The “If” Clause

Nan Atheism, Christianity, ,

Since  proving the existence of a Christian god is virtually impossible, the many and several indications that believers use to validate its presence are, more times than not, based on personal experiences rather than on any kind of substantiated evidence.

However, when all else fails, quoting passages from a several thousand year old Holy Book is offered as the ultimate proof.

Thus, it is not unusual for proclaimed atheists to go to great lengths, whether in person or in writing, to undermine scripture and/or dispute various bible verses (along with invalidating the multitude of  proclamations made by Christian leaders) in their efforts to disprove the tenets of Christianity.

Yet time and again, these same atheists will buffer their many and several anti-god remarks with the phrase: “If there is a god ...” or “If God exists …”

I’ve often wondered why atheists feel the need to add this phrase. Is it because of a subconscious fear? Is it a “just in case” qualifier? Is it because the person claims to be an atheist but is really an agnostic?

Considering that atheism is defined as the absence, rejection, or denial of a deity, I find it puzzling that a true NON-believer would feel it necessary to add the “If” clause.

From my personal perspective, there are no ifs, ands, or buts.

But of course I could be wrong … 😈

nogod

97 thoughts on “The “If” Clause”

  1. I am an “if, even so” person myself. Even if the Christian God existed, its character as described in the Bible and traditions, along with the behavior of its most fervid believers, means rejection is the only moral course.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • I’m persuaded that believers create God in their own image, and that includes the those who created the various Biblical stories around God. They are stories which don’t have to be viewed as consistent because that was never the intent in the first place.

      I know enough Christian to know that there is not one version of their God. Some versions of God seem more nasty than their Satan, while other versions bring out the very best in their believers and I can’t help but admire how they live their understanding of their faith. So rejection on moral grounds is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      • Yes, bible-time foibles continue to this day. In trying to make sense of being human we modify our views and emotions, sometimes in the same breath. I’d guess that none of us believe as we did 10 years ago.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      • But if one is to create God in one’s own image, even disregarding the startling arrogance of such a stance, is there not a some pointless duplication going on? Is there not a possibility that, particularly from those in power, God is created to ‘justify’ one’s own image? These days it is not uncommon for God to view obscene wealth as being ‘deserved’ by some and abject poverty conveniently likewise. Has not God frequently condoned the slaughter of nonbelievers (i.e. those of a different image) and differentiated humans on the basis of colour coding? I would argue that rejection on moral grounds is entirely relevant before we even get to the bit about any ethical belief system being based upon blatant falsehoods being morally reprehensible.
        I would suggest that the good people to whom you refer, Barry, would be good with or without God’s help.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        • If you are going to argue that those good people would be good with or without God’s help, then surely the corollary holds true: that bad people will be bad with or without God’s help.

          For those who are religious, I can usually gauge the values they hold by how they understand/define God. It’s not a tool I can use to evaluate the nature of atheists, so I find them more difficult to understand.

          And while you describe a number of “evils” that some use God to justify, there are others who can justify them without God’s help whatsoever. Or don’t feel the need to justify them at all.

          Actually I think you misunderstand my intent when I say that believers create God in their own image. I don’t mean its intentional. If we accept that God is a human creation, then surely it’s only natural that one would attribute to that God the values and beliefs one already holds. I find it rather implausible that people would choose to believe in a God that didn’t for the most part conform to their pre-existing values.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          • I do agree with you, Barry, in the idea that Man predates God and therefore defines and views himself as the most godlike of beings. Clearly though, some see themselves as more godlike than others. Hence the proliferation of white Jesus in depictions. And yes, some are more than capable of justifying their behaviour without God, but since God is such a marvellous tool in reducing others to mindless obedience He is a tremendous help in rallying support.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Having been shot down in no uncertain term when I have described an atheist as a person who believes there is no God or gods, I think your definition of an atheist is just one of several available. Those who have corrected me generally state something along the lines of “Atheists don’t believe there is no god or gods, we lack a belief in a god or gods.” There’s a subtle difference, but one that in my mind that contains an escape clause. It’s one reason why I don’t identify as an atheist. I identify as a non-theist. I have absolutely no doubt that deities/gods, a supernatural realm/heaven/hell, life after death etc are simply creations of the human mind in much the same way as the Middle Earth and all its beings are the creation of a human mind. They don’t exist anywhere else. It’s not a matter of debating whether or not they exist. If there’s any debate it’s about how we came up with the concept in the first place, and why the supernatural elements of religion persist in society today.

