Atheism

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to accept that the existence of God is true to those who believe. And that's a much more socially sophisticated viewpoint than assuming that theists are duped morons because they believe in magic and miracles.

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm a theist, but I do not go around demanding that people believe in God. They shouldn't necessarily believe in God, just as I shouldn't necessarily be an atheist. The question is an intellectual exercise - nothing more.

And, hey! Not all of us believe in magic and miracles.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;34184 wrote:

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm a theist, but I do not go around demanding that people believe in God. They shouldn't necessarily believe in God, just as I shouldn't necessarily be an atheist. The question is an intellectual exercise - nothing more.

It probably is more, considering the passion it provokes in many people.

Quote:

And, hey! Not all of us believe in magic and miracles.

Knowing you as well as I do, I'd opine that your beliefs (and knowledge) are not exactly in the center of the theistic bell curve. How many other Christians in the world do you think could accurately spell the word "gnostic" if asked?

jknilinux;34095 wrote:

but according to atheists, aren't we just products of chance, whose only goal is survival and reproduction?

Whoa, where is that written down?

1) Evolution is NOT a product of mere chance -- that is one of the grossest (and commonest) misconceptions made by creationists who have never studied the subject
2) We have far more complex tasks in life than survival and reproduction
3) We do not need the things we do the be justified by the cosmos, or to persist for eternity, for them to be important to us
4) Atheism is not synonymous with evolutionary biology; nor is evolution mutually exclusive with theism

Quote:

If you're atheist, then any and all work we do for the common good just forestalls the species' inevitable extinction

Man, you'd better pick up some Camus to get answers to this. In brief, lack of ultimate meaning makes us completely and totally free to find our own meaning. For someone who is weakened, who lacks internal resources, lack of ultimate meaning is horrific. But for most of us, overcoming this so-called existential crisis is exhilierating, liberating, it allows our life to be our own.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Knowing you as well as I do, I'd opine that your beliefs (and knowledge) are not exactly in the center of the theistic bell curve. How many other Christians in the world do you think could accurately spell the word "gnostic" if asked?

Well, yeah I'm a bit odd, and you're right, most Christians lack any familiarity with gnosticism.

But at the same time, except when I my understanding of some source is confused and awkward (which is often), nothing I say is new or revolutionary. These ideas have an origin. I may put information together in my own way, but nothing I say is original. There must be others who are at least somewhere in the same ballpark. Other theists, not to mention atheists and agnostics.

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

jknilinux wrote:

2: Well, it's different from keeping garlic in your pocket because:
a: The big one: if Garlic charms don't work, you can spend your time better on something else. If religion is false, then there's nothing better you could spend your time on that has any consequence anyway.
b: Garlic charms can be easily disproven, religion cannot.
c: Garlic charms do not cause infinite happiness if they work.

It still contains that "what if" motive. Think of everyone who said "The only thing you *must* do in life is ________". Think of the thousands of myths out there that tell us we should do <this> or <that>. Now, for anything that someone comes up with, as the one-key to salvation, should we do them all, just in case?

And yes, a great many of them are very different. Many conflict, many don't. It just strikes me as a bit silly to do something that strikes an individual as worthless, "just in case". There are probabilities and likelyhoods, rationale and perceived truth. One has to weight the likelyhood with the expected benefits or likely benefits; and I suppose that it's in this way that belief is a deeply person, richly individualized concept. These are, of course, just my feelings since you asked Smile

In any case, one should be absolutely honest with themselves, as I'm sure you'd agree. I really work hard to be very honest with myself - even if its uncomfortable. I believe accepting and working to understand the happy and sad of our conditions is an inextricable part of the human condition.

Thanks for the exchange. Cheers!

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Its very hard being dishonest with yourself but i do try to kid myself ,sometimes i am realy impressed with myself...Do believers try to convince others so that it helps convince themselves?:rolleyes:

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Its very hard being dishonest with yourself but i do try to kid myself ,sometimes i am realy impressed with myself...Do believers try to convince others so that it helps convince themselves?:rolleyes:

Well, every believer has his/her own reason for why they share their beliefs. Many religions encourage sharing the faith, so some do it out of a sense of obligation. Some do have their doubts, and they find security in numbers and being reassured. Others are quite content to be relatively alone in their view, relish their seclusion, as it were. Even most of those do enjoy discovering that another shares their view. Sometimes it's just nice to have someone to relate to.

