Atheists... Your life is pointless

<lag>

Do you have faith in God? Does this mean that you have doubt in God?

Of course behaving morally is important. It is important for individual health as well as the functioning of a society/culture. It is easier to behave morally when culture is not stacked against you. For instance, it is much more difficult to respect women as an individual, if your society does not recognize women as deserving respect. Morality should inform culture, when it fails to do so, it is moral for individuals to exert pressure on their societies to bring about cultural change.


I think it is possible to behave morally with or without belief in a deity. To me moral behavior is more important than the reasons for the behavior. Not everyone cares about philosophical justifications for morality. Belief structures (religious and non-religious) are necessary for building up and advancing knowledge.
Dogmas are often hard to overcome. Legalistic religions tend to be pernicious and slow to adapt to new understandings. They do however have a intra-cultural stability. The greatest problem is when two legalistic religious cultures clash, since there are no built in mechanisms for peaceful resolution.
There are non-legalistic interpretations of Christianity.
Spade has a thread which is discussing just such an interpretation.

Faith is the counterpart to doubt...I think that anyone with faith goes through doubt...Just like I think anyone who doubts has some type of faith, or they would not have doubts but be absolutely sure...

Example: some atheists claim the do not believe Gods exist, but are not absolutely sure...I think that part of them that is not sure is faith...

You can find God through faith, you can find God through doubt...

If you have faith you believe...If you have doubt, then you can find faith to believe...

Not sure how an atheist would explain this...and why I personally do not understand it...

Their view would be something like...I have doubts, but no faith...but am not positive Gods do not exist...and I can't find doubts because it is not really about Gods or faith or a belief but trying to prove things factual wise, and I can't find faith because I have doubts which are not about Gods, but I am not absolutely sure Gods do not exist...and the side of me that is not positive is not some kind of faith...

But my doubts are about proving facts...but those are not beliefs they have, but really doubts I can prove facts...not doubts I can disprove faith, because they do not think they have faith....and do not think that atheism is a belief system...Or a counterpart to faith...

So is it really doubts to provide facts? Or faith they can provide facts? Or beliefs they can provide facts?

That is why I have said for awhile now that atheism has its main centralism based upon something they consider a negative connotation...And the self descriptions do not explain anything about atheism, or an atheist...

It would make more sense if it was a belief system to try to validate everything they can...(Validationism, Scientistismists, Questioners, etc...)

I hope you understand that when talking with atheists or agnostics or non-theists (whatever label they prefer), the word "faith" often has a negative connotation. Most will at least presume, that they have no "faith" that their beliefs are informed by something more "real". Obviously I do not share the same beliefs as you, but I do recognize that assumptions are a necessary part of extending the knowable.
I do have beliefs and doubts just as you experience.
You are correct that is not unique to theism.

I understand what you are saying mate...and I do not mean to be offensive or anything...would you agree that having faith or beliefs atheists can provide evidence would be more accurate than saying they look to provide evidence because they have doubts or rejections? Especially based upon beliefs?

What do you think the difference is, in saying we have rejections of beliefs...and are skeptics trying to validate proof...Or we have beliefs that we intend to attempt to validate everything we can with proof, evidence, or factual validity? Even our own belief?

Absolute skepticism leaves no ability to function. You would doubt yourself into non-thinking.
Something must always be assumed to have validity, or else there is nothing to think about, and no-one to do the thinking.
If someone can utter the words "I make no assumptions."
They reveal the falsity of their statement by their ability to say it.

I think that that is a very good interpretation mate......I apologize, in my last post I made the claims that "we" say this...etc...and I just want to clarify I am no atheist...and am only giving my perspective from the outside looking in...I tried to explain it saying "you" in there...but they tried to change it culminating most atheists, and not just specifically you yourself because of the previous post you had made...but what I should have posted was "they" or "them"...but to be honest mate, I am pretty tired right now...and have not gone to bed yet....

You don't have to apologize to me Spade
If you offend me, have no doubt that I will let you know.
Either publicly or privately depending on the circumstance.
You have not offended me.

I'll ask you the questions again Matt.

Well--you have to use something to support obedience to a morality. What do you use if not a Deity?

Would you like everybody to see past the Diety as you do and are, I presume, recommending?

I asked you in response to your statement--

Perhaps that statement was ill-constructed.
The intended meaning is:
Obedience is not morality.
Obedience to a societal law does not necessarily imply moral action.
Obedience to a god's law (whether real or imagined)does not necessarily imply moral action.

Your question seems to still imply that obedience and morality are equivalent. They are not.
Same answer as in previous post.

There cannot be a morality without something to support it except the morality of promiscuity. (Biology). As many moralities as there are people. Not really a morality at all.

The question is what do you have for that support if not a Deity? That was the question I asked. " What do you use if not a Deity?"

The other question was do you want everybody to see past a Deity as you do?