    Come to think of it, the Lord of the Rings franchise and the physical Hobbiton located in New Zealand, might be considered a metaphor for the way religion often manifests itself – as an attempt by humans to convert an imaginary realm into a reality. That’s not to say that religion serves no purpose. I find it is an essential part of my life, but I think most people who claim to follow a religion, don’t. They accept dogma, creeds, ancient texts as having a divine origin and factual but follow only so much as to allow them to keep a “get out of jail” (or an “entry to an afterlife” card).

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • “I have absolutely no doubt that deities/gods, a supernatural realm/heaven/hell, life after death etc are simply creations of the human mind in much the same way as the Middle Earth and all its beings are the creation of a human mind. They don’t exist anywhere else. It’s not a matter of debating whether or not they exist.”

      This is exactly why it is pointless to argue any point at all with them. It’s ALL B.S. To argue with a self proclaimed expert in B.S. is futility at its greatest. They aren’t worth the trouble. When one exists within, and are their own expert, in their own fantasy, there’s no flipping point with attempting any meaningul debate with that dingbat.

      You know who they are. We see them everywhere. Dedicated experts in their own fantasyland, so damn sure they have it all exactly right. And…

      It’s all B.S.!!

      Congratulations, dumbass.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • Am I correct in assuming there is a level of hostility in your reply? I’m guessing “Congratulations, dumbass” is addressed at me. If so, why? If not, who are you addressing and why?

        No, I don’t know who “they” are. I certainly don’t see “them” everywhere, and I have found few people who are so sure of themselves that they believe they have nothing else to learn. However, I accept that YMMV.

        Like

        Reply

          • Perhaps it’s the way I process language, but no matter how hard I try to deflect it from being directed at me, I can’t. Perhaps I’ve heard that and similar expressions directed at me and not others for most of my life because others perceive me as different.

            I’m autistic and over the decades I have learnt the hard way (and not infrequently the violent way) that how I express myself is often misunderstood by non-autistic people and I fail to pick up on their negative or hostile response. I’m not quite as naive as I was before I learnt I am autistic, so when I’m unsure of someone’s stance I ask.

            Liked by 4 people

          • If Nan will allow me an off-topic comment.. I volunteer in a kindergarten class in a large elementary school so to be a consistent, positive presence. We have one autistic boy with whom I seem to be forming a relationship. (I’m in this school year after year.)
            He and another boy and I planted a Florida Lily and a Blue Daze, per their agreed request for “a blue flower and a red flower.” A third boy dug the holes. In this simplicity I hope to create a language of respect and cooperation and trust. To me, life is relational: learning to understand others and express ourselves appropriately.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Reading the comments thus far, it appears this perceived slight has been cleared up.

            BTW, Barry, had I in any way thought that Shelldigger was referring to you personally, I would have immediately taken action. Of course, time differences sometimes changes “immediate” to “as soon as possible,” but in any case, things seem to have been worked out now.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. You know, I think the fact that the Bible is a couple thousand years old isn’t that much of a problem. It’s what people use it for that’s the problem. There were historians and philosophers during the same time that are worth listening to. It’s not the age. It’s that Christians can’t seem to comprehend that such a book is not a good thing to base your entire belief system, worldview, treatment of people, and expectations for an afterlife on.

    Liked by 7 people

    Reply

    • If the bible is as old as it professes to be (and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be) then it was written, piece meal, by various people (story tellers and poets usually are immersed n these things) trying to make a kind of sense of it all, and seeing a violent people with no real direction but that of war and rape and pillage apparently tried to make the Bible both a history of a people and a source of directions and recipes for staying alive and not continually salting each other’s land…so it’s a kind of guidebook on behavior and survival in a brutal place.

      However, we should probably move on from that (since our modern laws and codes seem to have superceded it) and consider how little the Bible has to do with our modern life. Try though we may to make it stick.

