What would you like to ask an atheist?

Is there anyone or anything that ever made you question your belief system? Does your family share your beliefs?

Are you bored? Okay, I’ll join in.

How is it possible to be convinced that nothing that others might call God exists?

I am surprised by how few people seem to see life from my perspective. Except for a yoga/Zen biased friend, there is no one whom I love where I live to affirm my understanding. Hopefully, there are some here on Fluther.

@Bill1939 It’s where you live. There are places where these conversations never happen because they are of no importance.

As one atheist to another…

Many atheists are critical of their theistic brethren because they think the theist moral code must be capricious, and thus invalid, because it is mandated by the words of a supreme being which does not exist.

And yet many atheists seem to think that a moral code mandated by the whims of political power, which is nothing more than the whims of fallible, corruptible, and often amoral people who hold a monopoly on the legal use of force, is not capricious and thus valid.

Why is that?

What makes atheists as sure as theists that there is nothing that could resemble “god” responsible for our universe. Both sides of this send my bullshit detector into overdrive. From my perspective everyone walking on this earth should be agnostic. Semantic clarification though: Are you talking about the god contained in theology or a more philosophical concept of god. That’s an important distinction to make as it will put most agnostics into the atheist camp. I’m an atheist in that respect, but not in the other.

Is it more correct to call an atheist an agnostic? Are all atheists agnostics? I mean technically, it’s only logical to not deny the possibility of a god if there isn’t any factual evidence, regardless of the probability.

Also, if you have negative associations with God/theists, etc..do you feel you project that on theists in general?

@KNOWITALL That’s a GA and a GQ!

AREN’T YOU AFRAID OF GOING TO HELL???

Why are you looking back at me from the mirror?

Nothing. I’m comfortable with my thoughts and beliefs, no need to ask anyone anything.

Answering those posited thus far:

Is there anyone or anything that ever made you question your belief system? Does your family share your beliefs?

It was questioning my beliefs that led to my accepting atheism. I lost faith in my deity, and could find no compelling reason to accept any other that is currently or formerly worshiped, and thought it silly to try to invent my own.

My husband is an “apatheist” leaning toward atheist. My brother is an atheist. My sister didn’t roll a high enough WIS score in the game of life to think about it at any depth.

How is it possible to be convinced that nothing that others might call God exists?

I think this is a misrepresentation of the position, at least in the case of most atheists (myself included). Since we depend on evidentiary support for our worldviews, it is more accurate to say we have seen no convincing evidence to suggest the existence of any gods currently or formerly posited by mankind. For example: If you climb Mount Olympus, you will not find a vast pantheon of deities lounging on golden clouds, thus we can count out the Greek deities. Similarly, the Christian god has, in its holy book, claimed the smallest amount of faith can move mountains. Yet, amputees and paraplegics remain handicapped, and the dead remain in their graves, and (to be more literal), mudslides and earthquakes continue to damage faithful believers’ homes and lives.

However, we are willing to review evidence for any posited deity, or any deity to be posited in the future.

Most atheists say “I do not believe in god” as a matter of brevity, when in actuality the position is more “There is no god that I believe in”. Ultimately, belief in a god requires that the god in question be defined enough to merit defending the position with evidentiary support. The word “god” itself is meaningless, as the thousands of gods throughout human history have extremely varied and inconsistent, even contradictory, attributes.

@josie ‘s question …“Why is that?

I don’t know. Personally, I don’t think it’s morally acceptable to hire employees to run your business, and pay them so little they thrive only with public assistance. But it’s legal. So there you go.

What makes atheists as sure as theists that there is nothing that could resemble “god” responsible for our universe. Both sides of this send my bullshit detector into overdrive. From my perspective everyone walking on this earth should be agnostic

and

Is it more correct to call an atheist an agnostic? Are all atheists agnostics?

I take the position that “atheist” and “agnostic” are not mutually exclusive. One can be a gnostic theist (a religious person with a specific deity), an agnostic theist (there’s probably something somewhere called God), a gnostic atheist (there are no gods, period, and there never will be), or an agnostic atheist (I don’t see any evidence that a god or gods exists).

Very very few atheists are “gnostic atheists”. You’ll normally find them among the 13 year old boys on trolling websites. I view them similarly to unquestioning theists, in that both parties are closed to new evidence.

Also, if you have negative associations with God/theists, etc..do you feel you project that on theists in general?

That is a very broad question, and one that is difficult to answer, but I will try.

I have a great amount of personal guilt and sadness toward my own religious past.
I see many of the same thought processes and actions in other theists.
A large part of my brain wants to shout at people ”Don’t you see how horrible your thinking is?!?” And of course the answer is “no”. So I have a hard time being sociable with religious people who subscribe to a “members only” afterlife.

AREN’T YOU AFRAID OF GOING TO HELL???

I’m aware this is a joke, but it’s asked often enough that I’ll answer it anyway.

