Without religion, can you feel truly fulfilled?

[disgracian]

Because that depends on how you define fulfillment. BUT...if you compare fulfillment with God and fulfillment with self, then it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Fulfillment with self is not the only alternative. I can think of family, society, humanity, science, knowledge, life, nature, the universe, just to name a few.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

 

I don't think many people in Western society have ever experienced real persecution for their beliefs.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

This is true. Words from strangers should not ruin our day, but I am guessing that we all have left some forum here or elsewhere on the internet filled with anger, frustration or even sadness because of what someone whom we did not know, typed.

 

Fulfillment with self is not the only alternative. I can think of family, society, humanity, science, knowledge, life, nature, the universe, just to name a few.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

IMO all of those are ways that we find satisfaction within our selves. They build our self-esteem. Those cause us to feel better about ourselves.

 

True Christians who find fulfillment in Christ do not do so to build self-esteem. The awesomeness of God and the sacrifice of His Son should lower one's self-esteem and pride while building humility. The realization that God has granted him or her salvation from eternal hell gives gratitude not pride.

[disgracian]

IMO all of those are ways that we find satisfaction within our selves. They build our self-esteem. Those cause us to feel better about ourselves.

Your god belief is no different in this respect. It feels good to know that something out there cares about us and will take care of us for eternity after all that scary unknowable business of dying.

 

All of them are beyond and larger than our immediate selves, all of them will go on after we have gone. The only difference is the ones I listed can be proven to exist.

The awesomeness of God and the sacrifice of His Son should lower one's self-esteem and pride while building humility. The realization that God has granted him or her salvation from eternal hell gives gratitude not pride.

Nature provides exactly the same thing. It is awesome and humbling. This planet and the sun it orbits has given us everything. Nature is owed our gratitude, whether you believe in gods or not.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Your god belief is no different in this respect. It feels good to know that something out there cares about us and will take care of us for eternity after all that scary unknowable business of dying.

 

 

 

Nature provides exactly the same thing. It is awesome and humbling. This planet and the sun it orbits has given us everything. Nature is owed our gratitude, whether you believe in gods or not.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

So....you believe in Mother Nature as your god? And I believe in the Higher Being who made Mother Nature?

 

I agree as I look around that Nature is beautiful and wonderful. The details and the complexities are unbelievable. As a gardener and landscaper, I can see how the details of plants and flowers combine to "create" a masterpiece that cannot be made by the best artist.

 

I prefer to give the praise and glory to the One who made it, while you prefer to give the praise and glory to...it.

 

God has given us everything including the planets, sun, moon, stars and all around us.

 

There is a computer on my desk. It is quite a technological invention. Do I give it the "honor" for making my job easier and giving me such great capabilities, or do I give the honor to the one who designed and made it?

 

I think the Dell people might better deserve my gratitude.

[disgracian]

So....you believe in Mother Nature as your god? And I believe in the Higher Being who made Mother Nature?

No, I believe that nature itself is awesome and humbling enough. What's more, it's real. And I owe it my life and continued existence. I think it is far more fascinating and marvellous than any god humans have invented.

I prefer to give the praise and glory to the One who made it, while you prefer to give the praise and glory to...it.

My reaction to this is probably the same as yours would be to somebody who told you they worship the being that created your god.

God has given us everything including the planets, sun, moon, stars and all around us.

This notion is continued proof to me of humanity's staggering conceit.

There is a computer on my desk. It is quite a technological invention. Do I give it the "honor" for making my job easier and giving me such great capabilities, or do I give the honor to the one who designed and made it?

Well, that certainly isn't a loaded question. It is, as you point out, a technological invention. Nature is not, so the comparison ends there. I can likely guess, but I wonder what your poing might be. Complexity demands a designer? I had hoped you were better than that.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

No, I believe that nature itself is awesome and humbling enough. What's more, it's real. And I owe it my life and continued existence. I think it is far more fascinating and marvellous than any god humans have invented.

 

We actually agree with this. Any god man has invented is nothing when compared to the creation that the Almighty God created. Who wants to worship a god made by man when we can worship the God who made man?