      One story on undying belief; my husband’s cousin was a 7th Day Adventist of a group that believed the earth was maybe 3000 years old and glaciers were imaginary things…one day after a nasty bit of ice and snow the day before i was talking to her on the phone and she said, “I lost control of the car coming home but God took the wheel and saved me.’ and I must have made one of those ‘oh really’ sounds and she added, “I called on him to make the Devil release the wheel and he did”…you can’t argue with that. =)

      As an aside, I’m truly glad we gave up Stoning as punishment…

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      • That’s how I see ancient bible stories too- a lot of authors were trying to make sense of everything (and getting a lot wrong). The Bible is personal, warts and all. Then came Jesus Christ, who chastised religious arrogance, and embraced the needy: ‘Return to me.’

        So, knowing of bible-writers’ biases, I’m open to God himself- flesh and blood, front and center- instead of history’s ways and means. He showed himself made in my image and likeness. That’s how I see it.

        Like

        Reply

        • You don’t wonder if others may have picked up just a hint of arrogance from a dude who claimed to be the personification of God? ‘I am the light’, ‘I am the way’ …. that sort of stuff?

          Perhaps, if arrogance was something he thought wanting of chastisement he might have just gathered the disciples around the BBQ for a few beers one afternoon after fishing, and said something like, “listen fellas, I’ve been having a bit of a think about things and ….”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          • Great question! Especially since James and John suggested bbqing the Samaritans (in John 9.54). It seems Jesus dealt with a host of macho emotions.

            Like

          • So you are suggesting the killing of 2 birds with one stone there, so to speak? I think the old tradition of pre-feast human sacrifices has been had some bad press over the years, but as a bonding mechanism among fishing buddies the concept has a lot going for it. And let’s face it, what bloke doesn’t like setting fire to things?

            Like

          • I’m suggesting that manly attitudes are still pervasive in Christian circles today. Besides bad guys opening fire in public places.

            Like

          • I don’t mind the odd manly attitude, or womanly, for that matter, and everything in between. I was born in Manly Hospital (I mean really – that’s the name of the hospital) so I might have been injected with some A type personality then. But over time these things wear off, like the shine of a new car.
            The church had only been around a few thousand years, and you really can’t expect them to learn too much that quickly.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. But but I have a Doctorate in Theological Gish Galloping! And wrote a 300 page thesis on the quantum states of the angels on a pin. How can u be so cruel and dismissive?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. I think the ‘if clause’ is in line with standard philosophical and scientific practice – if one is to test an hypothesis one must first consider it in order to establish its falsifiability. So, IF the loving Christian God exists then ….. (fill in the ludicrous suggestions here, there’s millions of them) this …. (likewise) must be true. It’s not really sufficient to say, “well, it’s just fucking obvious”, as fucking obvious as it may be, without first going through the formal process.

    I think, rather than ask why non-believers propose this question it might be more informative to ponder why believers don’t. Historically, those with the most good reason to question the preposterous suggestions of the God hypothesis tend to be the firmest believers. The first ‘African Americans’, for example, who knew nothing of this weird Judaic/Islamist faith offshoot before they were taken at gun point and herded into ships and removed unwillingly from their families and loved ones, only to be treated as less than animals …… apparently clung to the idea like limpets when it was first introduced by their white enslavers (and still do, in stark contrast to the reality of the practical experience God’s unending love).

    If one considers the ‘if clause’ in relation to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Loch Ness Monster one is confronted with far fewer contradictions than God waves in the face of reason.

    If God exists, then, I will most likely have been struck down by his terrible wrath before you get to read this reply. You should consider, therefore, that no further correspondence from me might call for a reexamination of the question.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    • I agree totally about African Americans. They do seem to be very religious and accepting of this so call christian god, who let their lives be so miserable as slaves and still endure so much racism today. So why, is the question? Use to being led and controlled in their cultures?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • I think one of God’s messages is that whilst this life might be shitty, if one clings to one’s faith, the afterlife will be a bed of roses. There is even an inference that the shittier the life you live on earth, the better it will be in heaven. All you need is faith.
        It’s a pretty good message to implant in somebody who is working 16 hours a day on the farm, picking cotton in the blazing sun whilst being treated worse than the livestock.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    • There are some IF’s for me:

      IF—
      BY RUDYARD KIPLING
      (‘Brother Square-Toes’—Rewards and Fairies)

      If you can keep your head when all about you
      Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
      If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
      But make allowance for their doubting too;
      If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
      Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
      Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
      And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

      If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
      If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
      If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
      And treat those two impostors just the same;
      If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
      Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
      Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
      And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

      If you can make one heap of all your winnings
      And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
      And lose, and start again at your beginnings
      And never breathe a word about your loss;
      If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
      To serve your turn long after they are gone,
      And so hold on when there is nothing in you
      Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

      If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
      Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
      If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
      If all men count with you, but none too much;
      If you can fill the unforgiving minute
      With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
      Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
      And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
      n/a
      Source: A Choice of Kipling’s Verse (1943)
      – + –

      Off-topic. Nan, may I? Because I couldn’t help thinking of these “IF’s”, worth thinking and talking about. And perhaps you will also want to follow this link to the webpage I stumbled upon, and take 2 minutes to listen to the nice recording.
      Enjoy!

      https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if—

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. I have never been a believer. I think man’s invention of various religions are mostly to control people and an excuse bad immoral behavior. And yes there are some truly good people that are religious..think Jimmy Carter. I’m sure he is appalled at the trump evangelicals.

    I don’t believe in reincarnation either.

    The “if” would only apply, to my thinking, on some sort of quantum consciousness energy thing, but it wouldn’t be “you”. I give this possibility about a .0000000001% chance of being true. So I think I’m justified in saying wholeheartedly, that I am an atheist.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  10. “Since proving the existence of a Christian God is virtually impossible …”

    I didn’t think of using the “if” qualifier until some time ago I learned that one cannot prove a negative, I also have to accept the obverse: I cannot prove no God exists. I’m satisfied that there are not any in our neighborhood, when I step outside on a clear autumn night and see what I can of the universe, I’m convinced that we know little.

    That all is for the sake of argument. If you have crossed swords with one of those apologists Brian described, then you may have already had to admit that this is true. But, for all I tents and purposes, there ain’t no damn gods. There are 31,102 verses in the KJV version of the Christian Bible and 45,000+ denominations in the U.S. alone. Something is wrong with their God that he cannot deliver a clear messages to his chosen people.

    “Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong. Dandemis 4th century BC.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  11. A little post scrip:

    I do not knowingly use that term in the sense you presented it. I don’t mind to be called out on my many inconsistencies.

    Now for those who turned the subject I to questions of whether the Christian God exists :
    “No God ever appeared in advance of the nation that created him.”

    “If triangles invented God, then he would be a triangle.”

    Robert Green Ingersoll

    “Men admire and worship o lyrics what they do not understand. ”
    Jean Meslier
    French priest 1678-1733

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  12. Gods of one stripe or another have been around for a very long time. Sometimes as a singularity, some as, in Roman times, a whole basket of them, which beggars the question, which one is the right god? the real one? which twin has the toni?
    Someone once said, all wars are, one way or another, religious wars. My true beliefs arguing with your ridiculous beliefs and on and on.

    Gods don’t create people, people create the god(s) they need to justify themselves and their behavior.

    Been there, not going back.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  13. Hot topic, Nan, but a good one to have. I’m a Christian, and after reading and studying the Bible – of course, not an expert – I’m convinced that debating nonbelievers or getting too deep into their worldview is unproductive. I’m not responsible for their salvation, but I am accountable if I become a stumbling block. So, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Great post. 👍

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Yes, it’s pretty much a ‘given’ that any discussion involving believers and non-believers (as related to Christianity) is going to be a “hot topic.” 😁

      As I’ve indicated many times and in many places, I personally am on the side of the non-believer. I’ve done the research, served the time, looked within … and all have led me to the conclusion there is no god (Christian or otherwise). Of course, others have done the same and come up with different conclusions.

      What puzzles me — and is partially why I wrote this post — is why “confirmed atheists” feel the need to quantify their objections to Christianity. I suppose it all comes down to hedging one’s bets.

