someone else might not, and although you find this so unexplicably wrong, in some cultures it is right. I added this extra bit simply to see how'd you'd react to a huge perception change.

Finnaly, we get tied to "ordrinary life" because that is obviously what is important. It is important to care for your family and your own society, and those throughout the world who are in need. It isn't really a shell at all, unless one consumes in unsocial desires, and even that is just a modern perception (which I happen to agree with). When so many people are suffering why is it worth bothering thinking what happens when we die. The extra energy is desperately needed in the world. I'm not saying we shouldn't have personal thoughts and turn off our brains, but rather why think of something which no one can answer. So contrary to what you just said, you're being unrealistic, for the real is an unknown.

Where will Vova's athiest belief put him if there is a God? Well let's see... he makes use of his time, he appears to be living his dream, I'm sure he isn't too selfish, and I'm sure he does what he can for other people.

If I were a God I'd have no reason to cast him out of the domain I own. Infact if I were a God, I'd partially blame myself for any wrong that this individual has done, and I'd do my best to help him when he does "return to me" in the afterlife. If this individual hasn't believed in me, and yet is a very good person, I'd be flabbergasted, because he didn't even need my help to become who he is.

... You're right, the Belief of Athiests won't change whether there is a God or not. Neither will the belief of Theists change whether there is a God or not. Why bother worrying about it if no one can find out? Wouldn't a caring God understand our condition? Would we really want to be with a God who does not understand our condition?

I believe the more interesting question is not what you think is right but how you arrive at that conclusion.

Vova,

Have you ever done something that you knew was wrong?

Adam,

What great ideas. Moral Relativism is at the root of much evil in this world.
Immoral religions are at the root of much evil in this world.
Standards do change from society to society, which is why I hope for an absolute good.
Perhaps as atheists, you can hope for a commonly held good and for the unity of all peoples under a homogeneous culture producing a commonly held moral good that agrees with your moral good. (This was much of the philosophical impetus for Communist impereialism. The actual impetus was more selfish and visceral.) As a Christian, I hope for a diversity of cultures unified in a common spirit. I don't beieve that humans naturally do what is best for the whole unless they are unfied by the common spirit of God. History would have trouble validating the human desire to benefit the whole over the individual.
It's exciting that between both camps, atheist and Christian, there is unity in this...we each desire to see humanity benefitted.

God speaks to people much more clearly without the constrains of religion.

[If this individual hasn't believed in me, and yet is a very good person, I'd be flabbergasted, because he didn't even need my help to become who he is.]

God's highest value is not for us to be "good person"s. I believe His highest goal is for us to be all he created us to be and for us to do that with love for the reast of his creation and in a loving relationship with Him.

[Why bother worrying about it if no one can find out?]
We can.

[Wouldn't a caring God understand our condition?]
He does and always continues to love us no matter what. We are always good in his eyes even if our actions are despicable.

[Would we really want to be with a God who does not understand our condition?]
No...I wouldn't.

Always a pleasure reading your thoughts, Vova. You think deeply about things. I work with teens everyday and your considered reasoning is a rarity.

"God's highest value is not for us to be "good person"s. I believe His highest goal is for us to be all he created us to be and for us to do that with love for the rest of his creation and in a loving relationship with Him."

Being a "good" person is completely relative, and changes between each individual. Being a good in a general sense, to the majority of people, is acting in an unselfish manner. I cannot see how the Christian God would advocate any of his created beings to intentionally act out of this manner.

Secondly, if he created us to do something, then free will in a sense isn't free will at all. Yes, you can argue we have a choice not to do what he wants us to do, but if he wanted us to do something why would he bother making free will. Logically, if the Christian God exsisted, he'd want us to do whatever pleases us. Whatever pleases us is determined by a combination of both our genetics and the enviroment we're raised up in, not some miraculous happening we recieve at birth.

Finnaly, if God wanted us to be in a loving relationship with him, it would make logical sense if he made himself more visible to this physical world. By this I mean concrete evidence, not "oh look nature, this must mean God is in it". Without hard unquestionable proof God relies on us to act illogically to form a relationship with him, which is contrary to the way our minds are built, which would make no sense whatsoever, unless God was playing a cruel game with us, which in that case no one would want to form a relationship with him. One could also say that the bible gives us ultimate truth, but what about Greek mythology, what about hindu belief, muslim belief, ect. Without this kind of evidence, we'd have to be simply gullable to believe we have to form a relationship with God. Faith in friends is fine, because after many tests with friends you can see consistency, and assume good will in the future. With God you're given no consistency what so ever, because outcomes happen by casuality, not by miracles. You can't claim casuality a miracle because that's against the definition of a miracle, which you can look up if you so choose.

"[Why bother worrying about it if no one can find out?]
We can."

Given my reasoning from above, you can't. Prove me wrong.

I also have a question for you scarednarrative. Do you believe that "non-believers" will be granted in heaven if they lived their life benefiting others? Please explain why or why not.