 

I can likely guess, but I wonder what your poing might be. Complexity demands a designer? I had hoped you were better than that.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Poing! Poing! Sorry, not mocking at all. But your spelling error reminded me of the pogo stick when I was reading it.

 

My point is as you well know...why worship the creation when the One who is worthy of praise is the Creator?

 

And yes, complexity is great evidence for a Designer.

 

Don't bother hoping for me.

[samsungxoxo]

We actually agree with this. Any god man has invented is nothing when compared to the creation that the Almighty God created. Who wants to worship a god made by man when we can worship the God who made man?

 

Ok I will now imagine I'm trying to get your point of view. Wouldn't the question be ''Who then created the so called almight god, surely it wasn't born out of nowhere. Or according to you is it just that only, that it was there all the time, no original birth. In other words how did the so called creator come to be, where was it born???

 

Better try big bang theory, it's scientific.

[Nikki Sahagin]

Ok I will now imagine I'm trying to get your point of view. Wouldn't the question be ''Who then created the so called almight god, surely it wasn't born out of nowhere. Or according to you is it just that only, that it was there all the time, no original birth. In other words how did the so called creator come to be, where was it born???

 

Better try big bang theory, it's scientific.

 

This is what has always baffled me about God. Where did God come from? Or who made God? God can not simply JUST have been there?

[samsungxoxo]

This is what has always baffled me about God. Where did God come from? Or who made God? God can not simply JUST have been there?

 

Exactly and see if I got no problem with god believers as well as the religious people (as I'm really an atheist) but please if you're gonna argue on this, don't just say it exist, tell him the why, how and where was it born. Don't just go on telling me that it just exist.

[Nikki Sahagin]

Exactly and see if I got no problem with god believers as well as the religious people (as I'm really an atheist) but please if you're gonna argue on this, don't just say it exist, tell him the why, how and where was it born. Don't just go on telling me that it just exist.

 

It's just of like Russian dolls in my opinion. Like we came from God, God came from where, then the thing that made God must have come from something and so on and so on. It's impossible to trace it back if God does exist. I can't believe God would just be there.

[disgracian]

Who wants to worship a god made by man when we can worship the God who made man?

Do we really need to continue this rhetorical tennis match when we both know full well what the other thinks?

And yes, complexity is great evidence for a Designer.

I'm sure you knew this was coming, but I shall nonetheless remind you that your choices are to either concede that the complexity of your god demands a creator as well, or you abandon that argument altogether because, well, it's dishonest to use it only up to the point where it is inconvenient.

 

You might argue that god was always there, but that can be applied more easily to the universe itself. At some point you simply have no choice but to break ranks with consistent logic.

 

Then again, all arguments for the existence of god fall into that category.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

Like we came from God, God came from where, then the thing that made God must have come from something and so on and so on.

It's all a matter of where you stop. The most sensible place to draw the line is with what we actually know to exist.

 

Despite what some will claim, nobody knows of any god to exist. They infer it based on arguments like "complexity demands a creator" and probably some innate human tendency to see design in things even when there is not (perhaps harking back to our "Man the Toolmaker" heratige. Or they are just hit with it at childhood and it shapes the way they think for the rest of their lives. There are a whole truckload of reasons to believe in god, but not a single one of them is based on anything we can observe, test, prove or disprove.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Do we really need to continue this rhetorical tennis match when we both know full well what the other thinks?

 

 

Cheers,

D.

 

 

Speaking of tennis, you know...we are almost like a married couple. We can no longer have any creative arguments.

 

Yes, I knew exactly what you were going to say in response, and I am guessing you know what my next response will be...ad nauseum.

 

But yet....we feel this need to respond anyhow.

 

Hey, maybe if we switched sides for awhile, it could be interesting again!

 

Cheers!

[disgracian]

I don't actually know what your next response was going to be, because I never really get one from theists on countering the "complexity requires a designer" canard. I was wondering what yours might be. Bonus points if you can get through the post without an appeal to "god exists outside of time". Even more bonus points if you use that aforementioned line but actually explain in detailed and accurate terms what it actually means.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

I don't actually know what your next response was going to be, because I never really get one from theists on countering the "complexity requires a designer" canard. I was wondering what yours might be. Bonus points if you can get through the post without an appeal to "god exists outside of time". Even more bonus points if you use that aforementioned line but actually explain in detailed and accurate terms what it actually means.

