@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Death by a thousand cuts..

You also, Ossobuco?

I am more courteous and reasonable than either you or Edgar. I am much less likely than either of you to savage someone...with the kind of venom you both bring to the table on occasions. (I did not say I never do it.)

All of us are prone to moving away from the subject of a thread...I no more than either of you.

But...do your thing...and I WILL continue to keep a smile on my face...and look forward to visiting the site and reading your posts.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I bet when he golfs the other golfers wear ear plugs.

You'd lose.

I am a popular partner for many golfer. They are happy when teamed with me.

You are doing what you claim I do...diverting from the subject of the thread.

Why is it okay when you do it?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I bet when he golfs the other golfers wear ear plugs.

By the way...you immediately started to divert this thread...right from your first post...and continuing through several more.

I, on the other hand, responded directly to the question...and I thank Kolyo for his response to the question I included in my response.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You obviously do not understand what Setanta was saying in the part that you quoted here...and you do not understand why I say he is correct.

I will probably regret this but...go ahead enlighten me.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

I'm a strong atheist merely becasue for al lthe god and gods posited none have ever been proven. Further more most of them ares inanely descibed to even consider any of them seriously.

Religious people don't care that the existence of these gods hasn't been proven; it's enough for the religious that non-existence hasn't been proven either (although many claims of organized religion are inconsistent with the claims of science, which does count as evidence against these gods' existence). When someone who passionately wants to believe in God is confronted with the fact God has neither been proven nor disproven, he will choose belief. And it's not illogical to do so.

2 Replies

@Kolyo,

"Religious people don't care that the existence of these gods hasn't been proven; it's enough for the religious that non-existence hasn't been proven either (although many claims of organized religion are inconsistent with the claims of science, which does count as evidence against these gods' existence). When someone who passionately wants to believe in God is confronted with the fact God has neither been proven nor disproven, he will choose belief. And it's not illogical to do so."

I beg to disagree that not only is it illogical but also very dangerous to believe in things for no good reason. People act on their beliefs. Wars fought in the middle east, the home of the three major religions, in the last century in northern Ireland, protestant vs Catholics, terrorism. cults etc. The world trade center on 911. It isn't just about what isn't proven or what can and cannot be proven as it should be about ones critical thinking skills, an
examination about what is and what it does to us and others.

and finally, the statement rings of Pasquale wager. How do you know you are choosing the correct religion? Don't tell me one knows in your their heart because the heart isn't a cognitive organ. What would be the criteria? What
one chooses to believe is his or her right, but that doesn't make it logical

2 Replies

@Kolyo,

And...absence of proof is not proof of absence.

This entire "believing" thing is strange...insofar as one can "believe" anything one really wants to.

Which, of course, includes the "beliefs" of those atheist who have beliefs that there are no gods.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Quote:
You obviously do not understand what Setanta was saying in the part that you quoted here...and you do not understand why I say he is correct.

I will probably regret this but...go ahead enlighten me.

John...take another look at it...and see what was actually being said. Don't read anything into it...just look at what was actually said.

If you honestly do not get it...I will explain what I am talking about, but I'd really like to think you can see what I was agreeing with.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

I beg to disagree that not only is it illogical but also very dangerous to believe in things for no good reason.

Argome...how many people do you think who "believe" something...think that there is NO GOOD REASON for doing so?

Theists think there is an excellent reason for believing there is a GOD.

Atheists who believe there are no gods...think there is an excellent reason for believing there are no gods.

What are you thinking about here?

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

I beg to disagree that not only is it illogical but also very dangerous to believe in things for no good reason.

Religious people have a very good reason for believing in gods. They can't function in a world without meaning, and religion, by providing that meaning, helps them function. Perhaps they don't all see it that way, but that's my motivation for wanting to believe in gods. But whatever their official justification, the religious impulse towards faith seems to be a part of many of us -- an emotional imperative, which it is unhealthy not to feed.

Quote:

People act on their beliefs. Wars fought in the middle east, the home of the three major religions, in the last century in northern Ireland, protestant vs Catholics, terrorism. cults etc. The world trade center on 911. It isn't just about what isn't proven or what can and cannot be proven as it should be about ones critical thinking skills, an
examination about what is and what it does to us and others.

Religious dogma is indeed quite dangerous, but belief in gods need not mean accepting the dogma of established churches. Belief can be provisional, to be abandonned when it conflicts with science and common sense.

Quote:

and finally, the statement rings of Pasquale wager. How do you know you are choosing the correct religion?

There is a lot wrong with Pascal's wager besides just that. For example, it assumes that there is a nonzero probability of an afterlife, and it assumes the pay-off from reaching heaven is "infinity" which is not a real number. Probability statements should be made primarily about repeatable experiments, not about events (like reaching heaven) that we don't have any reason to think are even possible.