No. Much like I’m not afraid that failing to sacrifice a virgin’s beating heart to Huitzilopochtli will prevent the sun from rising tomorrow.

What’s for dinner?

Why can’t we spend more time solving problems on earth instead of debating whether there’s a God?

@Pachy Agreed. People tend to box & label, on both sides, & it’s often inaccurate, endless circles of assumption.

Do you like Spumoni ice cream? Do you think Jesus would have like Spumoni ice cream?

@Kardamom Does it have figs in it? I hear he wasn’t too fond of figs after that one incident.

@Seek_Kolinahr
I have a great amount of personal guilt and sadness toward my own religious past.
I don’t know what kind of Christianity you grew up with, denominational or not, but I feel the same way about myself and I would view my past self as bigoted. There are so many people who knew me as the overly-religious, creed-abiding zealot, and I’d be embarrassed to come into contact with those people today. But I realize the diversity among religion…every single religious person in the world isn’t a spitting image of me.

I have a hard time being sociable with religious people who subscribe to a “members only” afterlife.
I’m not going to get into the fact that this isn’t a universal theological belief, but why does that bother you? It doesn’t involve you since you don’t believe what they believe, so how does that take away from the person? I doubt the person thinks lesser of you because you’re not of the same belief system as they are.

My Atheist questions have already been answered.

@dxs -

While I believe what others think of me is none of my business, I choose not to associate myself with those who have determined I will be submitted to the most grievous torture they can imagine, and that it’s my own fault.

I am aware it is not universal to theology, which is why I prefaced it with “religious people who…”

I have several friends who are Wiccan, for instance. Everyone goes to the Summerlands.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – From your link

Q: What do you call an intelligent American? A: Atheist.

Q: How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.

If money is the root of all evil, then why do they ask for it in church?

Haha!

My problem has been that when I’m asked why I am not “a believer” I find that the question is really, why don’t I believe in Jesus or one of the Abrahamic religions. I am rejecting Jesus – how can do such thing, how could be so blind.

The truth is I’m not rejecting your religion – I just don’t see the logic of believing in the paranormal at all – none of it.

Now the word agnostic. Yes that makes a hell of a lot more sense – but not because I am not sure if Jesus is really waiting out there but because I have no real conviction that I know there is not some experience after death; however, I kind doubt there is. I think rationally.

To me it makes no sense at all to follow some ancient scriptures written to control people during a time when they had virtually no scientific answers.

So that’s me.

@Seek_Kolinahr So you don’t associate yourself with those who have determined you will be submitted to the most grievous torture they can imagine. I won’t blame you. But again not every religious person thinks that. If we’re talking about theists in general, then why give a reason that is only specific to some of them? You’re defeating the whole question.
It sounds like you really don’t associate yourself with many religious people at all because you seem to only have one view of them.

@dxs, @Seek and I are friends and I’m über theist. I just don’t condemn her to hell. She’s more Christlike than most Christians I know. How could I condemn her?

Me: So I have a hard time being sociable with religious people who subscribe to a “members only” afterlife.

You: It sounds like you really don’t associate yourself with many religious people at all because you seem to only have one view of them.

I believe you are misrepresenting my words. I specifically justified my disassociation as being toward those who believe in a “members-only afterlife”. Some religions do not have a qualified afterlife. They are not the majority in my area, but they exist.

I choose not to hang around people who talk of sin, damnation, and repentance. I have better things to do with my time than apologise for the beer I’m drinking or the fact that I’m not raising my child to be religious.

@Judi Thank you. I consider you a good friend as well. ^_^

@Seek Can a christian achieve kolihnar?

That link cracks me up… sorry… but I’m snowed in today, waiting for car to warm up to go out for snowy photos. While we wait… hehe… from the link. Sorry ET…

Religious Shit

Taoism Shit happens.

Buddhism If shit happens, it’s not really shit.

Islam If shit happens, it’s the will of Allah.

Protestantism Shit happens because you don’t work hard enough.

Judaism Why does this shit always happen to us?

Hinduism This shit happened before.

Catholicism Shit happens because you’re bad.

Hare Krishna Shit happens rama rama.

T.V. Evangelism Send more shit.

Atheism No shit.

Jehova’s Witness Knock knock, shit happens.

Hedonism There’s nothing like a good shit happening.

Christian Science Shit happens in your mind.

Agnosticism Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn’t.

Rastafarianism Let’s smoke this shit.

Existentialism What is shit anyway?

Stoicism This shit doesn’t bother me.

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/religiousjokes/atheistjokes.html

Can I be an atheist chaplain in the military? I thought I could be like a psychologist, or social worker for non believers?

The way you present your opinions toward theists is very generalizing in my opinion, especially within the context of the original question. It isn’t fair to use all of these specific, extreme examples of religious beliefs to answer a question about theists in general.

Do atheists feel superior intellectually to theists? If you can’t prove God doesn’t exist why would that be?