"Something, (nature) can't come from nothing, nothing ever could"....ever hear this before?

 

Time has nothing to do with it.....

[disgracian]

And you fail. I already dealt with that 4 posts ago.

 

Cheers,

D.

[wuggle]

"Something, (nature) can't come from nothing, nothing ever could"....ever hear this before?.....

 

You have just totally contradicted yourself,and in doing so highlighted exactly what Disgracian is talking about, you said that nothing could ever come from nothing, where did your God come from then ????

[mental_traveller]

You have just totally contradicted yourself,and in doing so highlighted exactly what Disgracian is talking about, you said that nothing could ever come from nothing, where did your God come from then ????

 

It's possible god has always existed, and therefore didn't "come from" anything.

 

However, if that's possible, then it's also possible that the universe has always existed and never came from anything, so it doesn't support the religious point of view at all.

[disgracian]

Anything is possible, I suppose. But the heart of the matter is the inconsistent reasoning displayed by many religious people when it comes to origins. Briefly summarised:

• They like to appeal to causality to imply that the universe must have had a beginning. But they quickly abandon causality the moment it is applied to their god. But, if god can exist eternally, then so can the universe, so their original premise flies out the window.
  
• The complexity argument is often used to suggest that anything as grand as life, the universe and everything must have a creator. A computer couldn't come together via natural means, and we're more complex than computers. But, as before, once the complexity idea is applied to god, it is promptly abandoned. If a computer is too complex to have arised "by chance", then so too is the being that created the computer, and, (this is where theists depart the logic train) therefore so is the being that created the being that created the computer.
  

Once this point is reached, the discussion is invariably contaminated by the same nonsense such as god "existing outside of time", a phrase that confuses dimensions, is never substantiated and is basically incoherent.

 

Cheers,

D.

[josie54]

This thread is quite fascinating. I've always felt that one way to reconcile the two "sides" of the argument (theists, nontheists, and agnostics--I consider myself the last), is to think of "God" as something bigger than the father-like figure that most religions describe. I've always found it interesting that Western religions follow such a linear narrative--a series of stories and moral tales that we all can understand--to describe an abstract concept. Why do all of our fairy tales have such a simple "good/evil" component? Because it's what we all can understand, and it outlines behavior that we all need to follow for humanity and civilization to continue.

 

This continuous argument, then, is all about semantics and logistics--what people call the concepts, and what "rules" outside the simple "good/evil" model that they follow. These rules are essential for some and seem silly for others--baptism, regular confession, church attendance on Wednesday evening and Sunday morning, etc., and the threat of eternal damnation for nonbelievers. Many look at that last one and think it's an incredibly harsh sentence to be cast by a so-called benevolent God. A serial killer finds God in the death chamber and goes to heaven, but a virtuous nonreligious person or an unbaptized baby goes to hell (or at best, purgatory). That last one will send a lot of people (like me) running far far away from organized religion.

 

But what if, above all the logistics, "God" exists, but not as a "he" or an "it," but as an "all"? You, me, nature, and what people call God is all of one piece. That's why it's so hard to understand, because we each only see our tiny part from the inside. We might only be able to see the whole picture once/if we are somehow able to get beyond our limitations. Whether that's what happens after one dies, or what happens among enlightened Buddhist monks, I have no idea. That's where the "agnostic" part comes in.

 

My response, then, to the OP, is that while I don't think you need religion to be fulfilled, I do think you need some kind of spiritual connection to something to feel fulfilled. I think that what that "something" is, though, is different for everyone. For one, it could be their God and their religious congregation; for another, it could be their friends and family; for yet another, it could be their connection to the nature or art or music. I don't think that this happens only in churches and ancient texts.

 

My very vague guess is that it will come about that we're all connecting to the same thing. What you want to call that thing, however, is personal and shaped by your experience and the basis for the big and unanswerable question--and, of course, a long and continuing debate.