Are cavers (on this forum at least, and those who choose to respond) atheist?

[graham]

Serious questions, Graham.  I'll do my best...

Thank you for trying.

Objective reasons?  Well, the Lord clearly told me He had something lined up for me, and hinted at China.  And then, after I had been made redundant, a guy in China who had been appointed GM of a chocolate factory but knew nothing about making chocolate got in touch with me (through a man in Bournemouth who knew a man in Blackpool who knew a man in Brighouse...) and asked me if I could come to China and help him.  So before the six months that I'd received wages for in lieu of notice were up, we were out there and working.  And some more things happened after that, when we found where the church was in Shenzhen, things that I'd rather not post on an open forum as other people are involved...  But it became clear that there were things God wanted us to do out there that were more important that making chocolate or earning money.  All coincidence, of course, you might say.  But when your Friend is there with you all along the way, you don't have any doubts.

Well. you see, I'm not sure where the objectivity that I asked about comes into this. You may have no doubts yourself about any of this, but I can see nothing that might convince an honest sceptic and nothing at all that covers the point as to why you received specific help when so many of your co-religionists do not. Despite their circumstances being far more desperate than yours.

The other question is a very old one - why does a good God allow suffering - and I have to admit I don't know the answer to it.  I think CS Lewis argued in "The Problem of Pain" that for beings like ourselves to exist and express ourselves, the universe has to be such that we can manipulate it so that we can express ourselves and make ourselves known to each other - and if we can do that, we can do things to each other, be it buy our neighbour a pint of real ale or hit him over the head with a blunt instrument.  It's a good book and I'd recommend it.  But the whole question is a big one, and my own feeling is that we are just too small to be able to see the whole picture.  But I do know that, whatever the reason God chose to allow suffering, he didn't do it just for fun.  Twice it says in the Bible that Jesus wept - once at the grave of his friend Lazarus (John 11:35), and once as he approached Jerusalem and foresaw the coming destruction of that city (Luke 19:41).  And then he allowed himself to be crucified, being willing to take upon himself the responsibility and punishment for our wrongdoing.  God himself coming as a man into the universe he had created and suffering for you and me!

This, I am afraid is just a very long-winded way of saying that you have no answer to this question but, despite having no answer you are still hoping that there might be one. Sorry, but if there is more than that then you are not expressing yourself at all clearly.

As to the point of crucifixion, that's a fascinating one. there appear to be two schools of thought here. The classical one - and this includes material from the OT and the NT is that the sacrifice was a direct response to the Fall. This, of course, becomes wholly nonsensical when one accepts that the Fall (the whole Adam & Eve banished from the Garden thing for those unfamiliar with the subject) was not a historical event.

Then there is the more modern and nuanced christian view that the sacrifice is a more general way of atoning for the sins of all, in a way that Fulk, for one, has serious problems with. The objections to this view are less clear cut than to the old view, but include both the fact that, being omniscient, god should have known what would happen, so having to send his son (i.e. himself, see the 'mystery' of the trinity) to atone for something that he'd allowed to happen in the first place is all a bit odd and the rather dismissive point that a three-day kip (him being god, again he knew what was going on) has little in common with millennia of bad behaviour.

Rats!  You've got me preaching now!  But, yes, my faith in God gives me a reason for being distressed at the pain and suffering in the world, and a desire to help and to do good to others where I can.  I have to admit, though - I'm not sure what my attitude would be if I were a thoroughgoing atheist earnestly following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest.  Why then should I care if you are hurting, as long as I'm OK?

Like so many christians, you misunderstand Darwin's work. We do not 'earnestly follow' that principle, it is simply an expression of how evolution works. It does not have to be applied, it just happens. However, your phraseology points up another criticism of christian thought, that atheists or non-christians have no moral compass. This is disproven when one considers the statistics that show that proportionate to the population, there are fewer atheists in prison than there are christians. The corollary to this, of course, is the view that seems to state that christians have little inherent morality and are only held in check by their fear of eternal punishment!

Ah yes, eternal punishment. That'll be a good one to sign off with. Your religion teaches that non-believers and 'sinners' will suffer in the fires of hell for all of eternity. Me, I think that eternal punishment for a very time limited 'crime' is disproportionate, cruel even and not what I would consider the action of what we are told is a loving god.

Nope, sorry, none of it actually adds up.

 

[graham]

I read this afternoon that India has more temples than it does toilets. This makes me worry about the priorities of the religious.

 

[owd git]

It could be as simple as economics; but then Atheism is a non prophet organisation 

 

[bograt]

I read this afternoon that India has more temples than it does toilets. This makes me worry about the priorities of the religious.

Always thought the overly religious were retentive!! :

 

[Roger W]

I read this afternoon that India has more temples than it does toilets. This makes me worry about the priorities of the religious.

Maybe, Graham, some people have a different set of priorities to yours.