@KNOWITALL devout, “proud to be” atheists generally do and are just as annoying as “you’re going to burn in hell” spouting theists who feel the same way. Both feel they have the moral high ground and neither do. Most tolerant people get along just fine regardless of their beliefs.

I don’t believe in a Creator that cares about whether people wear a piece of cloth on their head or whether one team wins over another. I don’t believe in a God that allows WARNING VERY GRAPHIC IMAGE this to happen to a newborn baby. I don’t believe in a god who needs people to worship him in order to be “saved”. It just plain ridiculous that a speck in the entire Universe is important to him.

I’m not afraid of going to hell because there is no such thing, and even if there was, and there is a judging God, he/it would know why I don’t believe. When he was passing out faith I got passed over.

The answer to the question “What is creation and how did it happen” is unknown.

@Areyoukiddingme Agreed. Do you think it’s 50/50 or leans toward aggression more on either side?

Do you ever wonder if maybe a god or something was working in his lab and accidentally caused the universe to explode out of nowhere?
If that did happen do you wonder if the god just sits there and studies the universe but doesn’t actually interfere? Does he even know about us? Is he really a dude or a chick or both or neither?
Or would that be something an agnostic or theist would wonder?

@KNOWITALL I think it’s about 50/50. We are really talking about a type of personality that can exist anywhere in politics and religion.

3Inychi I’ve had those thoughts plus some many times. How long do you keep asking questions with no answer?

There are all sorts of gods it is impossible to believe in but do you reject out of hand the idea that some unifying or controlling principle might govern the universe?

I’ll answer a few of my favorites.

“How can you be so sure?”

Atheists aren’t necessarily sure. The term for the ones that are is “gnostic atheist.” The vast majority of atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. This means that we don’t claim to be certain, but we lean towards disbelief.

“Afraid of hell?”

Quite. I don’t have enough confidence in any of my opinions to bet my “soul” on them. However, if I wanted to become religious in order to avoid hell, which religion would I choose? Most of them ask you to believe in them exclusively and describe punishment if you don’t believe. I would hardly be helping my odds by choosing one. Furthermore, I feel an all-knowing god would quite easily see through a ploy to find religion for a selfish reason like avoiding hell.

“Do you feel superior to believers?”

Not as a general rule, but I will confess to feeling a certain amount of disdain for gnostic anythings – atheists and theists alike. No human should claim to have the answers to anything this big.

“Do you think there could be a god that doesn’t interfere with his creation?”

That’s called deism and I find it a lot easier to swallow than full on theism. If there is a creative god, I don’t think he is messing with our day-to-day.

“What about principles governing the universe?”

I do believe in those, they’re called the laws of physics!

Broncos or Chargers?

“Is there anyone or anything that ever made you question your belief system?”

Of course. I got into this by questioning, and questioning continues to be an essential part of it. I am a philosopher, both by nature and profession, and challenging one’s own beliefs is a central aspect of doing philosophy well. I have intelligent colleagues who believe in God and who have arguments for His existence. None of them convince me, but some are harder to refute than others.

“Does your family share your beliefs?”

My wife does. My father is agnostic and strongly opposed to organized religion. My mother and stepfather are Christians. My siblings are rather determinedly non-committal about religion.

“How is it possible to be convinced that nothing that others might call God exists?”

That’s not what atheists are convinced of. They are convinced that nothing they would call God exists. For all I know, you think your cat is God. But while I could be convinced that your cat exists, that wouldn’t be enough to convince me that God exists.

“Many atheists seem to think that a moral code mandated by the whims of political power, which is nothing more than the whims of fallible, corruptible, and often amoral people who hold a monopoly on the legal use of force, is not capricious and thus valid. Why is that?

The key word in your question is “seem.” This is not what the people you are criticizing actually believe. It is a convenient mischaracterization, better known as a straw man.

“What makes atheists as sure as theists that there is nothing that could resemble ‘god’ responsible for our universe.”

This is difficult for any single atheist to answer as atheists, like theists, have different reasons for their beliefs and the strength with which they hold them. First, let me point out that atheists do not claim that there is nothing that could resemble God responsible for our universe. They say that there is nothing that does resemble God responsible for our universe. It is an existential claim, not a modal one. Second, I hold a strongly fallibilist epistemology. That is to say, I do not claim certainty for any of my beliefs. So while I am confident in my position and have reasons to offer in its favor, I do not hold the view that no reasonable person could disagree.

“Is it more correct to call an atheist an agnostic?”

No. Atheism and agnosticism are distinct views and mutually incompatible. In any case, it is always best to refer to people by their chosen label (unless there is a very good reason for refusing to do so, such as if they are running a false flag operation).

“Are all atheists agnostics?”

No. Atheists believe that no gods exist. Agnostics neither believe that God exists nor that He does not exist. It is, in fact, impossible to hold both positions coherently.

(Note: there are other definitions of these terms. My answers are based on the usage common to philosophy and theology, which also happen to be how the words were most often used throughout history. If you change the definitions of the words, however, the answers could obviously change.)