Adam Stewart,
You are taking the approach of an evolutionist...which is fine. Although I did voice a few of my own opinions in my last post, I was more trying to assume a position sitting above these ideas and picking out various aspects of them and coming to logical conclusions. As an 18 year old, I realize that I have a lot to learn in life, and I realize that some of my conclusions may be wrong, very wrong. But it is the questions I am asking and the points I'm raising that are much more important than my conclusions.

Now, in your post you claimed,
"Being a "good" person is completely relative, and changes between each individual."

Hmmm, how is this logical? Good is good, and bad is bad. You can't say that "good" changes between people. You see, one person's version of good might be to go out and rape somebody, and somebody elses might be to donate to charities. You see, in the first person's version of "good", it is my personal belief that it is his own selfishness that is blinding him from what is truely "good." In the second person's version, he is performing a truely "good" deed. Wouldn't you agree? So there must be "good" and "bad" and no in-betweens.

You also said,
"We get tied to ordrinary life because that is obviously what is important. It is important to care for your family and your own society, and those throughout the world who are in need."

Why? Why do you care about the people in the world who are in need? You believe in nothing, which means that nothing matters in this life except for what is "good" for you...

I believe that ordinary life is very important...to a degree, but remember that life is extremely short, and no one is going to remember your name after you've been dead for 25 years.
So as a Christian, I personally think that it is eternity that we should be more worried about.

And also you said,
"When so many people are suffering why is it worth bothering thinking what happens when we die?"

Because I personally believe that it is what happens after we die that helps us through our suffering in the present. I personally believe that I am a Christian and I am going to heaven because I have turned to Christ and accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to atone for my selfishness and sinfulness.

In your minds Adam and Vova, there is nothing after death, which leaves you with no hope of anything to help pull you through this life. Now, I know that you are thinking that by being a christian, I am merely creating an illusion for myself to help pull myself through the suffering of this life. But it is personal experience, and personal experience only (along with God's mercy and grace), that leads me to believe that I'm a christian. It's not an illusion I've created.
I believe the reason for suffering in this world is so that we may experience god's mercy, which he has made known to us.

Make of it what you will.

By the way, I am a Christian, but I'm not a jesus freak extremist. I am not even trying to persuade you of anything in this conversation. I'm merely stating what I believe.

I'm afraid I only have time to address these few issues. We could have discussions about this stuff for years and not get anywhere. Especially over the internet.

But here's another quick side-point of interest. Just an observation...

There is no neutrality. Vova says he's an atheist and he BELIEVES in "nothing." The key here is BELIEF. You realize that no matter what, you still are BELIEVING and still have FAITH in "something"...in Vova's case that "something" that he believes in is "nothing." He is counting on the fact that there will be nothing after death. In other peoples cases their BELIEF in "something" is a God of some sort.
Just thought that was interesting.

Adam,

Those are great questions. I agree with most everything you wrote and I don't think that you contradicted much of what I said. I think we probably agree.

But you asked a great question or two. Do we have free will? You bet. In the essence of creating something "not God" God created the possibility for us to choose the apple (metaphorically speaking). We can be use our life to be what he created us to be or we can use it for something else. Some of that "something else" may be meaningful, meaningless, and some things we do are obviously destructive. Optimally, we are living in complete freedom and also living in the will of God choosing to live a life loving Him and loving others.

God wants us to have life "to the fullest" as the scriptures say. But that doesn't mean he wants us to do "what pleases us" all the time. Because, unfortunately, what pleases us can sometimes be meaningless and destructive to others, ourselves, or His creation. I hope for my life that I am dancing with him, freely, in unison, creating beauty in our harmony and choreography.

The second question is a question about the silence of God. That's a great question. Love must be free to be real. Uncoerced. We are not created to be marrionettes , puppets. If God were to appear to the world, in all his glory, all powerful, all knowing, "I am the creator of the universe. I love you. Love me." What freedom would we have then? It either "no thanks, not interested...rather just go to hell." or "Uhhhh...I guess I better love you back and worship you." That's no freedom at all. No, God wants us free and unhindered to explore him, as you are doing, and find Him as you can, and love Him by choice without coercion. Or so I think.

[I also have a question for you scarednarrative. Do you believe that "non-believers" will be granted in heaven if they lived their life benefiting others? Please explain why or why not.]

Would a "non-believer" who lived a life benefitting others not want to reconcile with his creator once he knows He's real?

I guess that depends on the person.

But Jesus did say about loving others, "I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!�
Mt 25:40

seeing as vova is an atheist maybe god should be left out of philisophical debates here?
i personally find it really annoying when i read philosophical texts only to find that the whole philosophy of the person who wrote it is based on something that i beleive doesnt exist - god.
also i will say that im not 100% atheist becuase as vova says i do realize what i think is right might not be right and i prefer to label myself agnostic.
Tom

Anonymous, Good is relative in the sense that to some people sex before marriage is bad, some people is good. Good is also relative depending on the society. If a population is becoming too large for a society to handle, the killing of many members, with their consent, can sometimes be considered good, just because everyone agrees to it, and accepts it. Good is relative on a group of people agreeing on whether it is good. Socially good relates to how it impacts society. Currently good in most western and even 3rd world society is to act selflessly (a value I agree with). You also said there must be no inbetweens. Have you ever heard of something called a "grey-area"? This area comes up very often in things such as social justice and even things like abortion and euthanasia. They all can be interpreted in different ways on good, and how good they are, or bad, and how bad they are, but different degrees, and often a mix of the two. Hopefully that'll clear up my logic.

