If you're an atheist, how can you have gods and religions in your setting?......

[Mr.u]

Yuugasa wrote:

If God is real and the creator of the universe it always seemed silly to judge him based on our morality to me anyway, seeing as our morality is mostly cultural and shifts with time anyway.

Not saying if he was real that would be an automatic reason to agree with him or worship him, just that unless he was simply somekind of mindless creative force he probably has a much better idea of what's in the universe then we do.

Also if God is really powerful but not omnipotent that might change things too. What if existence has some kind of universal laws that can't be superseded even by God?

In Mere Christianity Lewis argued that perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, if true I find that kinda sad, but who knows, it might change things a bit if God really did do the best for us he possible could given the laws of existence.

I'm pretty sure Lewis know that this world is also a fallen world and one would expect to see suffering in a world corrupted by sin and Lucifer.

[LazarX]

Jaelithe wrote:

Even if you don't consider the Bible authoritative or significant evidence for God's existence, you must nevertheless acknowledge that it speaks directly to the character of a Judeo-Christian's perception of God, which was entirely on point in responding to thejeff's comments.

The only thing I have to acknowledge about the Bible is that the first version of the book to be called that name is the result of a long committee meeting in a place called Nice. (I can't do umlauts unfortunately) that met sometime about three centuries after the time of Christ and had long series of discussions on which writings to bundle with it, and which to set aside. And that this would not be the first time such meetings would take place. And also there are still more than one version of the Bible being used by folks who call themselves Christians today. (Don't expect to find a King James Bible in a Catholic Church.)

The fact that this process had to occcur multiple times and still lacks a unified end result, kind of takes the edge of the claim of "Divine Inspiration".

The biggest myth about the Bible is the idea that there has always been only one book that bears it's name and role. And that there is only one today. So for my indulgence, which one were you referring to?

[thejeff]

Digitalelf wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

So long as you are more or less a decent person, God has no reason to send you to Hell.

Except the part in The New Testament of the Bible where Christ says, "The only way to the Father, is through the Son."

In Christianity, simply "being a good person" is not enough to get into Heaven, one must believe whole-heartedly that Christ is our Lord and Savior, and that he died on the cross for all of our sins, and was resurrected three days later...

Not saying you have to believe that, that's what free-will is all about...

Like all things in the Bible (or in any religion's texts, for that matter), it's open to interpretation.

There is no "In Christianity", this is true because it says so in the Bible.
There are people who call themselves Christians who do not believe that and have theological arguments to back themselves up. There are other people who call themselves Christians who deny those arguments and claim the first group aren't really Christian.

The great thing about the Bible is that you can justify nearly anything you want from it.

[Jaelithe]

Digitalelf wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

So long as you are more or less a decent person, God has no reason to send you to Hell.

Except the part in The New Testament of the Bible where Christ says, "The only way to the Father, is through the Son."

In Christianity, simply "being a good person" is not enough to get into Heaven, one must believe whole-heartedly that Christ is our Lord and Savior, and that he died on the cross for all of our sins, and was resurrected three days later...

That depends largely on the definition of "good person." Most have this idea of "good person" as "does nothing particularly heinous according to his or her own convenient code." Jesus Himself in Matthew 25 talks about charitable love and generous compassion being what will get you into Heaven—i.e. feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, sheltering the homeless, visiting the sick and imprisoned ... acts of charity that go far beyond what most consider being a "good person." There's a reason behind the phrase, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me."

Jesus is most emphatically not talking about some incantation employing His name, like so many Biblical literalists think.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Even if you don't consider the Bible authoritative or significant evidence for God's existence, you must nevertheless acknowledge that it speaks directly to the character of a Judeo-Christian's perception of God, which was entirely on point in responding to thejeff's comments.

The only thing I have to acknowledge about the Bible is that the first version of the book to be called that name is the result of a long committee meeting in a place called Nice. (I can't do umlauts unfortunately) that met sometime about three centuries after the time of Christ and had long series of discussions on which writings to bundle with it, and which to set aside. And that this would not be the first time such meetings would take place. And also there are still more than one version of the Bible being used by folks who call themselves Christians today. (Don't expect to find a King James Bible in a Catholic Church.)

The fact that this process had to occcur multiple times and still lacks a unified end result, kind of takes the edge of the claim of "Divine Inspiration".