      In any case, thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        • When it comes to those ‘imposing’ beliefs, then Christians take their place on top of the leader board, but I am certainly not accusing you of that, Edward. ‘Imposing’ is a strong word and does rather overstep the mark in terms of meaningful debate. Nevertheless, I do think it important that people vigorously argue their views, for this is the only way forward, if, in reality, ‘forward’ is a meaningful term.
          ‘Religious Freedom’ is a concept that is bandied around a lot, but surely such freedom is fully covered in the right to free speech. That one should respect the right of another to hold a belief (be it religious or otherwise) and to express it is obvious, but it doesn’t imply that one should respect the belief itself. Theists and Atheists alike hold their views up for scrutiny and debate, and so it should be.
          Atheists, for their part, do not claim to know the truth, only to recognise the mistruth. Theists take on a rather less open minded position.
          Hence the ‘if’ question is not a 50/50 bet. Atheists do not sit on the fence, nor do they use that fence as a tax-exempt fortification.

          Whoops …. almost said ‘fornication’. If only the tax department would take that idea on board ….

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          • Appreciate your comments, and you are correct. I’m using ‘imposing’ in the sense that I personally know Christians who are willing to manipulate, denigrate, and pit a congregation against an individual to force that person to return to ‘fellowship.’ There are also cases where a Christian organization will sue or remove a congregation because they do not believe exactly what the main organization is now endorsing. The Methodists and the Southern Baptist Convention are examples of this. Politicians are doing the same thing, imposing their will, and if you don’t follow, then you are on the ‘blacklist.’ Your last part is funny, so thank you for that. By the way, as I mentioned, I’m a Christian, but I think the Church should be taxed, or at a minimum, the law should be changed to have stringent requirements. Tax exemption is getting out of control, and pastors are getting super rich. At the end of the day, freedom rules, and a person can believe in whatever he/she wants. If I can convince a person after an open and respectful dialogue, great; if not, then that is great too. Thank you for the great dialogue.

            Liked by 3 people

          • And thank you Edward.
            May I take it that you will endorse my suggestion of some kind of tax rebate for acts of impulsive, wild and inspired, uninhibited, unprohibited sexual expression amongst consenting adults? I acknowledge that such may not do much for an already burgeoning world population and is bound to reopen debate on women’s right to abortion. There’s a few details to iron out before I nail down the whole thing as an election framework, to be sure, but I’m convinced that happiness per capita will be greatly enhanced. And isn’t that all that any of us want when it comes right down to it?

            Liked by 2 people

        • and if an atheist does not want to be identified with a particular religious flavor-of-the-month, then he is almost forced to declare his atheicity as a kind of warning that this bird ain’t gonna fly, here. 

          What interests me is the amazing number of sects that are out there (at least among Christians), all of them with their own dogma, church styles, rules and regs, all proclaiming themselves to each be the one, true, church. 

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          • Yeah, that interests me also. Christianity is based on Jesus story, so how Christians over the centuries continue to change and add to His teachings is beyond me. I guess that’s why they are losing members. They are making way too complicated.

            Like

      • I don’t feel the need to quantify my objections with a religious person..there is no point and no chance of changing their minds. But then again none of my friends or family have been or are religious. I just prefer not to associate with them, as we are just too different.

        But I do feel it’s a bigger picture though, in that there is a psychological difference between the two, as well as cultural influences. Simply put some people need to believe and some people need to know. One requires little thought or research and the other does. It’s wired in the brain so to speak.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  14. Nan: “I’ve often wondered why atheists feel the need to add this phrase. Is it because of a subconscious fear? Is it a “just in case” qualifier? Is it because the person claims to be an atheist but is really an agnostic?”

    Zoe: I used “if” when discussing my change in belief system (born-again Christian) to counter my fellow Christians who knew me. They knew my testimony, my service, my education, my faith, my commitment etc. and in order to silence them or slow the conversation down, I would simply use “if” to say, ‘like you, if God is real, they know my heart, they know what you know about me and they know I was sincere, open and honest.’

    This literally stopped all conversation as they simply did not know how to respond to it.

    With distance between now and then (as the conversations have ceased) I would simply say ‘if there is a God it would seem my change in belief is their problem and not mine.’