“If you have negative associations with God/theists, etc… do you feel you project that on theists in general?”

I do not have negative associations with God or theists, and am closer with some of my theistic colleagues than some of my atheistic colleagues.

“AREN’T YOU AFRAID OF GOING TO HELL???”

I am just as afraid of Hell as I am of goblins and faeries, and for exactly the same reasons.

“Why are you looking back at me from the mirror?”

Sorry, you weren’t supposed to find the camera.

“What’s for dinner?”

The aborted fetuses of kidnapped Christians, of course. Don’t you watch Fox News? ~

“Why can’t we spend more time solving problems on earth instead of debating whether there’s a God?”

False dilemma. Nothing stops us from doing both. In any case, one of the reasons the debate continues is because religious people persist in oppressing those with different beliefs. If you think your religion entitles you to deny me my rights, you’re going to get a whole host of arguments back—both against your presumption and your religion.

“Do you like Spumoni ice cream?”

Yes.

“Do you think Jesus would have like Spumoni ice cream?”

Jesus seems to have been a pretty chill guy. I imagine he was open-minded about foodstuffs and not prone to complaining at mealtimes. If nothing else, he could just change it to wine while no one was looking.

“Can I be an atheist chaplain in the military?”

Last I heard, this matter was the subject of legal dispute. So not yet.

“Do atheists feel superior intellectually to theists?”

Some do. Some don’t. The same can be said of the reverse situation. Willingness to argue and stand by one’s beliefs is not the same as feeling intellectually superior, though, especially when done in a forum dedicated to such discussions (e.g., Fluther).

“If you can’t prove God doesn’t exist why would that be?”

Note that many atheists believe they can prove that God does not exist. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but at least to their own (and, in their opinion, to the required rational standard). Remember, proof does not require absolute certainty.

“Do you ever wonder if maybe a god or something was working in his lab and accidentally caused the universe to explode out of nowhere?”

It’s entirely possible that this universe is the accidental creation of some unknown entity, but it would take quite a bit more to justify calling that entity God. If I were to accidentally create a universe, after all, it would be incorrect for whatever intelligent life might develop within it to think of me as a god.

“If that did happen do you wonder if the god just sits there and studies the universe but doesn’t actually interfere?”

There is a philosopher named Nick Bostrom who more or less believes that this is the case—except that on his view, we all live in a computer simulation and are being studied by scientists. But again, this shouldn’t make us theists. As I noted above, it would be a mistake for my accidental creations to regard me as a god. But the same would be true if I purposefully created some sort of artificial reality and designed it such that it would produce life. Merely creating the universe is insufficient for deification.

“Does he even know about us?”

Who knows. If we were an accident, it could be that he hasn’t noticed yet. And even if we were a purposeful experiment, maybe we’re not showing up in any detectable way from his perspective.

“Is he really a dude or a chick or both or neither?”

Who knows. Gender, or at least the genders with which we are familiar, might be entirely limited to this universe (or even just this planet).

“Or would that be something an agnostic or theist would wonder?”

Anyone can wonder about anything. Having a belief doesn’t stop you from considering alternatives.

“There are all sorts of gods it is impossible to believe in but do you reject out of hand the idea that some unifying or controlling principle might govern the universe?”

I don’t reject anything out of hand. I reject specific theses on the basis of arguments. And like everyone, there are plenty of theses that I neither accept nor reject simply because they’ve never come up for consideration in the first place. But as @Mariah said, the laws of physics do seem to meet the rather broad description you presented. So insofar as I do believe there is some set of physical laws, I suppose I do believe that there is some sort of unifying or controlling principle governing the universe.

“Broncos or Chargers?”

Broncos. No question.

@SavoirFaire
Gosh, I always thought a straw man was that guy in the Wizard of Oz. Thanks for the lesson.

I’m not sure what to ask an atheist, since the label itself has little meaning to me, and not all atheists are the same. There are many scientists in my email group who share my feelings about people and animals surviving physical death, some paranormal phenomena and the mind being more than a brain function. Some of our biggest opponents are actually theists, deists and religionists (ironically).

Personally I feel what is labeled as strong agnosticism is as dogmatic as many fundamentally rigid religious beliefs, and much more dogmatic than any atheism I’d ever seen. To claim that something can never be known is as dogmatic as it comes in my opinion, and sounds like another form of absolutism.

@josie That’s the Scarecrow. In any case, we both know that you are perfectly aware of what you are doing when you ask loaded questions and attack straw men. But you’re welcome anyway.

@KNOWITALL

Kolinahr is the attainment of perfect logic.

One doesn’t necessarily have to be factually accurate in order for their argument to be logically sound, so I suppose it is possible.

In the Star Trek expanded universe (the novels, not the show or the movies, so not necessarily canon) it has been raised that Vulcans actually do believe in a god, but it is something like a shared consciousness, so it can be empirically proven to exist, at least with other Vulcans. Again, this is not Canon lore. I believe Roddenberry intended Vulcans to be nonreligious.