The biggest myth about the Bible is the idea that there has always been only one book that bears it's name and role. And that there is only one today. So for my indulgence, which one were you referring to?

Again, that quote had nothing to do with "Divine Inspiration". It had to do with Jaelithe's beliefs, in response to my comment about not accepting moral pronouncements, even from God, but being willing to listen to His reasons for such pronouncements, should God be interested in trying to convince me.

That quote spoke directly to that and helped explain Jaelithe's understanding of God.

Which version it came from or whether it was divinely inspired or whatever is completely irrelevant.

It really feels like you (and bugleyman earlier, though he backed off) are just jumping on the Biblical quote without context.

[Jaelithe]

LazarX wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Even if you don't consider the Bible authoritative or significant evidence for God's existence, you must nevertheless acknowledge that it speaks directly to the character of a Judeo-Christian's perception of God, which was entirely on point in responding to thejeff's comments.

The only thing I have to acknowledge about the Bible is that the first version of the book to be called that name is the result of a long committee meeting in a place called Nice.

You mean Nicaea, in what was Asia Minor then and Turkey now. Nice is in France.

And you're right, technically: You can refuse to acknowledge something self-evident if you choose to do so.

[LazarX]

Jaelithe wrote:

Digitalelf wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

So long as you are more or less a decent person, God has no reason to send you to Hell.

Except the part in The New Testament of the Bible where Christ says, "The only way to the Father, is through the Son."

In Christianity, simply "being a good person" is not enough to get into Heaven, one must believe whole-heartedly that Christ is our Lord and Savior, and that he died on the cross for all of our sins, and was resurrected three days later...

That depends largely on the definition of "good person." Most have this idea of "good person" as "does nothing particularly heinous according to his or her own convenient code." Jesus Himself in Matthew 25 talks about charitable love and generous compassion being what will get you into Heaven—i.e. feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, sheltering the homeless, visiting the sick and imprisoned ... acts of charity that go far beyond what most consider being a "good person." There's a reason behind the phrase, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me."

Jesus is most emphatically not talking about some incantation employing His name, like so many Biblical literalists think.

It's hard to tell. Unlike Joseph Smith, or Moses, Christ, for all his acclaimed wisdom and insight, left no writings behind of his own authorship. All we have, are are second had accounts from third rate witnesses.

[Yuugasa]

Mr.u wrote:

I'm pretty sure Lewis know that this world is also a fallen world and one would expect to see suffering in a world corrupted by sin and Lucifer.

Giving us free will is one of the components in what makes it the best of all possible worlds.

[Jaelithe]

LazarX wrote:

It's hard to tell. Unlike Joseph Smith, or Moses, Christ, for all his acclaimed wisdom and insight, left no writings behind of his own authorship. All we have, are are second had accounts from third rate witnesses.

Your tone in the statement "for all his acclaimed wisdom and insight" makes fairly clear your attitude, since "acclaimed" seems a euphemism for "supposed" in context.

The categorization "third-rate witnesses" is, obviously, your opinion (and that of others, granted), but one not shared by numerous credible scholars, historians and theologians.

And I think you may wish to refer to Him as "Jesus," LazarX, unless you're freely acknowledging him as the Messiah, which is what Christ ("Anointed One") essentially means. Most Jews (but not Muslims, who actually consider him the Messiah; it's complicated) would take extreme exception to that.

[Ashiel]

Yuugasa wrote:

If God is real and the creator of the universe it always seemed silly to judge him based on our morality to me anyway, seeing as our morality is mostly cultural and shifts with time anyway.

Theoretically the moment that we ate from the forbidden fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we were capable of working out morality as God, but we didn't eat from the other tree, the Tree of Life, which is heavily implied to lead to immortality/godhood.

The moment that we supposedly ate of the tree, we were no longer innocent, we were playing in the same ballpark as God, minus the divinity aspect.

EDIT:Reference:

Genesis wrote:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

[Jaelithe]

Yuugasa wrote:

Giving us free will is one of the components in what makes it the best of all possible worlds.

And is one of the points often used to explain theodicy, to the extreme satisfaction of some and the total incredulity of others.

