No thanks no God!

JustGeorge · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Well that goes to the point. I made the coffee. But I didn't "make" myself. I didn't "make" coffee itself. I didn't "make" time, which enables process to happen, a before and after and completion.

If everything is only process and there is no one to identify, then, logically, there is no one to give genuine thanks or praise to.

This is the logic of a godless universe.

If atheist-types don't want to accept that, as is their prerogative, I suggest it means they really don't accept their own atheism...

You were a part of the process, though. You, and the folks that grew the beans, and the people that transported them, and the people who made the machine... yes, you can(and in your case, should) bring God into it. And while I might, too(though it may look a little different for me), one needn't do so to be thankful.

KerimF · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Imagine a country where no-one said thanks or gave praise.
The instincts were removed through brain operation at birth.
It was found that these were the instincts which led people to want to give thanks for life, to give praise for beauty of nature, and this meant seeking God.
The NoThanksNoGod country found that without these instincts, people no longer had a need to worship God.

Would these people be happy?

I agree with you.

In fact, if I heard Jesus saying that I have to please the Will behind my existence by worshiping, praising and obeying (as in the today's Judaism and Islam, for a few), I would see in him (real or a character) just another man (or character) made famous by certain powerful rich group around whom common people can be gathered and controlled/supervised via a certain man-made Law, claimed inspired from Heaven.

But, it happens that the act of submission, if accepted freely, to another will gives always a natural inner pleasure. This explains why every real worshiper (no matter whose God is) feels deeply during the worship rituals (in private or in a group) this extra inner pleasure (though many believers prefer calling it 'spiritual joy').

So I can assure you that the notion of 'Supernatural Powerful God' will exist as long humans need having the great sensation during their total submission to such God (no matter what his image and/or name is).

By the way, even without God (as in the case of atheists), one can also live this special great pleasure even if the dominant will is of a human, for example while living some sexual fantasies.

Hereashortwhileonly · Jul 8, 2021

JustGeorge said:
You were a part of the process, though. You, and the folks that grew the beans, and the people that transported them, and the people who made the machine... yes, you can(and in your case, should) bring God into it. And while I might, too(though it may look a little different for me), one needn't do so to be thankful.

My point is that God is necessary, and we can see His necessity, through our own basic instincts.
If you want to give thanks for something, you would not be able to satisfy that want, without God - simply on a practical level, you would be doing it for the rest of your life!
Can you imagine? And thank you for that wind which blew on such a such a date at such a time.
And still you would not get within a miniscule of completing your desire.
So we would need to bunch all this into one who wasn't able to accept such a great burden! In this way, our social thanks become kind of false, in that we both know that the person is not truely deserving of the praise in themselves, but we might have no-one else to identify, and in this way we end up worshiping ourselves or others. And this leads to great social problems...

But, at the same time, I appreciate the kind impulse behind what you say...

exchemist · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Well that goes to the point. I made the coffee. But I didn't "make" myself. I didn't "make" coffee itself. I didn't "make" time, which enables process to happen, a before and after and completion.

If everything is only process and there is no one to identify, then, logically, there is no one to give genuine thanks or praise to.

This is the logic of a godless universe.

If atheist-types don't want to accept that, as is their prerogative, I suggest it means they really don't accept their own atheism...

Whut? It's simple: you made some coffee - and you enjoyed it, so it made you happy.

The average person does not indulge in deep metaphysical pondering about life, the universe and everything when they enjoy a cup of coffee. Still less do they demand that there must be someone - other than themselves - to thank, or even praise (?!), for the coffee that they, themselves, have just made. That would be nuts.

SigurdReginson · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
The subjective / objective dichotomy is false and causes great problems in the western mind, bestowed to us by the enlightenment.

This actually explains a lot... Hmm.

Question: if heavy snow fall causes a tree to get heavy, a strong gust of wind blows the tree over, and it smashes through the roof of someone's house where the branches impale the person laying in his bed where he's pinned down ans he starves to death in extreme agony over the course of almost a week, who are we giving thanks to?

I'm not trying to be trite or sarcastic... It seems like sometimes random things happen, and no one is the cause. Sometimes things just happen, and we just have to accept them when they do.

JustGeorge · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
My point is that God is necessary, and we can see His necessity, through our own basic instincts.
If you want to give thanks for something, you would not be able to satisfy that want, without God - simply on a practical level, you would be doing it for the rest of your life!
Can you imagine? And thank you for that wind which blew on such a such a date at such a time.
And still you would not get within a miniscule of completing your desire.
So we would need to bunch all this into one who wasn't able to accept such a great burden! In this way, our social thanks become kind of false, in that we both know that the person is not truely deserving of the praise in themselves, but we might have no-one else to identify, and in this way we end up worshiping ourselves or others. And this leads to great social problems...