Why do me and Vova care about people in the world in need, as we don't believe in a God, as of course nothing matters and we only do what is good for ourselves?

I'm sorry to inform you, but you have a little bit of a misconception about athiests. As we believe that this life is the only life, we take special care to make the most of it, and a large part of that is making sure everyone else is enjoying it too. For us, this life matters so much more than anything else because it is all we have. We do all we can, and try to avoid be inert, as we only have a short amount of time to, as the metaphysical saying gos, "fulfil our heart's desire". If you look at all the free thinkers of the past, they have done all they can with their lives to progress human knoledge, human technology, and most importantly: human welfare. Religeons only started to follow in their footsteps after they made the initial track in the ground. Now that is something that is going to impact humanity pernamently, not just the 25 years you claimed.

As we've gotten that bit out of the way i'd like to discuss your view on "good deeds". it concerns me that you personally require the knowledge of reward by a God to do a good deed yourself. Shouldn't you really be acting on your own impulse to do good, rather than for the "glory of God". Is it too difficult for you to rationalize that others have feelings and needs that need to be tended to without some God figure telling you so? I certainly hope that you are able to move off of your own impulse.

Me and Vova do have hope. We have hope for humanity, we have hope for our own goals to do in this life. Life itself pulls us through life.

I'll discuss your other flamatory remarks towards athiests later, I must go to bed now.

By the way, sacred narrative you seem to be very well educated, and although we agree very little, I want to thank you for keeping your cool during my rather derogatory remarks towards your religeon. I'm extremely opinionated, and I will admit it, but it's something I feel passionate about, as I'm sure christianity does to you.

P.S tom, athiests can accept that they aren't right with everything and still be athiests. Agnosticism is something completely different.

How can we know the truth without conversation, Adam. If I do not hear you, then I am deaf to the voice of God in you. I cannot know God fully until I know you.

I enjoy your passion. I deeply wish conversation not conflagration ruled the day in the middle east.

Carey,

Its funny that you mention something about picking up money because I had an experience with that today. At work, while sweeping the floor, I found a $ 10 bill. I didn't want to turn ask my manager about it because last time someone did that he made them put it in the safe. Why should the company get money that I found? However I kept telling myself that was just a way for me to justify keeping the money so I wouldn't have to feel as bad for keeping something that I knew didn't belong to me. I also didn't want to ask anyone in the store if it was their's because they could easly lie and be 10 bucks richer. The answer to my problem came when I heard the voice of a little girl telling her Dad, sadly, about how she couldn't find her $10. Of course I handed over the money with a smile. I felt better.

Anyway, I guess the point I would like to make is that we as humans know what is right and wrong. Why do we know this? Is it because of a divine spiritual influence or is it simply because of an evolutionary process? I can't say either way. Actually, I think it mostly has to do with how we are raised by our parents. The bottom line is that most people in society, out of society, or inbetween know what's right and wrong. It's wrong to do anything that will hurt any other living creature in anyway shape of form and at any given time.

It's the good ol' golden rule.

Austin

Deuteronomy 6:7 (NLT)
Repeat them(my commands) again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up.

Luke 6:31 (NLT)
Do to others as you would like them to do to you.(Jesus speaking)

Romans 2:15 (NLT)
They (all people) demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

I think the scriptures agree with you, Austin.

agnosticism to me is not knowing or a beleif in my own ignorance.
if thats not what other agnostics say it is then thats fine.

Adam,
I have many more arguments and ideas for you, but unfortunately time does not allow for them. A busy work schedule and many classes sometimes get in the way of things.
As I said before, we could go on forever and not get anywhere, especially online. These type of discussions are much better in person.

But I did want to clear one thing up. You said,

"I'll discuss your other flamatory remarks towards athiests later, I must go to bed now."

I in no way meant to be offensive, or to dis your belief in Athiesm. Or Vova's for that matter. I'm merely trying to get you thinking by stating some of my own opinions and beliefs (as you have), as well as trying to assume a seat above everything, and picking out various aspects of life and religion.
And again, as a teenager, I readily admit that I have much to learn, and that my conclusions may be wrong.

Sacrednarrative is much better at explaining things, so listen to him.

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. -Isaac Asimov

Can you pass the Athiest test?http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=231

To kick against the pricks... Simon

He works best who knows his trade... Effemia

The way (the road) to hell is paved with good intentions... Garnett

Crows do not pick crow's eyes... Dionisius

Crows do not pick crow's eyes... Dionisius

A clear conscience laughs at false accusations... Abraham

A clear conscience laughs at false accusations... Abraham