[Yuugasa]

Ashiel wrote:

Yuugasa wrote:

If God is real and the creator of the universe it always seemed silly to judge him based on our morality to me anyway, seeing as our morality is mostly cultural and shifts with time anyway.

Theoretically the moment that we ate from the forbidden fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we were capable of working out morality as God, but we didn't eat from the other tree, the Tree of Life, which is heavily implied to lead to immortality/godhood.

The moment that we supposedly ate of the tree, we were no longer innocent, we were playing in the same ballpark as God, minus the divinity aspect.

If our morality is divinely inspired why do we as humans often disagree on what is moral, and why do those ideas change with time.

Unless you're saying eating the apple just let us know that morality was a thing to begin with.

[Yuugasa]

Jaelithe wrote:

Yuugasa wrote:

Giving us free will is one of the components in what makes it the best of all possible worlds.

And is one of the points often used to explain theodicy, to the extreme satisfaction of some and the total incredulity of others.

Yep.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

Yuugasa wrote:

Giving us free will is one of the components in what makes it the best of all possible worlds.

And is one of the points often used to explain theodicy, to the extreme satisfaction of some and the total incredulity of others.

OF course, not all suffering comes from human's free will. Other than in the theological sense of being kicked out of Eden for choosing to exercise it.

And of course, if God is strictly all-powerful, he should be able to give free will without allowing evil - even if we can't see how that would be possible.

But that's all theoretical. Theodicy isn't one of my main problems with God. Particularly with Christianity.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

LazarX wrote:

It's hard to tell. Unlike Joseph Smith, or Moses, Christ, for all his acclaimed wisdom and insight, left no writings behind of his own authorship. All we have, are are second had accounts from third rate witnesses.

Your tone in the statement "for all his acclaimed wisdom and insight" makes fairly clear your attitude, since "acclaimed" seems a euphemism for "supposed" in context.

The categorization "third-rate witnesses" is, obviously, your opinion (and that of others, granted), but one not shared by numerous credible scholars, historians and theologians.

"Third rate" is strong. On the other hand, so is "Second hand". Little if any of the Bible is reliably sourced to even witnesses of Jesus.

Most developed through years of oral tradition, to the point that it's hard to say much about what Jesus actually said or did.

[Yuugasa]

thejeff wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Yuugasa wrote:

Giving us free will is one of the components in what makes it the best of all possible worlds.

And is one of the points often used to explain theodicy, to the extreme satisfaction of some and the total incredulity of others.

OF course, not all suffering comes from human's free will. Other than in the theological sense of being kicked out of Eden for choosing to exercise it.

In Christianity when man fell he took out the world with him, there prolly was no suffering, even between animals, until we f*$~ed it up=)

Edit: Also as Ashiel's new edit quote points out, God kicked us out of eden not as a punishment but to keep us from eating from the Tree of Life, he did us a favor, if we had then eaten from it we would have lived forever in sin, which is separation from God.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

If we are going for not so fun facts:

When going to inspect the worship and object of adoration of Christians, you may see their supreme icon - Tortured Dying Guy. Fantastic imagery for children to be brought up with and around.

Because it teaches them sooooo much. About how absolutely loopy their community is.

Interested party: So what's that?
Believer: Oh, that is a representation of our hero: Tortured Dying Guy.
Interested party: What'd he do?
Believer: He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was tortured by some not so enlightened folk with among other things a scourge which is an amazingly unkind object with which to whip a human being. And he sacrificed himself for our sins, which we get to be born with by the power of our God, who created evil. But it's ok. He, the hero, came back.
Interested party: (pales somewhat) What, from the dead?
Believer: (smiles beatifically) Yes.
Interested party: (looks around nervously) So did someone get him with a headshot? Coz that's what we do with zombies...

Because that is...less strange... than the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

[Hama]

I'll just quote Stephen Frye. "Cancer in children, what's with that?"

[Tacticslion]

Yuugasa wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Yuugasa wrote:

If God is real and the creator of the universe it always seemed silly to judge him based on our morality to me anyway, seeing as our morality is mostly cultural and shifts with time anyway.

Theoretically the moment that we ate from the forbidden fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we were capable of working out morality as God, but we didn't eat from the other tree, the Tree of Life, which is heavily implied to lead to immortality/godhood.

The moment that we supposedly ate of the tree, we were no longer innocent, we were playing in the same ballpark as God, minus the divinity aspect.