@KNOWITALL Excellent questions. Atheism isn’t really a belief system, it is the lack of one. I am a soft atheist, meaning I am about as certain that the God of Abraham isn’t the creator God as I am certain there are no pink unicorns. But I can’t prove either do not exist. I just find insufficient evidence to believe either do exist. As to shaking that opinion, no evidence has surfaced to date.

My wife was raised Buddhist, but is not practicing any religion. The extended family ranges from atheists to tongue-talking evangelical Christians.

@Bill1939 Not bored. It’s Sunday, so time for an exploration of theism.

I am not convinced that no form of god exists. There even may be a creator. A means not and Theist means believer in god or gods. I am NOT a BELIEVER doesn’t mean I know believers are wrong. It only means I have yet to see sufficient evidence they are right.

@josie What a fascinating question. I did not see that one coming. I know a good number of atheists, being part Boston Atheists with 1100+ members. I’m not aware of any atheists who think moral codes come from government. I certainly don’t think that. Government was established to help enforce moral behavior, and stop those who transgressed on the rights of others. I’m glad it is there for that, and we are not subject to the rule of brutal warlords. But I believe that morality proceeds out of logic and we evolved to understand it, just as so many other social animals do.

@ARE_you_kidding_me The very large majority of atheists are soft atheists like me. They are not sure there is not god. They are only sure they’ve seen no compelling evidence that there is a god. Some people prefer to define that as being Agnostic. But while Atheist breaks down to A (Not) Theist, Agnostic is broken down differently. A means not, and Gnostic means knowing or ultimate knowledge. Agnostic often connotes someone who claim there is a 50/50 probability there is a god, but it is impossible to ever know. That’s not me.

@dxs No, The words, atheist and agnostic don’t mean the same thing. Here is a good discussion of the differences.

@KNOWITALL I was a theist myself for a good deal of my life. I am disturbed by the hate and derisiveness coming out of some schools of theism today (The Westboro Baptist Churce, abotion clinic bombers, those that seek to replace science with theocratic psuedo-science, the American Theocracy movement, Dominionists). But I love and respect many theists. I may fall short of the mark at times, but I try to avoid stereotyping people.

Are you more intelligent than other people over all because you’re Atheist, or do you just think you’re smarter about the non-existence/existence of God?

How do you differentiate between a “soft atheist” and an Agnostic? I read your link of the differences between atheist and agnostic, and it seems that the overlap is huge. Personally, I call myself a Devout Agnostic, but it seems that you and I have nearly identical views despite you calling yourself a “soft atheist”, and that little chart doesn’t clear things up.

@Dutchess_III No. The God of Abraham, who selected the Jewish people as his chosen race somehow forgot to tell the people he had chosen that there even was a Hell. I suppose I am a hard atheist when it comes to Hell.

Hell asks me to believe, “The Lord thy God is a loving God…” who can see your very thoughts and convicts you of thought crimes. “For God so loved the world that he…” set things up so that billions of people would never even hear of him, and because they didn’t fall down an grovel at his egomaniac feet without even knowing who he was, he would banish them to eternal torture. Eternal, unbearable torture simply for not worshiping someone enough? No human despot has ever set up a program that hideous. It there is a God that did that, I’d rather be in Hell than anywhere near such a horrid, evil, egomaniacal deity.

@SadieMartinPaul Because it helps get through this world when you know you are not alone. Thanks for being there looking into the mirror, yourself.

@Seek_Kolinahr Excellent answers. Thanks so much for filling in some blanks I left open.

@Pachy Because so many problems of the Earth revolve around whether there is a god, and if so, what god it real.

@Kardamom Yes and yes. If Jesus was a bro, I’d buy him a spumoni ice cream, and I bet he’d love it.

@MadMadMax That’s pretty true for me as well.

@All: More tomorrow.

Some more:

Do atheists feel superior intellectually to theists?

Hard to say. I’m only in my own mind, so I can only answer for myself. I often feel intellectually superior to other people I am around, but that is a side effect of growing up with people who did not hold intellect in high esteem. I don’t think my mother has ever read a book a school teacher did not physically watch her read.

If you can’t prove God doesn’t exist why would that be?

In some cases, we can prove god does not exist. It depends entirely on the working definition of “god” at the time. If the definition of “god” is “that which is posited in the Bible”, it’s quite easy to line up the numerous contradictions combined with the scripture stating that God is unchanging. If the working definition is more vague, like, “that which maintains order in the universe”, then the laws of physics could be called “god”.

The problem we run into is when theists say “you can’t disprove God!” and when you disprove their god, they engage in what is known as “shifting the goalposts”. All of a sudden instead of arguing against a specific mythological figure, you’re arguing against whether DNA is “code” or what happened “before the Big Bang” (a senseless phrase, as there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang).