    It’s not that I’m hedging my bets, I’m leaving something for them to think about and to free up my time. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Your approach is good. And always, if something works for a person, then so be it. But I can’t help but wonder if there are some folks who use the term because they aren’t TOTALLY convinced themselves, even though they take on the atheist title. 🤔

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        • But I would argue that before belief in the “Christian” god came to be, why would agnostics even exist? IOW, we live in a world permeated by this god and the consequences of not believing in “him,” but in the far distant past before the invention of the Christian religion, would this have been the case?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  16. I have never believed in any gods, and altough I live in a fairly secular society, in comparrison to most others, I have been always surrounded by people who take the claim for the supernatural for real. Sometimes to discuss such a wild claim, based merely on cultural tradition and not really on anything observable in nature around us, the “if” condition appears practical. My experience about such discussions with the religiously inclined has been, that it rarely leads anywhere – at first at least. I think, that it is because their mind protects their identity, rather than any actual reasoning about the subject. Yet, there is a slim chance of planting seeds of suspicion to their minds, or at least evoking a discussion on how much as societies we should base our values and subsequent actions on supernatural assumptions. With some, who get scared of the possibility of their assumed world order shaking, the result may be opposite to the one desired. All questioning of the assumed reality begins with an “if”.

    That said, I think I can reasonably prove the nonexistance of all gods suggested to me, as of yet. This is because the nonexistance of extraordinary things is a logical starting point to any reasoning. Absolute proof is unnecessary, just like with any things. Their condition only changes given very strong evidence to back up the positive claim. The “if” discussion may be an unnecessary tangle of parry and block, or it may become an exhaustive cat & mouse chase, where the mouse = god only survives by always slipping to some new hiding place, but it is also about contradictory claims and logical impossibilities created by the superstitious minds of humans along the way of storytelling, how all gods are born. Religion rarely stands on one foot, or claim, but is suspended by a web of wilder than wild claims, ridiculous jumps to conclusions and sad excuses, that the adherents have built emotional ties to. Add to injury, that any god can be rejected merely on the base of what we know about other gods, because we know the cultural processes of how gods come to be in the collective human imagination.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  17. back to the Holy Cousin I mentioned earlier: I made the mistake of mentioning the ledges behind our house, and how you could still see the scrape marks of ancient glaciers dragging across them. She said, quite directly, “there are no such things as glaciers. God made them up to fool us.”  You can’t argue with that, nope.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Did you ask why? It says in the Bible, that this is not supposed to be the god of confusion, so making people believe in the ice age by forging sings of it is kinda shitty, but also believing god did that is kinda heretical.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        • Oh, I was just curious. I do not know, if I have ever met one of those 7th Day Adventists, but I have had my fill of encounters with the type of believers you describe them to be.

          Like

          Reply

  18. Nan, I’m an if person that leans agnostic. I also ask, but if this life and planet is all there is, if this is our only life, if death is the final moment for us and there is nothing beyond death, but what if we are stardust and eternally exist so long as stars exist? If, of course, there is reality, and it isn’t all shared illusion.

    And so on. To me, if is not a condition against fear or doubt, but a bridge to help swing across chasms of the unknown. As others noted, if there is a god, he, she, it, should know my thoughts, right? And if they do, shouldn’t they strike me down or use me as an example, unless others are right, and this god won’t do anything until judgement day.

    I guess I fall on the idea that if some god of whatever background created me, they probably did it with the expectation that I’d ask these questions and think this way. Aren’t they supposed to be all-knowing? If they are, then…if you’re following along, you can finish my thought.

    Cheers, M (if it’s really me)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • I appreciate your comment. But here’s where I am. I find it next to impossible to believe there is any so-called god. I say “next to impossible” simply because we can’t/don’t know everything. Also the semi-brief encounter I had with the Christian faith did tend to leave its markings.

      But essentially, I am all-but-persuaded that any existent god is the creation of the human mind primarily to serve as an “answer” to the unknown(s).