If our morality is divinely inspired why do we as humans often disagree what is moral, and why do those ideas change with time.

Unless you're saying eating the apple just let us know that morality was a thing to begin with.

I think you're pulling his statement out of context.

We are not empowered with the "omniscience" part of divinity that informed God's views on morality.

Hence, we've become our own moral judges, but without any sort of objective anchor* by which we, personally, may navigate.

This is the source of disagreements. Our "moral ability" to judge is based exclusively on the fact that we took said moral responsibility for ourselves, and it's the kind of thing that can't be put back.

The failure comes from the lack of all-knowledge from which to act (which is inherent due to our limited nature), which is part of the bargain of being finite.

That said, there is the implication that the Holy Spirit is actively moving across the world and actively inhibiting Full Fledged Evil - and has been since Jesus re-ascended. It's noted that, should He ever stop (which he will), we'll destroy ourselves really, really rapidly (the exact reasons for this destruction aren't made clear, but given our relatively large-scale access to nuclear weapons...). The point is that free will is mostly kept while still inhibiting the worst of rampant evil. To head off that argument: I dunno - Revelation is... complicated. :)

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

If we are going for not so fun facts:

When going to inspect the worship and object of adoration of Christians, you may see their supreme icon - Tortured Dying Guy. Fantastic imagery for children to be brought up with and around.

Because it teaches them sooooo much. About how absolutely loopy their community is.

Interested party: So what's that?
Believer: Oh, that is a representation of our hero: Tortured Dying Guy.
Interested party: What'd he do?
Believer: He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was tortured by some not so enlightened folk with among other things a scourge which is an amazingly unkind object with which to whip a human being. And he sacrificed himself for our sins, which we get to be born with by the power of our God, who created evil. But it's ok. He, the hero, came back.
Interested party: (pales somewhat) What, from the dead?
Believer: (smiles beatifically) Yes.
Interested party: (looks around nervously) So did someone get him with a headshot? Coz that's what we do with zombies...

Because that is...less strange... than the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

Heh. "Wisdom"/"Foolishness" of "God/man"; "calling good"/"evil" and vice-verse. Bible seems to have nailed that part, at least. :D

(Though, it's interesting - the whole undead/zombie thing is a rather new variant concept of coming back from the dead, over-all.)

* EDIT'd for clear word-choice

[Jaelithe]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

"...Tortured Dying Guy..."

"...how absolutely loopy their community is..."

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

He was tortured and crucified. If you've got a "bunnies and smiley-faces" take on that, please, lay it out for us. Until then, we'll try to contain our "loopiness" for you as best we can.

[Yuugasa]

@-Tacticslion; Ah, I see.

[Jaelithe]

Tacticslion wrote:

"Revelation is complicated."

I always found Martin Luther on Revelation hilarious: "The Book of Revelation reveals nothing."

He wanted it, along with James and others, removed from the canon ... but even his fellow Protestants stepped back and said, "Take it easy, dude."

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

"...Tortured Dying Guy..."

"...how absolutely loopy their community is..."

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

He was tortured and crucified. If you've got a "bunnies and smiley-faces" take on that, please, lay it out for us. Until then, we'll try to contain our "loopiness" for you as best we can.

I do have to admit some of the iconography is creepy as hell.

There was a church near me (Catholic I think) that used to have a 10 sculpture of a hand with a spike through it out front.

Creeped me out every time I went by.

[Tacticslion]

Indeed. I never claimed to be anything but weird!

[TriOmegaZero]

Jaelithe wrote:

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

Indeed. I'm trying to take your posts as neutrally as possible, but they just sound so opposed to my viewpoint that it's hard to not take offense.

[thejeff]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

Indeed. I'm trying to take your posts as neutrally as possible, but they just sound so opposed to my viewpoint that it's hard to not take offense.

Honestly, Jaelithe's posts are very opposed to my viewpoint, but I haven't been offended by any of them.

I'm embarrassed by some of the ones on "my side" though.

[The black raven]

Belief, Religion, Atheism belong firmly to the mortal human sphere of existence.

They have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of the Divine.

They actually only speak about the human being. Or maybe about being human.