To combine the two questions, it is kind of funny that in order to say “I don’t think God is real”, one must be at least somewhat familiar with the vastly different sciences of physics, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, psychology, geology, and biology, when a theist can simply cross their arms and claim “You can’t prove he ain’t!”

@jerv
How do you differentiate between a “soft atheist” and an Agnostic?

I think of “true agnostics” like “true neutrals” in D&D.
It’s either a case of absolute indecision, or an instance where a person is willingly allowing bad things to happen for the sake of fairness.

@Seek_Kolinahr Lack of strong opinions about the existence (or lack of) of supernatural/divine beings isn’t the same as being spineless, indecisive, or anything along those lines. Then again, I always thought Palladium Games did alignments far better than D&D; they disavow that “true neutral” even exists, and have a couple of “selfish” alignments that are neither good nor evil. They don’t allow bad things to happen out of some mystical sense of cosmic balance like druids.

@All Thank you. One more. Do you blame all theists for our beliefs affecting your world? If so why?

@KNOWITALL: ”@All Thank you. One more. Do you blame all theists for our beliefs affecting your world? If so why?”

No. There are many theists who have done and continue to do beautiful things – and many of them have used their theism as a source of inspiration for those things.

I’m more concerned with the beliefs themselves, however. Unjustified beliefs may lead someone to want to help the poor, or it may play a role in opposing civil rights. So, even when I find that someone is motivated by their faith to make true, positive change in the world, I am still quite nervous. There are plenty of non-theistic reasons to do good that don’t come with all of the baggage – that is usually the source of some really bad stuff.

But Tom – there are plenty people who have sound non-theistic reasons for doing really bad sh*t, right? Sure. Of course, and the best way we deal with those is by rational argument and data. But right there is the difference. Unjustified belief is immune to this activity. And more importantly, most people – including many non-theists – feel that this immunity is justified and important. It leads to a real cynical moral relativism.

Anyway, so back to your question. No, I do not blame all theists for affecting the world (positively or negatively). But I do choose to take aim at unjustified belief (theistic or non-theistic), as well as those people who feel that such activity is off-limits.

@tom_g Thanks.

So if I may clarify, you’re saying that, for example, a theist making the world better by feeding the poor is okay, while a theist not voting for SSM is not okay (or child brides, etc..)? Because it’s based on a fallible book by fallible writers?
I’m not trying to start anything, promise, I’m simply trying to figure out your way of thinking so I don’t feel attacked because of my choice of belief systems.

Another atheist here has claimed that part of the problem is that theists use their votes to propogate ‘christian’ laws which affect her and her family ie abortion, prayer in school, etc…
Is that a concern of yours as well? Or anyone here?
If so, do you have a solution for that or is that a fact that will just have to be accepted as different beliefs coexisting/ warring in the same country?

@KNOWITALL – Good questions. I have a couple of minutes, so I will try to get to all of them…

@KNOWITALL: “So if I may clarify, you’re saying that, for example, a theist making the world better by feeding the poor is okay, while a theist not voting for SSM is not okay (or child brides, etc..)? Because it’s based on a fallible book by fallible writers?”

There are plenty of good reasons to be decent and compassionate that do not depend on unjustified belief or faith at all. Using a book to inform or actions cuts us off from discovery about human nature and happiness. Even if the bible was a perfect snapshot of everything we understand at this moment to be a way to maximize human well being, there is no doubt that we’ll find it barbaric in a hundred years. It’s the method for discovering what it means to be moral and behave in a “good” way that concerns me most.

My local priest and I can both stand shoulder-to-shoulder and oppose US-led invasion of a country. But both of us could be wrong – ethically – in our opposition to a particular conflict. If we can’t discuss the variables in secular and empirical ways in order to progress, what hope do we have? My priest might be opposed because his particular interpretation of scripture. What amount of evidence is sufficient to argue with a man who has the word of god.

It’s the same method that is used to feed the poor and oppose same-sex marriage. So, their support for feeding the poor is unnerving.

@KNOWITALL: “Another atheist here has claimed that part of the problem is that theists use their votes to propogate ‘christian’ laws which affect her and her family ie abortion, prayer in school, etc…
Is that a concern of yours as well?”

Yes. Because of the above reasons. But also because the Christian laws are divorced from empirical evidence and real-world happiness/suffering, many of these efforts appear decidedly immoral, and something to actively oppose.

@KNOWITALL: “If so, do you have a solution for that or is that a fact that will just have to be accepted as different beliefs coexisting/ warring in the same country?”

Other than strengthening the separation of church and state, I can only hope that we can start to shift the conversation about what is right/wrong and talk about it in empirical terms. I’m not an optimistic person, so I am not sure what the chances of this happening are. Religious beliefs are often incompatible. But using empirical evidence to guide and inform our actions means that we have a chance of progressing based on discovery.