1 Reply

@Solace,

thanks for gently telling me i was wrong...yes we do need kindred souls...

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

Confining our discussion for the moment to Christianity, we must acknowledge the existence of a variety of belief-systems (dogma) espoused by the different sects, and even within one particular sect (Roman Catholicism for example) a even greater variety of individual interpretations ( for example, the continuing conversation about the language of the Mass).

This being so, it seems just as true to acknowledge that the command or desire to proselytize, and the strength of it, are open to the same varieties of motivations. Amongst the more enthusiastic sects, the motivations are just as complex, I would suggest, as the reasons for falling in love, or for voting Republican in other spheres of activity in the live of a person.

As with many things, the more we simplify our conceptions, the further we get from reality, and the more apt we are to make false assumptions about the unity of a class or universal concept. Even in philosophical discourse, we are sometimes led astray by remarking on the striking similarity of the components of a general definition, but in so doing ignore the ordinarily unremarked nuances of its synonyms that can often trip up our thinking when the differences are understood.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to accept that the existence of God is true to those who believe. And that's a much more socially sophisticated viewpoint than assuming that theists are duped morons because they believe in magic and miracles.

Well, I personally have a problem with the proposition "X is true to those who believe in X." However, I deplore those atheists who consider theists idiots.

What concerns me about what it appears underlies the belief of some theists, like Kung for example,(and I see this as a motivating factor in the writings of others who have recently been taking on Dawkins, Hitchens et al) is that it is based on the assumption that if there is no God, there is no reason to live, or be moral, and no basis on which to believe in or "assent" to reality, and no "justification" for it. I am not aware of any basis for this assumption, nor have I encountered, yet, any explanation of it. Any takers?

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

That's an absurd theory. I believe in no God and don't need to in order to be a polite, moral, and quite functional (living) human being. Without God we are left with the fact that, by pure chance or some other method, we came to be. Regardless of how we got here, we are here. If God does not exist then it is that we have come to be by other means and, because we are here, we live and breath and share a reality. To say that a lack of God is a lack of justification for reality is one of the most closed minded ideas I've ever heard. I think this is my biggest problem with theist ideals. They take this idea of magical beings and apply it as the only possible answer for everything. Anyone who has ever studied history would know that there is never one answer. There is always a myriad of answers which lead to the same conclusion.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Its very hard being dishonest with yourself but i do try to kid myself ,sometimes i am realy impressed with myself...Do believers try to convince others so that it helps convince themselves?:rolleyes:

Some do, some don't. It's exceedingly difficult to generalize when speaking to individual motives. Some want to share, some feel its their duty, some like that comfort when in the company of those with similar beliefs and it goes on and on and on.

I was hoping to see more input on the legitimacy of The Wager itself, from the original post. Anyone else care to sound off?

Thanks

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

Aedes-

So existence is relative?

Also, I am familiar with evolution, and I know how it works- it depends on random changes in genotype, leading to random changes in phenotype. Phenotypes that lead to more offspring will allow the genotype to continue in a greater ratio to the next generation. Repeat a quintillion times, and you get us. Our only goal, therefore: reproduction. That is, if there is no God.

Anyway- Icon, et al-

The thing is, if we were formed by unguided evolution, I can't see us having any worth whatsoever. We just become metastable machines. I know we disagree on this point, and I think it may just come down to our definitions of worth, goals, and futility. As you pointed out, most theists say there is no goal iff there is no God. I still agree, because without God, we are simply robots randomly programmed to replicate and preserve, and we will ultimately die trying to fulfill these futile goals as we fight in vain against entropy and the heat death of the universe, etc...

So, for there to still be a reason to keep living, there must be a goal worth achieving. Could you give an example of one without God? I can't see us making any ourselves, aside from:
1: Increase happiness
2: Survive
3: Satisfy Curiosity
(AKA what we were programmed with when we were born...)
Or, you disagree-
Then how can we have a reason to keep living without a goal to fulfill?

Khethil-
Thanks- your arguments are quite good. I'll definitely continue thinking on it. I'll have a response next time!

2 Replies

@jknilinux,

jknilinux wrote:

Then how can we have a reason to keep living without a goal to fulfill?

This is an outstanding question. The simple answer, if one should even be attempted is, "You already have a reason". But it's more complex than that and I jump the gun a little.[INDENT] The problem with this "me being created by god gives me purpose"-line of thinking is that it entwines the mind into a Chicken-and-the-Egg argument. This is because if one is really honest with themselves, this fear isn't an issue; they first discover and realize what their belief system is already, despite any repercussions, to do so otherwise is to "stack the deck to a comfy resolution". If your disposition tells you "there is a god", this may not be an issue. If your disposition tells you "there isn't any god" then accepting this truth has already been done.