YMMV ;-)

[Jaelithe]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

Indeed. I'm trying to take your posts as neutrally as possible, but they just sound so opposed to my viewpoint that it's hard to not take offense.

If you're straining not to take offense when the opposition is so even-toned and restrained, even in the face of such responses as have crept into the thread, well ... I honestly don't know what to tell you, other than ... uh ... "Nice job, so far"?

[TriOmegaZero]

thejeff wrote:

Honestly, Jaelithe's posts are very opposed to my viewpoint, but I haven't been offended by any of them.

I'm embarrassed by some of the ones on "my side" though.

Oh, I agree. I don't really think Jaelithe is saying anything wrong, it's just my lens coloring it.

[Jaelithe]

The black raven wrote:

YMMV ;-)

And does. :)

[Yuugasa]

thejeff wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

"...Tortured Dying Guy..."

"...how absolutely loopy their community is..."

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

He was tortured and crucified. If you've got a "bunnies and smiley-faces" take on that, please, lay it out for us. Until then, we'll try to contain our "loopiness" for you as best we can.

I do have to admit some of the iconography is creepy as hell.

There was a church near me (Catholic I think) that used to have a 10 sculpture of a hand with a spike through it out front.

Creeped me out every time I went by.

It's a religion based on the self-less and brutal self sacrifice of a deity, it's bound to look a little frightening to outsiders like us.

I don't judge though, my life prolly looks like it has a lot in common with Hedonism Bot's from the outside to them, but it's more complicated than that.

Though I do agree with Hedonism Bot in that I apologize for nothing!=)

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Jaelithe wrote:

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

"...Tortured Dying Guy..."

"...how absolutely loopy their community is..."

And once again the strain of measured and respectful dialogue begins to weigh on certain participants.

He was tortured and crucified. If you've got a "bunnies and smiley-faces" take on that, please, lay it out for us. Until then, we'll try to contain our "loopiness" for you as best we can.

Jaelithe. Your ability to take my comments without any grains of salt speaks volumes and exposes you as devoid of humor much more than my comments expose my utter contempt for your beliefs or complete and utter lack of desire to respect them. Measure and respect for the calumnies of people who think their private relationship with spirit should be public and who inflict their madnesses on others is not required.

Without a sense of humor you are already a zombie. Enjoy what is your afterlife, because you gave up on this life when you accepted the word of God.

I apologise, that is as "bunnies and smiley" face as I get. The loopiness in question has infected many thousands of human beings and been responsible for countless intergenerational moral crimes the effects and ramifications of which cannot be underestimated.

I get it. By all means have a personal relationship with spirit. Give it a name if you want, paint pictures, sing songs. But don't turn it into a social control network. It has never worked very well for Believers, and even less for "unbelievers".

[TriOmegaZero]

Jaelithe wrote:

If you're straining not to take offense when the opposition is so even-toned and restrained, even in the face of such responses as have crept into the thread, well ... I honestly don't know what to tell you, other than ... uh ... "Nice job, so far"?

Naturally, the opposed responses align more with my worldview, so it's less stressful to give them a pass.

They're still being jerks of course, but they don't break my equilibrium as much.

[Jaelithe]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Without a sense of humor you are already a zombie.

Oh, I have a sense of humor, Oceanshieldwolf.

You're just not that funny. ;)

[Pillbug Toenibbler]

Ashiel wrote:

I don't believe in goblins either.

Humph. Stoopid pinkskin. Just you wait, at the next goblin union meeting, I'm going to propose a motion for all gobs to solipsistically disbelieve in you. Let's see how you like it when you stop existing, you Speciest Crankypants.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Nice one Jaelithe. Good return. :)

I admit it is hard to make a tortured dying guy being the supreme icon of a social control network....funny. But, I do my best.

Glad you are still among the living. There are enough zombies out there. I call them the Predead. You can find them in shopping malls wistfully attempting to fill the cultural void of their corporate-slavery led existence with consumer goods.

[Steven T. Helt]

I'm sure this point has been made, but the original complaint is a little absurd. How can the guy who wants you to worship his god play in a game with different fictional deities?

I'm very vocal about being what some call a fundamentalist Christian. I believe in the deity and resurrection of Christ, part of the Trinity that we know as God. And it is fun, and easy, and not remotely harmful, for me to play a game in a world where the fictional pantheons are nothing like the religion that I am persuaded is truth.