There are a lot of Indians, though, with a rising population.  There are more Indians than there are UK cavers.

Objectively speaking, maybe they have got their priorities right.   

 

[graham]

Maybe, Graham, some people have a different set of priorities to yours.

I'm sure Roger, that most people have completely different priorities to me, but, notwithstanding the fact that most people (including I suspect virtually every Indian) have little interest in Mendip cave surveys, prioritising temples over decent sanitation is just plain stupid.

 

[martinm]

I have ignored this thread mostly until now, but this really annoyed me:-

But of course, she didn't have enough money, and of course her dad forgave her and paid the bill himself  :halo: )

Any loving Mum or Dad would have done that Christian or not!

And the Bible tells us that yes, Jesus has already died for you and paid the price for your sins. 

The Bible was written by people for people!

That's why you - and I - can be forgiven for all the nasty things we've done and said.  Of course,

I've never done anything nasty to anybody!

And, Graham..  Yes, God does warn us that the consequences of our actions will affect others,

No he doesn't. God didn't write the Bible. The Bible was written by people for people!  It was written like a recommendation of a lifestyle where we care for each other and recommended good practices to do so which it did very well. Many of the stories therein are probably not true, just examples of good behaviour and practices.

And if I were to lose my faith, I don't know what I'd do. 

Get a life?

If I were not a Christian, I would be sorely tempted to put number one first and let the rest go hang - by nature I was (am?) a decidedly selfish brute and have to admit I caused a lot of hurt to a lot of people in trying to get my own way before Christ gave my life a new direction.

Then that says a lot more about you than it does about the Christian or any other faith. I have lots of friends and I would never consider putting myself before them. I care about my friends and if I can help them I will do.

I have stopped in the street before now to comfort a woman who was crying cos her ex-boyfriend had smacked her new boyfriend cos of jealousy. The police were very grateful cos that freed them to deal with the person causing the trouble.

I care about caves, I care about nature, I care about people. I am not a Christian.

Heaven?  Jesus refers to his Father's house, with its "many mansions" or permanent dwelling places in John 14, comparing heaven to the most opulent of royal palaces. 

Again, Jesus did not write the Bible, people did! (His disciples, etc.)

I believe in myself, not something that was created by certain people in order to enable others to be easily manipulated by them. Religion (of various sorts) has been one of the biggest causes of unrest and wars in recent human history. (Ie:- the last few thousand years.)

And as I said at the beginning of this thread, the Earth alone is nearly 4 billion years old, not 10,000 and has taken a long time to get where it/and us is/are now. 

So start believing in yourself and in nature (mother Earth, which is real and all around us) and less in stories written by people thousands of years ago

I am now going to go back to ignoring this thread, (I was just curious), lest I get annoyed by it again, lol. 

 

[steviet_scg]

Debates like these are fascinating and I spent many hours debating issues around evolution and creationism online and offline and I can say with some certainty that the comments made here are sensible and mild compared with some of the tirades on both sides of the argument made elsewhere.

Faith exists and clearly helps many people - Roger - I hope it continues to work for you. If, however, you are not seeking solace but truth then we are in a different territory.

An excellent book - especially if you have an allergic reaction to anything by Dawkins - is Daniel C Dennets - Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Two quotes of interest relative to the thread thus far

"I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of getting to the truth, and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously). But you must not expect me to go along with your defense of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you are supposedly trying to justify. Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason is on your side"

"When it [the catholic church] spends its treasure to put gold plating on the candlesticks, instead of providing more food and better shelter ... it has a different vision of what makes life worth living. Our people, it says, benefit more from having a place of splendor in which to worship than from a little more food. Any atheist or agnostic who finds this cost-benefit analysis ludicrous might pause to consider whether to support diverting all charitable and governmental support for museums, symphony orchestras, libraries, and scientific laboratories to efforts to provide more food and better living conditions for the least well off. A human life worth living is not something that can be uncontroversially measured, and that is its glory.

 

[bograt]

Hang On !!, all this vitriolic debate and argument on a forum based on the discussion about exploring places developed Way Before the founder of the religion was even an embryo, Pull yourselves together people!

 

[graham]

"When it [the catholic church] spends its treasure to put gold plating on the candlesticks, instead of providing more food and better shelter ... it has a different vision of what makes life worth living. Our people, it says, benefit more from having a place of splendor in which to worship than from a little more food. Any atheist or agnostic who finds this cost-benefit analysis ludicrous might pause to consider whether to support diverting all charitable and governmental support for museums, symphony orchestras, libraries, and scientific laboratories to efforts to provide more food and better living conditions for the least well off. A human life worth living is not something that can be uncontroversially measured, and that is its glory.