Quote:

What would be the criteria? What
one chooses to believe is his or her right, but that doesn't make it logical

For me, choosing a religion would be a matter of which one offered the most solace.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

"Argome...how many people do you think who "believe" something...think that there is NO GOOD REASON for doing so?"

You seem to miss the entire point of my statement
once again you ramble on. Why not read what I said and respond to that instead of reading only what you want to see and responding to your own ideas as if I was making the statement of something is in your head. If you read what I said you will see the pointlessness of your own question.

In short, I'm talking about the consequences and ramifications of ones belief. Are those beliefs beneficial or harmful etc.

1 Reply

Can't you see frank is hijacking the thread and turning it into another atheism versus frank thread, of which we already have dozens?

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

"For me, choosing a religion would be a matter of which one offered the most solace."

At what cost?

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

I'd go further than you on Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager sucks!

0 Replies

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

"Argome...how many people do you think who "believe" something...think that there is NO GOOD REASON for doing so?"

You seem to miss the entire point of my statement
once again you ramble on. Why not read what I said and respond to that instead of reading only what you want to see and responding to your own ideas as if I was making the statement of something is in your head. If you read what I said you will see the pointlessness of your own question.

In short, I'm talking about the consequences and ramifications of ones belief. Are those beliefs beneficial or harmful etc.

I did not misread you...and I am not rambling.

You said: [quote]I beg to disagree that not only is it illogical but also very dangerous to believe in things for no good reason.[/quote]

That is an absurd thing to posit...because just about every "believer" thinks there is a good reason for his/her belief.

You are not the arbiter of what is or is not a good reason.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Can't you see frank is hijacking the thread and turning it into another atheism versus frank thread, of which we already have dozens?

I am not hijacking anything, Edgar. I am on point here.

You are not.

Why don't you stop this pettiness and deal with whatever is wrong in your life to cause you to act this way!

0 Replies

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

"For me, choosing a religion would be a matter of which one offered the most solace."

At what cost?

That's a good point. I should amend what I said about "solace" to account for the fact that I would never adopt a religion which changed my ethical system in any way or challenged scientific fact. Those are costs I'm not willing to pay. Granted, many religions do these thing, so you have to weigh the costs against the benefits (solace and hope).

For example, I don't accept the belief that there's an afterlife, because this "promise" has been used through the centuries to control the lower classes and make them accept miserable lives. Without religion my ethical code would tell me that people should have the opportunity to live full, joyful lives; whereas if I subscribe to belief in an afterlife, I can just chuck that ethical imperative out the window, because if the poor are able to live like kings in paradise, their suffering here on earth becomes "no big deal".

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

'I did not misread you...and I am not rambling.

You said:

Quote:

I beg to disagree that not only is it illogical but also very dangerous to believe in things for no good reason.

That is an absurd thing to posit...because just about every "believer" thinks there is a good reason for his/her belief.

You are not the arbiter of what is or is not a good reason.' make it so,

I do believe that when we serve jury duty being the arbiter of good reason is called for as one example.

But you do fail to understand, Belief in and of itself doesn't make it true. One may believe he or she has good reason but that doesn't make it so. That is the crux of my statement and I can't make it any simpler. So it is pointless to go on from here for I would only be repeating myself ad nauseum. If you feel the need to reply be my guest you may have the last word, but I have nothing further to add.

add.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

"Without religion my ethical code would tell me that people should have the opportunity to live full, joyful lives; whereas if I subscribe to belief in an afterlife",

I'm confused by this statement, Could you further explain?

It's true solace and hope have nothing to do with science but suffering and pain does, the physical and mental suffering.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

"Without religion my ethical code would tell me that people should have the opportunity to live full, joyful lives; whereas if I subscribe to belief in an afterlife",

I'm confused by this statement, Could you further explain?

Okay, first of all you have quoted a fragment of what I said, not the full sentence.

But I'll be glad to explain:

If I don't believe in an afterlife, then I have to accept that a poor person (very poor, think Calcutta) will never know anything else but suffering in the entirety of his existence. There will be no magical pay-off for him after death. His life is going to suck -- end of story. That's reality, and as someone who believes our one life is "it", I have to accept that. And if I'm a decent, compassionate person I'm going to be bothered by that. I may even be motivated to do something to right that wrong.

On the other hand, if I do believe in an afterlife, my belief system allows me to pretend that not all of his existence is going to be miserable. I can say: "well, the bad dream that is his life will pass eventually, and he'll rest forever in the bosom of Abraham." By thinking that, I am able to deny the injustice of things. I am able to accept savage inequalities -- to accept things like the intentional blinding of Indian street urchins, depicted in Slumdog Millionaire -- because I can tell myself that those miserable people will be compensated for their suffering in the afterlife. I can tell myself the universe is righteous and not feel compelled to improve it.

Therefore, not believing in an afterlife makes me a better, more ethical person.

1 Reply

@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know