I'm bugged when people think that roleplaying is somehow a meaningful commentary on daily life. It's a hobby. It's fun. Play it with good people. If I play an excelent villain, I am not secretly a murdering psychopath. If I powergame, I am not indulging my inner murder hobo.

I believe the Bible speaks clearly, some things are bigger stumbling blocks for me than other things. There probably are people who shouldn't play roleplaying games. Either because their faith can't justify the pretend nature of the game, or their addictive personality enables them to suspend actual living in favor of escapism. Those are valid issues for those people.

"How can you have pretend gods in your game as an atheist", particularly when "I believe in a god besides those pretend gods" just really seems an absurd conversation to have.

If you have friends who struggle as Christians to enjoy the game, or they ask bizarre questions like this, feel free to pass my name a long and invite them to send me a message. I'm no one special, but I care about the topic and am maybe a friendly fellow believer with a perspective.

Y'all come play my events at PaizoCon. : )

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Ah geez Steve. How can you not see the potential for any cultural experience to be a meaningful commentary on life. It's part of life is it not?!?! It can't all be beer and pretzels, even if you're having fun!!! Fun does not remove the ability of an experience to be meaningful. Don't make me draw a long bow here....

NOT a longbow...

[bugleyman]

To be fair, Jaelithe did allude to atheists being annoyed by bible quotations. Part of our earlier exchange was me attempting to explain why I often find them annoying (they're often implicitly treated as evidence), rather than expressing annoyance or accusing Jaelithe of using them as such in this thread. Forgive me if the distinction seems overly fine, but I do feel my earlier comments are being somewhat mis-characterized.

To be blunt, I do not believe faith is a virtue. Rather, faith -- belief without empirical evidence -- is self-evidently antithetical to our progress as a species, especially given what the statistics reveal about its origin. However, if this thread truly isn't the place for such discussion, can we maybe tone down the rhetoric about the "other side" all around?

[Oceanshieldwolf]

NP bugleyman.

Will do.

Goodnight everybody. And godsbless yourselves if it will help. +1 to stuff is useful...

[Tacticslion]

bugleyman wrote:

can we maybe tone down the rhetoric about the "other side" all around?

Exactly. There is a time and place for such things. And that time and place is right over here!

[bugleyman]

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I'm bugged when people think that roleplaying is somehow a meaningful commentary on daily life. It's a hobby.

This. As an atheist, I enjoy playing characters of faith. The clarity afforded by an objectively verifiable personification of good is particularly appealing to me, probably because I do not believe such a thing can exist in the real world.

[Jaelithe]

bugleyman wrote:

To be blunt, I find the whole concept of faith -- belief without empirical evidence -- to be self-evidently antithetical to our progress as a species, especially given what the statistics reveal about the origins of faith.

There's a fundamental difference between "belief without empirical evidence" and 'belief based on empirical evidence you don't accept as valid when others do' and/or 'belief based on revelation to which you have not been privy.'

I appreciate bluntness, if couched with reasonable courtesy—even if I'm not remotely swayed by the logic employed to support it.

[Pillbug Toenibbler]

Hama wrote:

I'll just quote Stephen Frye. "Cancer in children, what's with that?"

That's actually a Canadian's fault.

[bugleyman]

Jaelithe wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

To be blunt, I find the whole concept of faith -- belief without empirical evidence -- to be self-evidently antithetical to our progress as a species, especially given what the statistics reveal about the origins of faith.

There's a fundamental difference between "belief without empirical evidence" and 'belief based on empirical evidence you don't accept as valid when others do' and/or 'belief based on revelation to which you have not been privy.'

I appreciate bluntness, if couched with reasonable courtesy—even if I'm not remotely swayed by the logic employed to support it.

"Belief based on revelations to which I have not been privy" is not verifiable by observation, and therefore by definition not empirical. I cannot -- and do not -- deny the possibility of such.

As to the evidence...with apologies, I will not budge. There is no strong empirical case for the existence of God (which frankly, most of the theists whom I respect freely acknowledge).

[Ashiel]

Yuugasa wrote:

If our morality is divinely inspired why do we as humans often disagree what is moral, and why do those ideas change with time.

Unless you're saying eating the apple just let us know that morality was a thing to begin with.

