@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Now, if you want absolute veriviable repeatable emperical evidence that an omnipotent being does not exist, I refer you to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle.

No part of your reply supports a contention that paleoanthropology has any evidence to contribute to whether or not there is a god or gods. This twaddle has absolutely no bearing on what paleoanthropology can or cannot, does or does not have to say about the existence of gods. I can only conclude that you threw paleoanthropology out there because you thought it sounded cool.

Your grasp of rhetorical debate must be poor if you cannot see that you have completely failed to address my criticism.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

'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.

What would ever make you think that I fail to understand that???

I have made that comment hundreds of times in this forum. OF COURSE BELIEVING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

Why are you saying I fail to understand that?

You wrote:

Quote:

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

They THINK there is a good reason...they THINK their reason is a good reason.

It doesn't matter if it is true or not.

Quote:

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.

Fine...do not add anything else.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

No part of your reply supports a contention that paleoanthropology has any evidence to contribute to whether or not there is a god or gods. This twaddle has absolutely no bearing on what paleoanthropology can or cannot, does or does not have to say about the existence of gods. I can only conclude that you threw paleoanthropology out there because you thought it sounded cool.

Uh...yeah, I do think that the proof of evolution is cool.
And if you think that it doesnt disprove that man was created from dust and clay that this mysterious being "blew the breath of life into", and we descended from 1 male and female who had only 2 sons 6000 years ago, then you are deluded as well. Because the ONLY "proof" of god is the OT. And we all know that's a bunch of fairy tales.

Also, I notice you quote my further proof citing HUP but neglected to comment.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

John...take another look at it...

I understand how he qualified his statement...it was not what I was commenting on when I responded to you. I was commenting on your response, not his.

0 Replies

@Kolyo,

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

But I'll be glad to explain:"

Yes, I only cited a segment of your statement because I was being lazy and I hope you would do exactly what you did do by explaining everything.

"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.:

Here is one of the many items I am confused about in your statements. For one, If you don't believe in an after life why do you feel that some people suffering will not change? Who is to say to that a persons life and circumstance will not differ later, or grow worse or better? Maybe others will be inspired to change it?

'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."

Why do you need to pretend" By consciously pretending isn't one admitting to oneself that one are lying to oneself? The universe from my point of view is indifferent and if that holds water then it is there from that point that I most deal with it and not pretend otherwise. It's the knowing that may, or may not, help me to change my circumstances, But I need the truth as far as i can discover to do that.
think of it as getting directions to get to a place, will accurate information serve you better or misinformation to get you to that place you want to go especially if given the chance?

"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."

there are people who believe in an after life and they are just as ethical as the next guy. I just don't understand why you need all the baggage of pretending to achieve your end?
Isn't empathy, logic and reason and a desire to be happy enough? If others make you happy doesn't it stand to reason that their well being is important to you because you benefit from their existence? Are there no positives things in life as you see it?

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

If you don't believe in an after life why do you feel that some people suffering will not change? Who is to say to that a persons life and circumstance will not differ later, or grow worse or better? Maybe others will be inspired to change it?

But what if others adopt that same logic? What if they do nothing because they assume that I am going to do something? If we all say "maybe others will be inspired to change it" and pass the buck to them, then no one will do anything.

My main point, though, was that believing in an afterlife is an even bigger moral cop-out and an even bigger way of shirking of responsibility for fixing other's suffering, because if you believe in an afterlife what you essentially believe is that WE don't have to do anything for the suffering person because GOD will make things right for the person when that person dies.

Quote:

ME-- 'On the other hand, if I do believe in an afterlife...'

YOU -- Why do you need to pretend" By consciously pretending isn't one admitting to oneself that one are lying to oneself?

You're preaching to the choir. I was making an argument that one should NOT pretend there's an afterlife.

Quote:

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

YOU -- there are people who believe in an after life and they are just as ethical as the next guy.

Fair enough point. Many people believe in an afterlife and are very ethical and generous. Maybe my argument about how not believing in an afterlife make you more ethical was wrong?

2 Replies

@giujohn,

You're a mess--you're all over the road. Paleoanthropology does not inherently disprove anything about theism. Your tortured attempt to show that it does at most throws into question the simple-minded story of the Judeo-Christisan bible, nothing else. For example, it competely fails to address the belief that many people hold to the effect that a deity created the cosmos in such a manner that evolution occurred. Really, you're not saying anything. The uncertainty principle? You're a loon. The putative properties of a particle is neither here nor there in a discussion of whether or not there are deities. You're just slinging terms around because you think they make you sound sophisticated and knowing.

I've not stated that there is any "proof" for Judeo-Christian mythology--i'm an atheist, dipshit. I happen to be, though, an atheist who understands proof. You are not proving anything, other than, perhaps, a compulsion to say just about anything which pops into your head in an attempt to appear wise.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

Lack of belief in an afterlife is IMO value-neutral, at least potentially, because heaven occasionally motivates believers to do good. Also, there is heaven AND hell in that story... If there is no hell, one can do all sorts of evil deeds as long as one can get away with the justice of men. So a lack of belief in the afterlife can also allow one to go bad.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

"Lack of belief in an afterlife is IMO value-neutral, at least potentially, because heaven occasionally motivates believers to do good. Also, there is heaven AND hell in that story... If there is no hell, one can do all sorts of evil deeds as long as one can get away with the justice of men. So a lack of belief in the afterlife can also allow one to go bad."

