I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[Robert]

What is it with Christians and twisting words? Since when did "nonbelief" mean anything other than "not believing"????

The original greek word, used in the New Testament, should be translated into 'trusting', not into 'believing'. About every theologian agrees there, but since 'believe' is such a settled word, about no bible translation translates it like that. (faith is also a much better way to describe it)

The problem with the word 'believe' is that it has two meanings.
1. I believe in my wife
2. I believe that the weather will be good tomorrow.

The first one is not about believing that my wife exists. It's about trusting my wife to be the one who makes me happy. The 2nd one is something like a solid guess that gives no qualifications at all to the objects perception of the subject.

the word 'believer' may have gotten the 2nd translation as well over time while it initially was only having the first meaning originally.

[Robert]

Since religious people basically say they need God as a "fix" for their emotional/psychological/spiritual wellbeing, does it logically follow they see atheists as emotionally/psychologically/spiritually stronger, more independent and mentally well-balanced?

Jesus says that those who aren't sick don't need a doctor.
In the end it's of course a personal decision. If an atheist thinks that he can live without hurting others, himself or god in any way, neither on purpose nor by accident, then I'm not the one who should tell him that he can't.

I know that I can't.

Maybe an atheist doesn't believe that either, but just thinks there's no fix and we have to live with the problems we face and must make the best of it. I had a colleague who agreed with me on all observations, he said that he really needed someone like Jesus, but he just could not believe such a thing to be true.

[MikeH]

So.. if a man refuses to go to the doctor, he must be healthier than people who do?

Poor analogy. The correct one would be:

If a man doesn't need to go to the doctor he must be healthier than someone who does.

[Jon Miller]

So a doctor does exist?

The real analogy would be:

A: Believe in God, maybe even religion, doesn't practice it:: Believes doctor exists, might even know s/he is sick, doesn't think s/he needs doctor.

B: Believe in God, practices religion:: Believes doctor exists, knows s/he is sick, goes to doctor.

C: Doesn't believe in religion/God/etc:: Doesn't believe in doctor or medicine, confused about symptoms, obviously doesn't go to doctor.

You can argue that A is likely healthier than B, although that isn't likely the case (based on real life). C obviously has no clue about their health, and will likely mistake their symptoms as belonging to something else.

If C does realize they are sick, that would be quite depressing and I would hope that they could find something they could believe in.

There are lots of problems because there are a lot of quacks, people who claim to represent the doctor and don't. This can hurt the treatment of even B, but that just means that care needs to be taken that clinic is sound.

JM

[MikeH]

That doesn't work, that suggests someone who doesn't believe in God has an illness or needs that they don't know about. Which I totally reject. It's the other way round if anything. People need religion because they can't deal with the reality of their own mortality.

The afterlife is a pleasant concept that bypasses the need to accept your own death.

That and the positive emotional feeling we get from shared crowd experience, whether it be a gig, sporting event or church service.

[Robert]

Now you project as much on believers as Jon did when he suggested that non believers have an illness they don't know about.

The possibility that people invent a god to deal with their mortality doesn't mean that everybody who believes does it to deal with their mortality.

[Jon Miller]

That doesn't work, that suggests someone who doesn't believe in God has an illness or needs that they don't know about. Which I totally reject. It's the other way round if anything. People need religion because they can't deal with the reality of their own mortality.

The afterlife is a pleasant concept that bypasses the need to accept your own death.

That and the positive emotional feeling we get from shared crowd experience, whether it be a gig, sporting event or church service.

I recognize both of those, I disagree that there isn't an afterlife.

That isn't what I am talking about though, I am talking about (in the Christian perspective) the problem of sin, of being sinful.

There are similar concepts in other developed religions, although they are a bit different in identifying the problem.

JM

[MikeH]

Now you project as much on believers as Jon did when he suggested that non believers have an illness they don't know about.

The possibility that people invent a god to deal with their mortality doesn't mean that everybody who believes does it to deal with their mortality.

No, there's also indoctrination, social pressure, shared euphoric experiences. Of course.

[Elok]

I would also hesitate to assign one single reason for people to believe, especially when you don't believe yourself and thus have limited understanding; for me, at least, the "afraid of death" explanation is almost as silly as the "primitive people didn't understand lightning and this somehow reflects on modern believers" one. As for comfort from a crowd, I'm mildly autistic, so obviously that's not it. In reality, people have as many reasons for believing as they do for not believing. I have more than one reason myself, and which one is dominant changes with the weather.

[MikeH]

I recognize both of those, I disagree that there isn't an afterlife.

That isn't what I am talking about though, I am talking about (in the Christian perspective) the problem of sin, of being sinful.

There are similar concepts in other developed religions, although they are a bit different in identifying the problem.

JM

I think a lot of aspects of Christianity are fairly positive, but the concept of Sin, especially related to Christian churches long histories of sexual repression is one of it's worst features.

So many of our western hangups about sex stem from this Christian tradition. It's so sad.

[Jon Miller]

The solution to sin is the best feature. It is the only real feature.

If you think it is heavily related to sex, then you are mistaken. In an old, explicit, and limited delineation about sin, the only 'sexual sin' was "Thou shall not commit adultery". The other 9 had nothing to do with sex.

Sex can be a part of sin, just like everything else in life.

Sin is about not loving God and not loving your fellow man. That is it's essence.

I don't agree with the over emphasis on sexual sin by a lot of Christian churches. I also don't agree with the 'all sex is good' which I see from other sources.

JM

[giblets]

Maybe an atheist doesn't believe that either, but just thinks there's no fix and we have to live with the problems we face and must make the best of it. I had a colleague who agreed with me on all observations, he said that he really needed someone like Jesus, but he just could not believe such a thing to be true.

So do you think people go to hell if they can't believe such a thing?

[Jon Miller]

What do you mean "can't"?

If you mean "won't" then that is up to God, not me.

JM

[MikeH]

I don't agree with the over emphasis on sexual sin by a lot of Christian churches. I also don't agree with the 'all sex is good' which I see from other sources.

JM

That's what I was objecting to, I know the source material doesn't justify it.

[Robert]

No, there's also indoctrination, social pressure, shared euphoric experiences. Of course.

Thanks for acknowledging that