But, at the same time, I appreciate the kind impulse behind what you say...

I get what you're saying. As a fellow theist, I can relate to what you're saying.

I can't relate to being an atheist, though. Its an experience I've never had. So I just have to take it from the atheists when they say they can feel deep thankfulness without God. After all, what do I know about the topic?

KerimF · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
My point is that God is necessary, and we can see His necessity, through our own basic instincts.

Yes, God's necessity is through human's basic instincts which generates a very pleasant sensation while someone submits, freely in a certain way, to another will (the dominant will).
During such free submission, giving thanks to the dominant will is usually made automatically

Hereashortwhileonly · Jul 8, 2021

SigurdReginson said:
This actually explains a lot... Hmm.

Hello Sigurd,

Let me expand.

All we have is our own perspective. This is indisputable. And we can incorporate into that, as much as possible, others' perspectives. We can incorporate evidences presented by others or found by ourselves (the scientific method). But still, in the end, whatever we say, whatever we believe, will be from our own limited and flawed view.

What people seek, always, is the view of the All Seeing and the All Knowing.

Why? Because awareness of Him is intuitive to the human being and he can't do without Him.

So what does he do, if he doesn't believe in God? He gives up his need to worship Him, which would give him a relation to the All Knowing and the All Seeing, to another source.

In modern life this is given to Scientific Truth. Note how people say, "The Science says..." This is an expression of the need for God. The Science doesn't "say" anything. Science, by its very definition, is a method for presenting theories about what is, which may usefully be used. But in the end, scientists themselves are people with a perspective, and whoever wants to use scientific findings is a person with a perspective, and this perspective is always incomplete and flawed...

Once you appreciate there is an All Seeing and All Knowing, it will free you from having to attribute that to anyone or anything and call it "objective truth" - there is no objective truth. There is no "objective morality". There are only subjects. There is you, there is me, there are other you's and me's, and there is God.

Once you accept that you will be freed.

Nakosis · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Imagine a country where no-one said thanks or gave praise.
The instincts were removed through brain operation at birth.
It was found that these were the instincts which led people to want to give thanks for life, to give praise for beauty of nature, and this meant seeking God.
The NoThanksNoGod country found that without these instincts, people no longer had a need to worship God.

Would these people be happy?

Happiness is chemical response in the brain. Religion is only one way to trigger these chemicals. One can learn other ways to trigger this response.

Trailblazer · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Imagine a country where no-one said thanks or gave praise.
The instincts were removed through brain operation at birth.
It was found that these were the instincts which led people to want to give thanks for life, to give praise for beauty of nature, and this meant seeking God.
The NoThanksNoGod country found that without these instincts, people no longer had a need to worship God.

Would these people be happy?

I believe in God but I do not give thanks to God, quite the contrary...
It all depends upon what one attributes to God.

Hereashortwhileonly · Jul 8, 2021

Nakosis said:
Happiness is chemical response in the brain. Religion is only one way to trigger these chemicals. One can learn other ways to trigger this response.

Of course, happiness can happen any number of ways

But to be thankful for your existence requires One you are thankful to, and that requires (YEs, you guessed it!...)

To put it another way, if you met someone and they said, hi, my name's George, and I can give no thanks for breathing, no thanks for the day, no thanks for the sun, no thanks for being alive!

And I can give no praise for the stars or the beauty of a waterfall in the woods.

Would you be okay being that person?

Hereashortwhileonly · Jul 8, 2021

exchemist said:
Whut? It's simple: you made some coffee - and you enjoyed it, so it made you happy.

The average person does not indulge in deep metaphysical pondering about life, the universe and everything when they enjoy a cup of coffee. Still less do they demand that there must be someone - other than themselves - to thank, or even praise (?!), for the coffee that they, themselves, have just made. That would be nuts.

Fair enough - I know that the average person in the west does not do this - in our indiviualistic godless society, we do not think beyond the apparent -

But try it, as a little experiment, next time you have coffee. Try saying thank you to a source for all, and see if you get some greater satisfaction for this. Try and see!

Nakosis · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Of course, happiness can happen any number of ways

But to be thankful for your existence requires One you are thankful to, and that requires (YEs, you guessed it!...)

To put it another way, if you met someone and they said, hi, my name's George, and I can give no thanks for breathing, no thanks for the day, no thanks for the sun, no thanks for being alive!

And I can give no praise for the stars or the beauty of a waterfall in the woods.

Would you be okay being that person?

I suspect I am that person.

I can accept the beauty of a waterfall without the need to praise (God/the universe) for it.