      In fact, I often wonder why humans find it so difficult to accept that we live, we experience, and then we die … and that’s all there is. But then I realize that from the very beginning, the idea of god was generated by fear … and it continues to exist today.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  19. If there is a god, “I believe God is a sadist, but doesen’t even know it.” Feldwebel Steiner, played by James Coburn in the Cross of Iron. Wich, like the nature around us, suggests total incompetence on part of anything we would use the word god to describe, but much, much more likely we are luckier than that and there are no gods.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • rautakyy: “If there is a god, “I believe God is a sadist, but doesen’t even know it.” Feldwebel Steiner, played by James Coburn in the Cross of Iron.”

      Zoe: This made me think of those who have a personality disorder like narcissistic personality disorder. They don’t know it (or so it seems.)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • It is said, that power corrupts, IF that is true, then does not absolute power corrupt absolutely? Are we not all wittnesses to this, incase IF a god exists? The mentally ill rarely have a sense of illness. IF there is a creator entity, the creation we observe speaks louder than any ancient manuscripts, that make the irrational claim of manifest wishfull thinking of this, or that god being a benevolent thing. The creator of this universe we observe must be as irrational and disinterrested in suffering as the nature itself, or somehow incapacitated from action. Further more, these gods humans worship are at a closer look at their more detailed description not very nice at all. Curiously we are expected to see and accept their evil quircks and mean streaks told in a legion of stories, as acts of loving justice, when infact they resemble more like the acts of a mad dictator drunk with power. Thus religion smuggles into human society both authoritarianism and a moralism of the worst kind. Yet, the most logical explanation is, that these are human traits, born within the confines of an indifferent nature, and projected by the superstitious human minds to imaginary gods throughout the ignorance of history. Infact, so heavy is the evidence of human psychology and cultural evolution, that it brakes the back of any god, any day when rationally engaged. But gods creep to human minds through ignorance and emotion.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        • And yet … and yet … the True Believers™ are totally and completely unable to see and/or accept this point of view. Which is so amazing because to those of us who look at it without bias or prejudice, it’s so manifestly obvious!

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          • Perhaps it is because of hope. I have known a couple of old Stalinists and more recently a number of right-wing conspiracy theorists. Not so surprizingly, they all have a lot incommon with the religious folk of certain type, regardless of the particular brand of gods, great many things, such as heavy confirmation bias, authoritarian sense of morality, and indeed a lot of hope. Hope, that the world would and could be more comprehensible, IF only their conception of it were true, regardless of facts. Who can blame them for having hope? It is all the other stuff, that made them see the world in a skewed way, but I think it is hope that fuels the system.

            Liked by 2 people

  20. one last shot at this: in rereading all of the posts, something occurred to me: if Adam and Eve were indeed real, you know, tree, apple, snake, etc. and it was a terribly long time ago, how did anyone know of it since apparently much of this stuff happened before anything else, and there was no writing, no paper, just naked people and a tree…how did anyone know about Cain and Abel? Or the Ark? it’s a given that stories passed down over time begin to take on a new shape, and slightly different cant to it all…

    It reminds me of the game of telephone, where a word is passed down a lie of people, and at the end, the word (maybe “maple tree”) has been so mangled it comes out as ‘apricot souffle”…

    just wondering. 

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  21. I agree, so to me the bible writers wrestled with understanding life, and their stories are crafted to show the consequences of acknowledging or rejecting God. So let the reader determine if this is so.

    Like

    Reply

    • Arnold: “I agree, so to me the bible writers wrestled with understanding life, and their stories are crafted to show the consequences of acknowledging or rejecting God.”

      Zoe: Is it about understanding or simple story telling that isn’t so much about wrestling but desperately looking for reasons in order to get chaos under control?

      Perhaps it is not about “God” at all. And what God? Their God? Are they even there yet? How to you talk about consequences re: God without even having crafted the very God they’d come to fashion.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    • But, Arnold, you are looking at it in hindsight. Judy’s question is valid … in fact, I may even write a post on it. 🤔

      Of course, the standard answer is that Gawd “inspired” the early writers. But IMO, the first several chapters of Genesis are nothing more than storytelling by highly imaginative writers. As a comparison, consider the science-fiction writers of today.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  22. The word “if” is usually only thrown around by atheists to debunk claims made by the religious, in the hopes that they (or other observers) may see the flaws in the arguments they’re making.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.