As far as Purpose and Reason to Continue; the simple fact is that you already have your reasons to live, to exist and to carry on. If you ponder it carefully, there's a good chance you'll find that one really doesn't have anything to do with the other - that it is coping with that realization of mortality that is the pain. This mortality, I believe, is simply an unavoidable fact of our existence. That we end actually can (and to me does) give *more* of a reason to live, since its that much more precious.

There's an ego inside Man; an ego that says "I can only be worthwhile if I have a purpose", that "... life has no meaning if we sprung forth from causality arising from this planet", that "... its' all worthless unless I continue after death". I believe this is something we all feel to some greater or lesser extent, and I also believe this is natural.
[/INDENT]But that reason to go on, to do good, to continue and to love life is already within you. Whether or not you were purposefully created or "sprung forth" makes no difference. When it finally occurred to me that my life's "purpose" was enhanced - in a way made more precious - in accepting my mortality it was if I had been in a dark room all my life while the light switch - unknown to me - was but 6" away from my face. All I had to do was reach out and turn it on; accepting our origins and mortality is infinitely preferable, in my humble opinion.

To clarify: Your purpose (I believe) has already been defined by your mind and heart; whether or not you're consciously aware of it is another issue. Most likely these come from your values; what you think is good, pleasurable, worthwhile and what gives you satisfaction and peace. The benefit to accepting ones' mortality and "from the earth"-origin is that it consciously allows the mind to come to that decision and realization of "what is my purpose?". As I said before, I think we already establish this subconcsiousy, the difference is that with the conscious acceptance and realization, one is emboldened to make this a conscious, deliberate and Eyes-Open decision.

jknilinux wrote:

The thing is, if we were formed by unguided evolution, I can't see us having any worth whatsoever. We just become metastable machines. I know we disagree on this point, and I think it may just come down to our definitions of worth, goals, and futility. As you pointed out, most theists say there is no goal iff there is no God. I still agree, because without God, we are simply robots randomly programmed to replicate and preserve, and we will ultimately die trying to fulfill these futile goals as we fight in vain against entropy and the heat death of the universe, etc...

What you express here, I believe, is a basic fear.

This atheist would say: Well, we are animals; and we are programmed to replicate and preserve; and yes we will ultimately die whether or not we fulfill these goals. But... life isn't futile, worth comes from within anyway, we're not robots and goals - fulfilled or not - aren't futile. Quite the contrary, it is within the conscious mind (and those things that give life worth) that this "goodness" of worth springs.

Again, I'd like to stress something I think very important: One ought first to discover (not decide, discover!) what they really believe given all they feel and know. Then, and only then, should they endeavor to understand "that truth". I hope this helps in understanding the mind of the atheist. If nothing else, it shows how this one thinks.

Thanks again, very good questions.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Perhaps we should look at both sides of this. Could a theist tell us their reason/purpose for living? Maybe one who questions the atheist's meaning of life...

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Perhaps we should look at both sides of this. Could a theist tell us their reason/purpose for living? Maybe one who questions the atheist's meaning of life...

I am not going to suggest that atheists have meaningless lives, but none of them are aware that the meaning is given by god.
One thing in particular is worth mentioning here. What is good? For instance- 'Why did you help that person?' 'Because it was a good thing to do.' 'Why was it good?' 'Because it was good.' Good is the only thing that has no reason or cause other than itself. It trancends all other things, and we wish to obey it without having a reason other than the thing itself. You cannot deny that this is the case. Thus we worship good, and call it god. For this is what god is- good.

3 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

I am not going to suggest that atheists have meaningless lives, but none of them are aware that the meaning is given by god.
One thing in particular is worth mentioning here. What is good? For instance- 'Why did you help that person?' 'Because it was a good thing to do.' 'Why was it good?' 'Because it was good.' Good is the only thing that has no reason or cause other than itself. It trancends all other things, and we wish to obey it without having a reason other than the thing itself. You cannot deny that this is the case. Thus we worship good, and call it god. For this is what god is- good.