@tom_g Thanks again, I haven’t had much opportunity to talk this openly with an atheist here because it does get adversarial, so I apologize if this takes some time to formulate my thoughts.

1) I know that every human has the capacity for compassion and decency. When it comes to issues like SSM and abortion, in order to be compassionate we must make a choice based on our beliefs. Is our compassion for the adult woman or for the innocent unborn, or even feel compassion for both but stand up for the rights of one (much like the Catholic stance on childbirth when it comes to making a decision on which lives or dies.)
Does that make sense to you? Sometimes you have to choose sides in issues like this.

2) Christian laws are different than secular laws in some regards. Personally I don’t have an issue with SSM or the LGBT community because I, after talking in depth to some LGBT’s, feel it’s something innate with the individual rather than a choice. A lot of Christians use the Bible to say that man should be with woman period, black and white, straight from our Deity. Many Christians think I’m wrong and tell me so quite often.
I’m not sure which is right, but I am choosing the path that follows Jesus teachings of love, compassion and non-judgement. When it comes to my vote, am I voting for the rights of the people or the rightness of my Deity? Do you see how that can be a highly volatile decision for us? What would your advice to us be in those situations?

3) I’m also a pessimist, seeing more pain and suffering than happiness and laughter, so I’m going to say that unless we can communicate more effectively, we are destined to be on opposite sides in many issues.

@KNOWITALL: “Does that make sense to you? Sometimes you have to choose sides in issues like this.”

It does make sense. And in no way would I pretend to portray abortion as an “easy” issue. But we can agree that there are really awful ways to handle this (like slowly drown infants that have been born full-term), we should be able to agree that there are better ways to handle this. And if there are better ways, the only possible way we can make that statement is to strive to alleviate suffering. It can’t be by flipping the pages of an old book to see if we can find wisdom that will help us in this.

@KNOWITALL: “I’m not sure which is right, but I am choosing the path that follows Jesus teachings of love, compassion and non-judgement. When it comes to my vote, am I voting for the rights of the people or the rightness of my Deity? Do you see how that can be a highly volatile decision for us? What would your advice to us be in those situations?”

First of all, I love the fact that there are Christians like yourself who are able to identify the good stuff in the bible and emphasize those things. It must be really difficult. When I was a theist, I was too young to vote or have to wrestle with these issues.

I’m not sure I could provide any advice other than for you to ask yourself why you choose to emphasize the good stuff? It seems to me that you are a good person, and you are able to find in scripture those passages which support your decent moral intuitions. Awful people will pick up that same book and do the opposite.

@tom_g You know Tom, it really is difficult. I see both sides, and commiserate with both to some degree, but I tend to err on the ‘pick your battles carefully’ side.

@all If you could rule the US without interference, what laws would you make or correct, or revise. Thing’s that have come up recently like Ten Commandment plaques, prayer in school, abortion rights, etc…

@KNOWITALL ”@All Thank you. One more. Do you blame all theists for our beliefs affecting your world? If so why?”

Without looking at the other answers, I’ll pick this one up.

Yes and no.

I blame religious extremists who kill people in the name of their god. Those people have not killed anyone I know, but they have affected all of our lives in some way – whether it’s the security we go through before air travel, or having to censor ourselves online because we’re afraid the NSA is watching. None of this would be happening in our world if there were no religion. Hell, Bush Jr. would not have had a second term in office if not for religion. Think about the consequences that had for your country and for the world economy.

I blame theists who make policy or vote for policy based on their religious beliefs (a few examples: restricting abortion rights, sodomy laws, preventing same-sex couples for being married). People who vote according to their religious faith want to restrict the actions of others based on religious beliefs that the whole population does not share. This is discriminatory by definition, and I think it’s wrong.

On a personal level, I do not blame the countless theists (and I believe this is most theists) whose beliefs are aligned with certain policies for religious reasons, but do not vote based on those beliefs.

These are my reaction to belief on an individual level.

However, I also think that in the grand scheme of things, religious belief is bad for humanity, sort of like a drug dependency we can’t shake. I think that it holds us back in a lot of ways; it makes us trust ourselves as a species less, and makes us pull together less, also. If everyone’s closest personal relationship is with a god, it is hard to imagine how any human relationship can possibly measure up. I think that human relationships on large and small scales will better, less derisive, more compassionate once we have shaken the religious habit. But I don’t foresee that happening within many, many generations. People are just not ready to take off the water wings and swim for themselves.

@jerv – @Seek_Kolinahr Lack of strong opinions about the existence (or lack of) of supernatural/divine beings isn’t the same as being spineless, indecisive, or anything along those lines.

I didn’t intend to imply that agnostics are spineless at all.

While of course anyone can be whatever they want to claim to be, I often consider (in my own mind) the “lack of strong opinion” crowd to be a kind of agnostic atheist, since they have not subscribed to any deity. “I don’t know, but I’m operating as though there isn’t one”.