I suppose gratitude is a unique feeling but so is hate. If I feel it fine. If not, I don't feel I'm missing anything. If I wanted to, if I had a desire to feel gratitude, then I suppose I would have to believe in a God.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
That's because it's a natural instinct

Appreciation is relational. I don't say, I appreciate this house, without appreciating the one who made the house or designed the house, and honouring him.

Wagner made some amazing music that is still appreciated today.
Wagner himself wasn't much of an appreciable character.

Trailblazer · Jul 8, 2021

JustGeorge said:
I can't relate to being an atheist, though. Its an experience I've never had. So I just have to take it from the atheists when they say they can feel deep thankfulness without God. After all, what do I know about the topic?

I cannot relate to being an atheist but I can understand how they think.
If God is responsible for all of existence, that includes both the good and the bad things.

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Why do believers gloss over the bad and only look at the good?

I consider that illogical.

Hereashortwhileonly · Jul 8, 2021

Shadow Wolf said:
Wagner made some amazing music that is still appreciated today.
Wagner himself wasn't much of an appreciable character.

You'd have to appreciate his abilities as a composer though, even if you found everything else about him objectionable. If you liked his music - I don't know it well enough myself, though lots of people swear by its genius!

Shadow Wolf · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
You'd have to appreciate his abilities as a composer though, even if you found everything else about him objectionable. If you liked his music - I don't know it well enough myself, though lots of people swear by its genius!

He is such a tremendously accomplished composure I promise you are familiar with some of his works, including the Bridal March and Flight of the Valkyries. Those are two of his more well known pieces, but there are a few more that just pop up here and there. He's much like Beethoven and Mozart, in this regard, as even if aren't aware you know some of their music you do.
But he was a anti-Semetic, pro-Teutonic twit, reflecting German culture at large during his time and helping to plant the seeds of the anti-Semetism of the Nazi party.
But his music, even if you don't listen to the complete, full operas (they tend to be no less than a few hours long), is some very passionate, powerful music that is standing the test of time as it should
Or it's like Kevin Spacey movies. Turns out he's a pretty nasty person. That doesn't change the fact he has been a phenomenal actor who doesn't really do bad acting. Or Bill Cosby. I won't see him live again, he's proven despite all he's done you can't really trust him much, but I still thought of his dentist routine and being numbed up first time I was at a dentist who got me sufficiently numbed up.
As for god, I don't know. Truly, I really don't. I'm not an atheist or a theist, but rather a human trying her best to make sense of all this. And where I find what I feel is evidence of "something," I am forced to acknowledge I really just do not know. I'm human, and I would have lost my head a long time ago if it wasn't firmly attached. But even still, the fact that any of this is here is astounding and amazing, and that we can take in things and see beauty in a sunrise and hear birds as musical or even make our own means of communication something very playful and creative. The connections we have, the emotions we feel, the lives we live, our strengths and our weaknesses, it's all amazing and fascinating it all even exist at all. It didn't have to. None of it. And at so many points in history so many things could have been different, meaning that we specifically are here is astounding. And even still, most fertilized human eggs don't implant. Even the reality of our mothers giving birth to us is a roll of the dice.
Nature or god, it is such a wonderful regardless.

It Aint Necessarily So · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
All we have is our own perspective. This is indisputable. And we can incorporate into that, as much as possible, others' perspectives. We can incorporate evidences presented by others or found by ourselves (the scientific method). But still, in the end, whatever we say, whatever we believe, will be from our own limited and flawed view ... scientists themselves are people with a perspective, and whoever wants to use scientific findings is a person with a perspective, and this perspective is always incomplete and flawed...

Why do you present these ideas above? I am presuming that you are motivated by a desire to share the idea of a god and the benefits of belief in one to those who don't believe. This often has the tone of man needing help, of being inadequate to live life well without a relationship to a god, or as the believer would say, God. And I'm presuming that is what you are doing when you use the word flawed twice to describe man.

It seemed like initially, you were making an argument for God connected to experiencing or expressing gratitude. Then you began discussing objective and subjective. As I indicated, I get the vibe that I'm expected to be dissatisfied with a godless world view, and in being unable to escape subjectivity. I feel you telling me that these facts should make me look for something more certain, or more substantial, or more permanent.

If that's not your purpose for starting this thread and for making the comments quoted above, what is your reason for pointing these things out.

And if is your point, why is that a problem to you? What makes you find that perspective flawed? I'm good with godless gratitude and inescapable subjectivity.

Like everybody else, I live in my head and nowhere else, so ultimately, what matters is not what's objectively real, how it will impact the conscious observer. Will the result be desirable, undesirable, neutral? That's immediate reality for the conscious observer, not whatever underlies it.

Should the conscious observer care more about the objective truth about broccoli, or how he will experience it? He cares about the former only because he cares about the latter. If he expects to enjoy its taste, he'll eat it. If he doesn't like broccoli, he'll know to pass it up. This is what matters, not abstractions thought to account for that control and predictability of experience.