I'm going to have to disagree. First of all, how can you prove God? If we cannot prove God, this means that God is a concept in the human mind. If God is a concept in the human mind then the human mind defines God as he or she sees fit. This also means that the human mind defines good and evil as it sees fit because it is defining God (good) and the Devil (evil). So the definition of good and evil are already inherently in the mind. Also, good and evil, as concepts, are just definitions given to actions which are either helpful or a hinderance to the basic principles of continued life and comfort which define each other. Quite simply, why does there have to be a good and a bad? Why can't it be left and right? Up and Down? You have a great number of preconception about the working of the universe and they are based in your religious beliefs. I only ask that you prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, your god. I do not have to believe in god to be a moral person. I am a moral person because it allows me to live a peaceful and hopeful life with those around me. It limits conflict and provides an environment where I can do as I please within the limits of the lessons I have learned about action and result. I do not kill because I do not want to be killed. I give respect because I wish to receive respect. I am friendly because I wish for friends. It has nothing to do with a divine intervention. It has everthing to do with paying attention to the world around me and learning the best way to suit my needs. The Golden Rule is a rule of nature. Cause and effect, equal and opposite reaction, do unto others..., karma are all the same thing. None of these attempt to define right and wrong because right and wrong are not natural concepts or heavenly concepts. Right and wrong are human concepts. Do not say that God defines morality unless you can provide 100% undeniable proof of this claim. Despite what you have been told in the brainwashing session that is church, you do not need God to be a moral and wholesome person. You need only to understand and accept the consequences ("good" or "bad") of your actions.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

I am not going to suggest that atheists have meaningless lives, but none of them are aware that the meaning is given by god.
One thing in particular is worth mentioning here. What is good? For instance- 'Why did you help that person?' 'Because it was a good thing to do.' 'Why was it good?' 'Because it was good.' Good is the only thing that has no reason or cause other than itself. It trancends all other things, and we wish to obey it without having a reason other than the thing itself. You cannot deny that this is the case. Thus we worship good, and call it god. For this is what god is- good.

You do good for who? i do good because it pleases me to do good and its a better world if we do good..i enjoy doing good but it has nothing to do with god..not in the slightest..Just imagine there is no god what will you do ? will you stop doing good ?i would realy like to know..

1 Reply

@jknilinux,

Hahaha. Same words with a little more of a rant in my post. Thanks for simplifying.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

You do good for who? i do good because it pleases me to do good and its a better world if we do good..i enjoy doing good but it has nothing to do with god..not in the slightest..Just imagine there is no god what will you do ? will you stop doing good ?i would realy like to know..

but what do you mean by 'better', I am saying that good and god are the same entity- and if there was no good, no god, there would be no universe, and it is therefore a moot point. You can say you do good but you cannot justify it.

1 Reply

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

I'm going to have to disagree. First of all, how can you prove God? If we cannot prove God, this means that God is a concept in the human mind. If God is a concept in the human mind then the human mind defines God as he or she sees fit. This also means that the human mind defines good and evil as it sees fit because it is defining God (good) and the Devil (evil). So the definition of good and evil are already inherently in the mind. Also, good and evil, as concepts, are just definitions given to actions which are either helpful or a hinderance to the basic principles of continued life and comfort which define each other. Quite simply, why does there have to be a good and a bad? Why can't it be left and right? Up and Down? You have a great number of preconception about the working of the universe and they are based in your religious beliefs. I only ask that you prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, your god. I do not have to believe in god to be a moral person. I am a moral person because it allows me to live a peaceful and hopeful life with those around me. It limits conflict and provides an environment where I can do as I please within the limits of the lessons I have learned about action and result. I do not kill because I do not want to be killed. I give respect because I wish to receive respect. I am friendly because I wish for friends. It has nothing to do with a divine intervention. It has everthing to do with paying attention to the world around me and learning the best way to suit my needs. The Golden Rule is a rule of nature. Cause and effect, equal and opposite reaction, do unto others..., karma are all the same thing. None of these attempt to define right and wrong because right and wrong are not natural concepts or heavenly concepts. Right and wrong are human concepts. Do not say that God defines morality unless you can provide 100% undeniable proof of this claim. Despite what you have been told in the brainwashing session that is church, you do not need God to be a moral and wholesome person. You need only to understand and accept the consequences ("good" or "bad") of your actions.

you are argueing over means, but you cannot deny there is an end that you regard as simply 'good', I am saying that this is a self justifying principle that can only be explained through the existance of a deity. I am not trying to devalue your morality, but rather explain it's basis as I see it. Don't get het up.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know