I’ve often thought about the same sort of idea - what are the consequences if there is or is not a God, and I am an atheist? Does it have any implications for how I should live?
I am not as extreme as this guy, perhaps. I have always thought of it like this:
1. If there is a supreme being, then it is extraordinarily unlikely that he, she or it will be pedantic about whether one obeys a particular set of dogma.
2. If there is a supreme being, then it is extraordinarily unlikely that he, she or it would want humanity to behave in ways that are not essentially just, ‘humanist’, open minded and rational.
Therefore I see the four possibilities as follows, where “theism” refers to a dogmatic belief in a particular religion:
A: Theism/God exists: Spend a great deal of time worrying about dogma and not actually doing ‘good’ in the sense of 2. above; gain no credit with God; world at best unchanged, but probably worse thanks to dogma.
B: Theism/God does not exist: Spend a great deal of time worrying about dogma and not actually doing ‘good’ in the sense of 2. above; God’s views irrelevant; world at best unchanged, but probably worse thanks to dogma.
C: Atheism/God exists: Live the best life possible according to the principles of 2. above; gain credit with God; world a better place.
D: Atheism/God does not exist: Live the best life possible according to the principles of 2. above; God’s views irrelevant; world a better place.
In other words, on any construction an atheistic life led according to (admittedly vague, but that’s a topic for another day) principles set out in 2 is the best of both worlds: if there’s a God, he/she/it is happy, and irrespective of that, the world is a better place.
And on any construction, a theist life led according to dogma is the worst of both world: if there’s a God, he/she/it will be pissed off that so much time was wasted arguing about the interpretation of a few scraps of paper and whether it is permitted to keep donkeys and sheep in the same stable. If there’s no God, then all that argument was well and truly pointless. And, of course, all the dogma means that either way, the world is at best left no better, and at worst, is much, much, much worse.
I guess you could sum all that up as: live by your deeds, and do good not harm, and whether or not there’s a God becomes irrelevant.
Of course this is exactly why all major religions have “buy in” requirements: you must accept this religion, and only this religion, or your damned to heck.
Over the years I have had many friends with strong religious convictions, some of those friendships have been destroyed in large part due to those friendships.
In particular, they have ended because of a belief on behalf of my former friends that my choices in life will lead to my undoing, and that I will “burn in the fiery depths of hell” unless they save me. This manifested itself in several years of constant invitations to Church and other Christian gatherings, and finally in one visit to Footy Park to witness the evangelical sceptical that was “Franklin Graham”. Nothing could be further from faith that evangelical Christians chanting at each other in the middle of Footy Park!
That being said I also have a religious friend that does respect my beliefs and my position on this subject matter. After much discussion with this person about our view points on this subject, we have come to the conclusion that C and D above must be the only way to approach something that can not be proved either way to an acceptable standard to either party.
The saddest part for me in all of this, was that, my former friends harassment of my “doomed soul” was out of a genuine affection for me, and a wish that I would share the after life with them. Nevertheless, in my view, it also reflected a deep lack of respect for my beliefs. A fellow atheist friend of mine once said to me: “Believe in no God, is not no belief.” I think he was right.
That being said I also have a religious friend that does respect my beliefs and my position on this subject matter. After much discussion with this person about our view points on this subject, we have come to the conclusion that C and D above must be the only way to approach something that can not be proved either way to an acceptable standard to either party.
This is a central issue in modern day religious debate, I think - I see the line as being more between fundamentalist/evangelicals and open-minded moderates than between religion and non-religious, or Christian and ‘other’.
I would like to see many more moderate Christians stand up to their own bretheren. They should realise that every bigoted fundamentalist Christian who advocates something extreme is, in effect, speaking for them indirectly, and they are drawn into the debate whether they like it or not.
I also find it interesting how offensive it is considered to call someone, for instance, a “fool” for their adherence to a particular faith, but it is not considered offensive to tell non-believers they are wrong and will suffer eternal pain and damnation unless they recant. Why can my worlview be so easily assaulted, yet someone of a major faith is somehow protected from criticism?
I’ve often thought about the same sort of idea - what are the consequences if there is or is not a God, and I am an atheist? Does it have any implications for how I should live?
I am not as extreme as this guy, perhaps. I have always thought of it like this:
Therefore I see the four possibilities as follows, where “theism” refers to a dogmatic belief in a particular religion:
In other words, on any construction an atheistic life led according to (admittedly vague, but that’s a topic for another day) principles set out in 2 is the best of both worlds: if there’s a God, he/she/it is happy, and irrespective of that, the world is a better place.
And on any construction, a theist life led according to dogma is the worst of both world: if there’s a God, he/she/it will be pissed off that so much time was wasted arguing about the interpretation of a few scraps of paper and whether it is permitted to keep donkeys and sheep in the same stable. If there’s no God, then all that argument was well and truly pointless. And, of course, all the dogma means that either way, the world is at best left no better, and at worst, is much, much, much worse.
I guess you could sum all that up as: live by your deeds, and do good not harm, and whether or not there’s a God becomes irrelevant.
Of course this is exactly why all major religions have “buy in” requirements: you must accept this religion, and only this religion, or your damned to heck.
Over the years I have had many friends with strong religious convictions, some of those friendships have been destroyed in large part due to those friendships.
In particular, they have ended because of a belief on behalf of my former friends that my choices in life will lead to my undoing, and that I will “burn in the fiery depths of hell” unless they save me. This manifested itself in several years of constant invitations to Church and other Christian gatherings, and finally in one visit to Footy Park to witness the evangelical sceptical that was “Franklin Graham”. Nothing could be further from faith that evangelical Christians chanting at each other in the middle of Footy Park!
That being said I also have a religious friend that does respect my beliefs and my position on this subject matter. After much discussion with this person about our view points on this subject, we have come to the conclusion that C and D above must be the only way to approach something that can not be proved either way to an acceptable standard to either party.
The saddest part for me in all of this, was that, my former friends harassment of my “doomed soul” was out of a genuine affection for me, and a wish that I would share the after life with them. Nevertheless, in my view, it also reflected a deep lack of respect for my beliefs. A fellow atheist friend of mine once said to me: “Believe in no God, is not no belief.” I think he was right.
This is a central issue in modern day religious debate, I think - I see the line as being more between fundamentalist/evangelicals and open-minded moderates than between religion and non-religious, or Christian and ‘other’.
I would like to see many more moderate Christians stand up to their own bretheren. They should realise that every bigoted fundamentalist Christian who advocates something extreme is, in effect, speaking for them indirectly, and they are drawn into the debate whether they like it or not.
I also find it interesting how offensive it is considered to call someone, for instance, a “fool” for their adherence to a particular faith, but it is not considered offensive to tell non-believers they are wrong and will suffer eternal pain and damnation unless they recant. Why can my worlview be so easily assaulted, yet someone of a major faith is somehow protected from criticism?