A bit of both. We have the intellectual capacity to, without an authority, derive what is good and evil. This is why atheists are perfectly capable of being among the best and most morally upright individuals you can find in the world. In some cases, their morality is purer because they turn to reason rather than the authority of another, so it's less likely to be incorruptible if the reason is followed. This is why you won't see Richard Dawkins (oh this man is just so awesome) insisting that we chop people's heads off, stone people to death, make women second class citizens, etc. Because he has reasoned that those things are bad and even when a religious authority says to do them or says they are upright and virtuous he detects it for the steaming pile that it is.

I'm not an atheist though. I'm a spiritual person that believes in the supernatural. By my stating that I am spiritual, religious, or whatever, I've already effectively stated that I am a believer in things that in most cases borders on insanity. Because of this, I'm not too shy of saying what I'm about to because I've already raised the flag saying "I'm into some screwy s***".

I've talked to God. Yep, I said it. I can now be filed under "clinically insane". I went through a period of my life where I was studying some things of a supernatural bent (psychic techniques, effects of meditation on consciousness, etc). It was kind of a side-hobby that developed from trying to understand some things I was experiencing and feeling that I wasn't really having much luck with explaining through traditional means.

Fast forward a bit to a point where I was really struggling in my life. Usual problems: trouble at home, lots of self doubt, self-esteem issues, financial woes, self-identity problems, self-image issues, etc. I was generally depressed and legitimately contemplated suicide (as in, I didn't tell anyone about it and came close a few times but I never could quite go through with it). One day, I got in a fight with my mom and feeling pretty broken I went to my room and I just broke down and cried. I didn't remember what we were fighting about or why anything had led to this point, I just cried. It was too much. While I sat there in the dark (my room had no windows in it and when the two doors were shut it was dark enough that you couldn't see your hand in front of your face) two things came to my mind.

1. The techniques for connecting to someone's "signature".
2. The a signature I'd always felt nearby in my life even since I had been a small child. A sort of consciousness that I felt I loved and was loved by, and would apologize to when I felt I had done something wrong, even when no one else knew about it.

So, with no thought firmly in place as to why, I "reached out" to that signature mentally in a quiet desperation, a wordless call. To my surprise, I found it and got something back. I then had a very powerful "hallucination" where an angel appeared in my room before me. My logical mind recognized that whatever this was, it was not there in the physical sense because it appeared as a brilliant and beautiful thing of light, yet it wasn't illuminating the dark room, so this light wasn't actual light but something that sure looked like light to me and was very contrasted in the darkness surrounding it. Likewise, it moved in ways physically impossible. It was as though it was simply wherever it intended to be when it intended to be there.

(To my surprise, it wasn't what I would have expected if I had thought of an angel. For one, growing up I was taught that angels were masculine or male, while this one most certainly appeared and felt feminine in nature.)

My rational mind kind of sat there and shut up, observing what I was experiencing, knowing that I should be freaking out or even afraid of what I was seeing but noting that I felt a sense of passive acceptance of what I was experiencing while I sat there crying. It felt as normal as my bedpost even though I knew it was anything but. It vanished from before me and was immediately behind me where it wrapped its arms around me. It felt strangely comforting in this position, but then it felt as if it was drawing out my soul and my crying fell into full on sobbing as it kind of hurt emotionally. After a few moments, it felt like I was empty inside and I just laid down on my bed, sobbing subsided and just breathing, accepting whatever it was that was happening to me without objection or recourse.

As I lay there, I slowly felt that it was not emptiness that I was feeling. It was more like cleanliness. It initially felt like I was losing myself because I couldn't rightly remember a time where I hadn't been carrying that darkness with me. Struggling to find a perfect metaphor, I would liken it to carrying a weight for a long time, only to forget about it until suddenly someone comes along and takes the weight off of you. How for a moment your muscles almost scream out in agony as the burden is suddenly lifted, only for a bit later for you to feel like you are as light as a feather and so very free.

Just as quickly as it had all began, it was over. My sister came and opened the door to tell me that it was time to get groceries out of the van. With that same strange acceptance of it all, I got up and continued life as if nothing had ever happened. I told no one for quite a while.

