Originally posted by King of Blades
Here's the thing, if you say it is possible then it is possible. It's as possible as choosing to have milk with our tea or not. I would be hard pressed to find, and I would invite the evidence if you present it, of a single religion that denounces life forthright without their deity. To many people (and as a Catholic I speak both personally and doctrinally) God plays a huge part in fulfillment and further enjoying life. As the Christian holds much of this life is vain. We go through so much material good and emotions that brings us momentary satisfaction only to leave us desiring more. It isn't that God changes this so that those who believe in him have permanent feelings and those who don't don't. Rather with a person who believes in God they may conclude that the reason this is, is because we by our nature are striving unification with God, not this world. And therefore are on a pilgrimage from this world to the next. So we enjoy what we have but do not grow attached. On the other hand the theist-without may look on this world as a temporal thing like all the matter in this universe is and enjoys what he has but does not grow attached. Two different perspectives to two similar outcomes.
K
Originally posted by King of Blades
As obvious as a statement this may be, I feel inclined to say, "where this may be true in most cases, it is not true for all." And if we take God's existence to be the case, certainly this is not a how or why we can determine. Likewise, if a God doesn't exist this is also a how and why we can not determine. I point this out because the wording implies by this statement we have complete and utter consciousness when it comes to the creation of our perspective universes. Yet now you say some do have control and some don’t. I can walk through the reasoning if it requires clarity. For the sake of noncontradictions, either we can create a world without God or we can’t.
Not sure I follow. My comment had nothing to do with creating a world with or without God. It was solely in response to ushome's initial post, which presupposed a meaningless existence outside of traditional theism. If non-theists find meaning and purpose in life (I assure you, they do, in similar percentage to theists), they create the how and why of it themselves, since there is no set doctrine to "give" them a meaning. That's all I was saying.
Originally posted by King of Blades
Please clarify for the sake of understanding, is it freedom from religious structures that brings happiness and purpose to our lives or is choosing to good through your actions? Because if it is the latter, we (Christians) live not on faith alone but good works as well. In fact, if I may be so bold, there are no greater sources of nonprofit organizations then these said religious structures. And to add to my boldness, if you would allow, these religious structures contribute not only tangible items (food, water, clothing, money, etc.) but also intangible items theists without can not supply. If though you say that freedom from religious structures empowers you all the more to do good and therefore further enjoy both life and purpose then we reach a crossroads of relativity. If you and I are equally happy with the actions we perform and the purposes we live, and feel empowered everyday, then surly detachment from the religious structures may not be the cause of this state of being. If so it must be something other then attachment from religious structures that empowers us. If nonattachment promises equal gratification, enjoyment, and fulfillment (with a hint of Pascal’s wager) why become unattached in the first place?
You're reading into my quote far too much. I'm not even sure where this applies to mine.
I never said that being non-theist leads to more happiness than theism. Nor did I wish to imply it. It would depend largely on the person. But it's not really a question of happiness, it's a question of belief. Almost no person could feasibly switch just because they think they might be happier with the other, if they genuinely didn't believe the other side. Happiness should be the goal regardless, certainly (in so far as it doesn't impede on the happiness, freedom, and wellbeing of others), but that's not what ends up making religious decisions.
The comment, then, of: "being free of religion can be empowering" is still entirely valid. It can be, and is for many. Religion can be empowering too. But the comment was for those (ushome, as evidenced by this thread) who believe meaning, purpose, and happiness can't be found without religion.
Also, saying that many religious organizations do good isn't news. Though I'd curb your zeal just a bit, because saying they're better than other altruistic organizations is purely subjective opinion. Any side could find anecdotes to support them, but verifiable conclusions can't be reached through eyeball tests.
In any case, your amusing (though interesting) variation on Pascal is just as fruitless as it normally is. One can be happy either way. So, when asked why not theism, a brief and truthful reply of "well, I don't really believe any of it, nor do I see reason to" suffices to quell it as a logical proposition, since beliefs that we don't actually have can be pretended at externally but not intrinsically believed.