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that christians believe that their personal god is forgiving and merciful? Catholic go to confession, say pentience and are forgiven for their sins. That's a nice out when one person does harm to another. It's the person who the harm is done to who should have the right of forgiving or not for giving. Second, with this get out of jail card there is no reason not to repeat this bad behavior.

If one does not believe in an after life one might be more in tune to appreciate the aspects of life a little more because one might realize this is the only life he or she may have.

just another take on views on an after life. But, I think any concept of morality one must have the mental capacity to, grasp, understand and distinguish between a right and a wrong.

I do not know of any economic system driven by morality.
I do not see how any economic system would and or could be fair, capitalistic or socialistic.
The problem to me seems to lie in our need to fulfill our individual drives and at the same time to meet our social needs which at times are in conflict.

The lack of being able to see a long term resolutions verses short terms and immediate needs, perceived or not I think. Those would seek and plan long term solutions verses those who can't or not willing.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

one must have the mental capacity to, grasp, understand and distinguish between a right and a wrong.

My point was: why give a **** for morality in an atheist world view?

(And yet we do...)

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Are you saying that just because someone is an atheist they have no motivation towards having morality or doing right?

People don't need belief in some sort of supreme being to be moral and do good in the community or anywhere in the world. Ethical and humanistic behavior is quite rampant amongst atheist communities. In fact, some close family members are part of an organized Humanist Ethical society.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

My point was: why give a **** for morality in an atheist world view?

atheism doesn't have tenets, It' s only meaning is "without belief in a god or gods", nothing more and nothing less.

Morality is about how we treat one another so that involves everyone, unless you live and survive completely on your own.

3 Replies

@Ragman,

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Atheists are moral (generally speaking) without a clear reason (philosophical, logical, or metaphysical) for being so. We are moral but we don't know why.

2 Replies

@argome321,

You don't get it. Why is it bad to kill or steal from someone? If I want what you have and I am stronger that you are, why don't I just take it?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Atheists are moral (generally speaking) without a clear reason (philosophical, logical, or metaphysical) for being so. We are moral but we don't know why.

But I disgree. I do know why I'm some what moral, if that is what and how you want to label it. I think others know why they are moral, or immoral, if they would be honest with themselves,

Are you telling me you don't know why you do the things you do? You don know what motivates you? You don't know what you feel? Perhaps, you need a little introspect?

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Quote:
My point was: why give a **** for morality in an atheist world view?

atheism doesn't have tenets, It' s only meaning is "without belief in a god or gods", nothing more and nothing less.

Morality is about how we treat one another so that involves everyone, unless you live and survive completely on your own.

Actually, the meaning "without a belief in a god or gods" is something that derived from an etymological mistake. It is used that way by some atheists and dictionaries...but there are some atheists and several dictionaries that disagree.

The word come to English from the Greek (a-without + theos-a god) through the French. It means without a god...NOT without a belief in a god.

Atheist actually came into English before theist...so it could not be derived the way some atheists assert...a-without + theist-a belief in god.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheis&searchmode=none

1 Reply

@argome321,

Pray tell then. Why are you moral?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Atheists are moral (generally speaking) without a clear reason (philosophical, logical, or metaphysical) for being so. We are moral but we don't know why.

I know my reasons, what are yours? My reasons are all over my posts
If you don't know the answer to your question perhaps it is a good time to find out. Do you think knowing and learning about yourself is inaccessible to you?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Actually, the meaning "without a belief in a god or gods" is something that derived from an etymological mistake. It is used that way by some atheists and dictionaries...but there are some atheists and several dictionaries that disagree.

The word come to English from the Greek (a-without + theos-a god) through the French. It means without a god...NOT without a belief in a god.

Atheist actually came into English before theist...so it could not be derived the way some atheists assert...a-without + theist-a belief in god.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheis&searchmode=none

You're totally correct. I think it is used in our time just to give non-believers a moniker, I generally preferred to be labelled, if need be, a non-believer and hope to avoid some confusion.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

For example, it competely fails to address the belief that many people hold to the effect that a deity created the cosmos in such a manner that evolution occurred.

The fact that these people have to postulate a new belief when the "literal word of god"( the OT) is DISPROVED by human evolution as shown scientifically in the field of stuy called PALEOANTROPOLOGY
makes my assertion nicely and is far from tortured.

Also, apparently you have only a rudimentary understanding of HUP evidenced by your reply that the properties of particles are putative.
Experiments done with interferometers proving the nature of SAPs conclusively show that any knowledge of that particle collapses the wave function. Hence, the mere exsistance of any all knowing being violates HUP and chemistry breaks down. When electrons dont bind with other electrons you dont have matter. No matter no universe...DUMB ASS.

0 Replies

@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know