That is what I was questioning when I made the comment about Indian temples and toilets. There is a clearly defined hierarchy of need. I well remember a friend of mine coming back from South Africa where she had been helping with aid-related activities. She was very clear - with a background in the urban areas of Western Europe - that she learnt very early on that nothing, nothing at all was more important to the desperate poor than clean water and useful sanitation. It is only when such basic needs have been satisfied that one has time to turn to more esoteric wants and needs.

 

[Rachel]

That's exactly what Maslow explains in his hierarchy of needs diagram www.businessballs.com/maslowhierarchyofneeds5.pdf

It's only when all the needs at the lowest level have been met that people can be receptive to needs at the next level up. Often used in teaching theory to explain why kids who don't have enough to eat are not easily motivated to do their homework.

 

[bograt]

O.K. over 40 years ago I decided that my life was embeded in the rock, mostly underneath it. No supernatural, no gods, no fairies, nothing except me and the rock, I would like to think that this is the attitude adopted by today's spelio's
I know that some of my contempories are posting comments on here but when it comes down to it, it's between you and the rock, no room for any god!!

 

[Laurie]

Please define 'atheist'.

 

[Brains]

Please define 'atheist'.

Oh come on! Either you are wanting to drag this pathetic topic out beyond the time it should die a natural death (and hopefully burn in Topic Hell), or are just too lazy to look up the word yourself. This is not Wikipedia you know.

 

[Amy]

There are plenty of people who would respond no who don't think the earth was made in 6 days. And agnostics have to say no. ::waves hi::

I wonder what the difference would be here vs a US forum, since (from my observations at least) Americans are rather religious and Brits are mostly not. 

I sadly don't have time atm to follow the christian vs not discussion but fwiw I consider myself a christian agnostic. I was raised very conservative Christian (not quite Westboro Baptist in the news but some pretty weird beliefs) and from what I see, all sects of christianity pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe still are legit to follow. For me, I give up on all that weird shit. Jesus said it best when he said the only thing to worry about is the greatest commandment - love your neighbor as yourself. (aka golden rule, aka it shows up in every religion and even non-religion it makes sense to take care of your neighbors - they do really cool sociology studies about this that humans help even strangers when it doesnt make personal sense, it's a driving force in us, pretty cool research). And considering the pinicle of Christianity said that - all I'm concerned with is that is the only thing I need to follow and the only thing that matters. The Bible I believe if read correctly is mearly a historical document (ahum, look at the authors of the various books, and compare with other historical documents of the time, it's basically a history book) as such rules and laws change over time (as expected) and of course, as expected, are not meant to be followed in our day in age. No one here follows old Roman Empire rules...I guess one could ask why I even have any faith at all. Well, there are too many crazy things that have happened in my life for me not to believe, really. But I'm not gonna be an idiot about it. I keep my faith to myself and I'm fully aware it's not able to prove one way or another. It's simply faith. So...hence agnostic. And prettymuch no one would ever peg me as christian and I dont get along with other christians. I get along with agnostics/athiests for a reason - they arn't batshit crazy! hahahaha

 

[graham]

That's exactly what Maslow ...

Maslow, thanks Rachel. 

 

[steviet_scg]

Maslow,

Indeed - the broader issue that Dennet discusses in that particular chapter, however, is how evolutionary principles apply as much to religions as to species. If people are lifted just slightly beyond the most basic needs then their horizons alter - and a nice shining temple / church etc. draws in the crowds with promises (looking for a better life and not necessarily truth or enlightenment). Religions draw followers for many reasons but a degree of poverty / despair helps.

Religions lose followers when the environment changes and when their particular peculiarities are not seen as fitting in with the society and environment, e.g. attitudes to women, child abuse, putting bounties on people who blaspheme.

 

[kay]

But, yes, my faith in God gives me a reason for being distressed at the pain and suffering in the world, and a desire to help and to do good to others where I can.

So are you saying that the only reason you do good is because you believe in God and he would like you to do good?

I have to admit, though - I'm not sure what my attitude would be if I were a thoroughgoing atheist earnestly following Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest.  Why then should I care if you are hurting, as long as I'm OK?

Gosh, I think you are!

Or are you distinguishing between half hearted atheists who do good to other people, and throughgoing atheists who are completely selfish? :tease:

Someone else quoted the US Scouting statement to the effect that they did not consider anyone capable of being considerate to others unless they were guided by a Higher Being. That is really offensive to atheists - it is saying that atheism is not simply lack of belief in a deity, it is also lack of a code of reasonable behaviour to others.

Ultimately, considerate behaviour is probably the result of being a social species, one in which individuals rely on cooperation from others. Does such behaviour become more "moral" simply because one explains it as either "because I need to feel I am a decent person" or "because my God wishes me to behave like this"?

 

[graham]

... or "because my God wishes me to behave like this"?

And if I don't he'll torment me in hell for all eternity.

 

[bograt]

O.M.G.!!!
We've all been to the Underworld, we know what it's like!!!