You seem to me to be using Christian morality as a starting point. A given. It was not always a given. It is not a given now. It was created. You would not even be able to envisage it unless it had been.

Why would respect for women come naturally when superior force has no respect for the territory of others who are half female? You live on land as a result of superior force having no respect for the land of others.

Women can be persuaded that they are respected. Hypnotized. The feminists are not persuaded. "All men are rapists", they say. Neither are the Indians. They say "white man speaks with forked tongue." In both cases the law insists they should be. They are respected de jure but what about de facto?

I'll put the main question again--What do you suggest a morality be supported by if not a Deity?

I realize the question wasn't directed at me, but I have an answer for those who are interested.

Morality should be supported by intelligence and conscience. Deities only alleviate responsibility, creating righteous monsters who can do as they wish and just ask forgiveness.
Laws work in the same way. Instead of doing what is needed in any given situation, most will only do what is required by law. It is immoral to place someone in the slavery of debt, but the law sanctions it, so we do not even apply our morals to it.
Morals is about conducting your affairs with responsibility, and the rule to follow is very very simple: Don't do anything to anyone that you don't want anyone doing to you.

Spade...you have done a lot more than that, and my characterization of your postings in that regard are much closer to the truth than what you are trying to portray here.

Leaving that aside:

Let us consider this question:

Is there a GOD involved in the REALITY of existence?

My answer would be "I do not know."

If I were to extend that answer, the extension would be along the lines of:

"I see no reason to say there cannot be one; I see no reason to say there must be one...and I see no unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess of 'Yes' or 'No.' Further, I would say that any guess in either of those directions would be blind guesses."

You theists suggest, rather half-heartedly, that you do not know...but then you would immediately fall on "But I believe there is"...and "I have faith there is."

And you will argue that there is a great deal of deference and esteem that must be paid to you and your blind guesses.

I think otherwise. I see the blind guesses (what you call “religious beliefs”) as absurd…and unworthy of regard or admiration. I think you theists are free to make those blind guesses, but there is no way I think they deserve special consideration.

I see the insistence that the beliefs are true and worthy of respect (what you call “religious faith”) as stubbornness and irrationality.

Yes, science and philosophy use guesses and hypotheses as a means to arrive at truths…or as I prefer to think of it “as getting as close to truths as humans are able to get.” Religious guesses are not intended that way at all...and to pretend they are closely related to scientific or philosophical guesses and hypotheses is disingenuous.

In answer to your question:


…I would say, “Yeah, it would seem so. It inappropriately and illogically rejects doubts.”

But why any reasonable, intelligent person would want to do that is beyond me.

I use that expression all the time, Tenderfoot.

You see it implied in my response above to Spade.

I realize you prefer not to discuss with me, Matt...and I do not want you to do so.

But I would like you to consider whether you think the "assumptions" that form the "beliefs" and "faith" that Spade and other theists proclaim are truly directed at "extending the knowable."

I know of no person in this forum who suggests he or she makes no assumptions. That is a straw man of formidable proportions.

Are you sure?

How about a mind resting in loving-kindness and compassion because of skepticism about thoughts themselves? The actions would come out of this state of mind and someone without this state of mind asking for help... just out of 'apparent' causes and conditions' coming together.

Which intelligences and consciences Cyr? Suppose the intelligences and consciences impose a Deity? Or support one.

You are begging the question. And I know why. It is only possible to have totalitarianism to support a true morality in the absence of a Deity assuming you reject promiscuity. It doesn't matter what the faults of a Diety. You either have one or you don't. And history shows that every society we know of had one, or a number.

Hence evolution would demand a Deity/ies. Otherwise it's like a pheasant going around wanting a scaly hide.

You don't have the nerve to support totalitarianism for personal reasons. It would make you unpopular. Discredited. An extremist. And promiscuity is out of the question given the housing set up.

The evolution of social systems has selected in a Deity/ies and biological evolution selects for promiscuity about which something has to be done to get to where we are. So there is a contradiction. A conundrum. Confusion.

Totalitarian systems are an answer to promiscuity and they eschew a Deity, or try to with varying degrees of success. And they are run by people who are subject to nothing. They cannot impose a morality which operates on themselves. So, as Lenin said, "There are the ones who do and the ones it is done to." Hence the need for the intelligences and consciences to build walls around themselves. To control the press and public discourse. And the morality imposed would be one which kept the intelligences and consciences in permanent power.

To undermine the Deity, for understandable personal reasons, is the same as being a supporter of a totalitarian system and a contribution to a drift towards one at a rate in proportion to the success of your sophistry. Only the cultural lag of a morality supported by a Deity enables you to fish in muddy waters.

And it is a mark of how much the world understands such things that so much attention is paid to the Church.

I never new that the christian faith was the founder of moral understandings.



How about logical consistencies just as all other concepts are supported by?