I am very satisfied being inextricably enclosed in a subjective bubble, as long as it is the case that belief B leads to action A that in turn results in desired outcome D. Belief B comes from in here, and informs action out there. Out there returns sensation to in here. Which is the primary domain for the individual subject, in here or out there? It's the subjective. Ideas about the objective are only useful insofar as they lead to actions that in turn lead to experiencing desired outcomes.

Hereashortwhileonly · Jul 8, 2021

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Why do you present these ideas above? I am presuming that you are motivated by a desire to share the idea of a god and the benefits of belief in one to those who don't believe. This often has the tone of man needing help, of being inadequate to live life well without a relationship to a god, or as the believer would say, God. And I'm presuming that is what you are doing when you use the word flawed twice to describe man.

It seemed like initially, you were making an argument for God connected to experiencing or expressing gratitude. Then you began discussing objective and subjective. As I indicated, I get the vibe that I'm expected to be dissatisfied with a godless world view, and in being unable to escape subjectivity. I feel you telling me that these facts should make me look for something more certain, or more substantial, or more permanent.

If that's not your purpose for starting this thread and for making the comments quoted above, what is your reason for pointing these things out.

And if is your point, why is that a problem to you? What makes you find that perspective flawed? I'm good with godless gratitude and inescapable subjectivity.

Like everybody else, I live in my head and nowhere else, so ultimately, what matters is not what's objectively real, how it will impact the conscious observer. Will the result be desirable, undesirable, neutral? That's immediate reality for the conscious observer, not whatever underlies it.

Should the conscious observer care more about the objective truth about broccoli, or how he will experience it? He cares about the former only because he cares about the latter. If he expects to enjoy its taste, he'll eat it. If he doesn't like broccoli, he'll know to pass it up. This is what matters, not abstractions thought to account for that control and predictability of experience.

I am very satisfied being inextricably enclosed in a subjective bubble, as long as it is the case that belief B leads to action A that in turn results in desired outcome D. Belief B comes from in here, and informs action out there. Out there returns sensation to in here. Which is the primary domain for the individual subject, in here or out there? It's the subjective. Ideas about the objective are only useful insofar as they lead to actions that in turn lead to experiencing desired outcomes.

Hi thanks for your reply.
It was following up, in my mind, a conversation I'd had with this individual on another thread, and to do with the subjective and objective.
I accept that it is off the point of the argument of the thread - but I guess this happens?

I don't agree with you that we are all trapped inside our heads, but I do think that is where the logic of a godless universe leads.
My point in the thread is to highlight where the logic of a godless universe would lead us, and to point out that is unacceptable to our intuition. To our needs and to our expectations on what it means to be human.

In my book, being grateful is synonomous with just being a decent person.
I'm saying that it's impossible to be that person without God. (Note, not saying without belief in God.)

You sound nice and well-meaning, so please don't misunderstand this as a personal attack. Maybe you are more grateful than I am, I can't say, and don't say.

I only say that the logic of atheism leads to certain unpleasant conclusions, and I think those need to be fronted up to honestly.

Cheers.

SigurdReginson · Jul 8, 2021

Hereashortwhileonly said:
Hello Sigurd,

Let me expand.

All we have is our own perspective. This is indisputable. And we can incorporate into that, as much as possible, others' perspectives. We can incorporate evidences presented by others or found by ourselves (the scientific method). But still, in the end, whatever we say, whatever we believe, will be from our own limited and flawed view.

What people seek, always, is the view of the All Seeing and the All Knowing.

Why? Because awareness of Him is intuitive to the human being and he can't do without Him.

So what does he do, if he doesn't believe in God? He gives up his need to worship Him, which would give him a relation to the All Knowing and the All Seeing, to another source.

In modern life this is given to Scientific Truth. Note how people say, "The Science says..." This is an expression of the need for God. The Science doesn't "say" anything. Science, by its very definition, is a method for presenting theories about what is, which may usefully be used. But in the end, scientists themselves are people with a perspective, and whoever wants to use scientific findings is a person with a perspective, and this perspective is always incomplete and flawed...

Once you appreciate there is an All Seeing and All Knowing, it will free you from having to attribute that to anyone or anything and call it "objective truth" - there is no objective truth. There is no "objective morality". There are only subjects. There is you, there is me, there are other you's and me's, and there is God.

Once you accept that you will be freed.

Oh, you didn't need to expand. I think your initial statement was perfectly self explanatory.

No thanks no God!

Not As Much Fun As I Look

Active Member

Member

Veteran Member

Grēne Mann

Not As Much Fun As I Look

Active Member

Member

Non-Binary Physicalist

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Non-Binary Physicalist

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Member

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Member

Grēne Mann