In truth, that moment turned my life around. I became ever more aware of something else within the world, like seeing beneath a surface of water for the first time. For some time after that, I got to know that angel. I started talking with "God" and though it was difficult at first because there were no words, more like raw thought and ideas to be sorted out, eventually you get used to translating what you're getting if it's not too terribly complex.

Now the biggest reason it turned my life around is because I started asking questions about what I should do, and the advice I received often wasn't what I would have done and often sounded like it wouldn't work, but it made my life all the better. Most notably, he, she, it, "God" helped me restore my relationship with my mother. I was told to let all the anger I had felt go, hug her, tell her I loved her, and go with it. So I did. I still remember that first morning. I walked into the kitchen. My mom was groggy and drinking a cup of coffee and I could see her bracing herself, getting prepared for a verbal fight. I realized neither of us even knew why were were fighting or what started it. I walked up to her and hugged her (which caused her to flinch with slight surprise), told her I loved her, and that I was thankful that she was my mom and no one else. Her reaction was a mixture of surprise and an appreciative emotion I could feel through her skin, and then doubt, and she asked me "What do you want?". I told her I just wanted her to know I loved her.

It wasn't an overnight transformation. Our relationship didn't suddenly heal because of a hug. So used to fighting and bickering, she would reflexively make baiting comments, but I let them go. I followed the advice of "God" and just met her with acceptance and love. Eventually, her barbs melted away and about a year or so later we were good and were right up until she died, and we're still good to this day.

Now why does any of this matter? Because it relates to your question. Being a borderline atheist for a long time, having an interest in psychology, and generally being a pretty reason-oriented person, I once asked God, "What if you tell me to drown a kid or something?", relating it to stories you hear about people doing terrible things because "God told them to" and stuff. God's response was roughly "I'll never tell you do do anything wrong, and if I do, you will not do it, because inside you know what is right and wrong".

So far, that has proven true. No matter what people of my "religion" have taught me, I've always felt sick when I detect tyranny and bigotry. It's why I've become more and more estranged from organized religion and more into the spiritual side of it. When people tell me things that I innately know are wrong (such as my friend's pastor going on an anti-homosexual rant) I know that they are not worth listening to.

So let's talk divine inspiration and morality.

Take aside some children. Let them see another kid not getting to play with the same toys as everyone else and tell them that it's because that kid is black, white, girl, boy, tall, short, whatever. Ask them if they think that is fair? Every child I've ever asked can tell you with no uncertainty that it's wrong.

Is that supernatural? Probably not. It's probably based in our biology somewhere. Is it pretty divine? Damn strait it is.

[TriOmegaZero]

bugleyman wrote:

There is no strong empirical case for the existence of God (which frankly, most of the theists I respect freely acknowledge).

Pretty much. I choose to believe in a god. I don't believe there is any evidence of such a thing in our world, however. (Which is incidentally why I ignore organized religions and holy books.)

[Steven T. Helt]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

If we are going for not so fun facts:

I invite you to study Christianity, or to ask a few of us about the things you say. Your representation mischaracterizes a lot. If that's because you prefer a hostile, maybe even caustic position, then that's your choice of course. But if that's because you don't really understand Christianity and just see the worst possible presentation of the faith, let's have a beverage and talk about it.

[Jaelithe]

bugleyman wrote:

"Belief based on revelations to which I have not been privy" is by definition not empirical. I cannot -- and do not -- deny the possibility of such.

Which is why I separated the two, one entirely on point and the other worth mentioning.

Quote:

As to the evidence...with apologies, I will not budge. There is no strong empirical case for the existence of God (which frankly, most of the theists whom I respect freely acknowledge).

And that remains your opinion, not an indisputable fact.

No apology, however, is necessary.

I'm not lobbying for inclusion in that group of theists you mentioned, bugleyman. ;)

And I should have said, "belief based in part," by the way. My apologies for imprecision.

[Steven T. Helt]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Ah geez Steve. How can you not see the potential for any cultural experience to be a meaningful commentary on life.

No..I agree with you there. I am just saying, playing a roleplaying game does not ilustrate who you are inside any more than anything else. Playing a priest of Rovagug doesn't betray my belief in Jesus.

If my PCs and favorite villains at all indicated what I actually believed, I would be an apocalyptic undead cannibal with horrifying necromantic power and a host of unhealthy appetites.

Cue Guns and Roses.