There are some “True Agnostics” that are fiercely adamant that nothing can ever be known, ever, and nothing can ever be proven, ever, and why the hell are we still talking about things we can’t know?!?!?! Those people are annoying, because they shout just as loud as any evangelical Christian or militant atheist, and they aren’t even presenting a topic for discussion. It’s the ultimate ”LALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOUUUU! I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG!”

Obviously, not saying you are one of those, because you’re not. Again, in my brain you’re an agnostic atheist: Don’t know, but operating without thought to the cares of a deity.

If you could rule the US without interference, what laws would you make or correct, or revise. Thing’s that have come up recently like Ten Commandment plaques, prayer in school, abortion rights, etc…

Obvi, I don’t want to be in charge of anything, but if I could “poof” laws into existence, I would strengthen the separation of church and state, definitely.

There would be no endorsement express or implied of any religious standpoint in any government capacity. Including Ten Commandments plaques, commissioned or donated artwork (perhaps donated religious artwork could be auctioned to support education or homeless aid?), and the donation of government property to religious causes (If you want a headache, look up the Polk County, FL suit regarding the donation of Sheriff’s Office basketball equipment to a local church. An officer in the Atheists of Florida spent time in jail over it – on unrelated, made-up charges.)

Don’t get me wrong – I am a student of the humanities. I love religious celebrations, I love cultural celebrations. Some of the best parties I’ve ever been to have been bar mitzvahs. But the public square is not the place for it.

If a church wants to put up a nativity scene, they can rent space on public property with roadside frontage, following the local law like anyone else who wants to advertise anything else.

Similarly, all blue laws should be immediately taken off the books. There’s no particularly good reason to force law-abiding citizens to drive to another county or another state in order to purchase a legal recreational substance. There’s no good reason to make people miss their football games to pick up a 12 pack of beer on a Sunday, when the store is open six hours beforehand. Yes, it’s a little thing, but it matters.

No person should have to be concerned their doctor, hospital, or pharmacy will fail to give them the medical care they require because of the religious whim of the institution or person involved in their care. If one is morally opposed to providing medical care, they need to find a new profession or business model.

No religious doctrine shall be considered a valid excuse for denying rights to a person who does not share those beliefs.

Similarly, religious beliefs should not be considered a valid excuse for breaking the law. I don’t care what the Koran says, beating your wife is a crime.

I would argue that even religious schools should be required to teach an appropriate level of science education. Frankly, I think others have the right to live in a society in which a good percentage of their peers have not been excused from learning how the real world operates. Teach it as “people in the World believe…” if you want, but the information must be presented, and accurately. Teaching from “Of Pandas and People” should not be an acceptable science education for high school graduates.

I would like to see a required “comparative religions” course required for high school graduation for all students. It should cover at least the five major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Bonus points for Baha’i, Sikhism, African tribal beliefs and Native American belief systems. Kids should know what other people believe, and at least a little history behind each one. We could all do with a little understanding about our neighbors.

^ Refresh, added a paragraph.

@Seek_Kolinahr After reading your post carefully, I don’t personally take issue with any of those changes. Thanks!

Glancing through, I saw a comment about wondering why God would worry about every little speck in the universe. Reminds me of a discussion I got into on fb. Someone posted a picture of a snowflake as “proof” of God’s existence. I said the snowflake is just a matter of physics. If it was God, didn’t he have better things to do than worry about creating each individual snowflake in the universe, such as saving starving and abused children? Well, turns out he has no priorities because he can do everything at once. A snowflake is just as important to him as an abused child. Or maybe just as unimportant. Not sure. That kind of left me scratching my head. Again.

@Dutchess_III I’ve seen that, too, but I was under the impression that we didn’t need proof in order to believe, that’s faith.

^ Please make an “ask a theist” thread so I can address the issue of faith. ^_^

@Seek_Kolinahr I noticed on your profile you had some links I’m interested in as well. Good idea, I’m on it.

Maybe that’s my problem. If there isn’t proof I just can’t buy it. If it’s illogical I can’t buy it. It is illogical to me that an all loving God doesn’t care about an abused child any more than he cares about a snow flake.

@Dutchess_III Let me ask you this, how do you know God’s purpose? Do you know all the repercussions of this child’s abuse? Do you think that that perhaps she will go on to help others get out of their abusive situations or perhaps she’s the only one that can reach another particular person whom God has a plan for.

It’s not OUR place to know the plan unless we’re chosen to have it revealed to us, it’s our place to trust in God’s will, power and plan. If you can’t trust in that, then I truly suggest you pray for guidance, at least that’s my opinion.

Please don’t take this personally. This isn’t directed at you, but that argument right there, the one that says, “Don’t ask, don’t question, it’s all God’s plan and He is a mystery,” is a big part of why I finally gave it up.

@Dutchess_III I won’t of course, doll, but where did I say not to ask or question? I do all the time with thing’s I don’t understand.

Definition of faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

When you said “It’s not OUR place to know the plan…it’s our place to trust in God’s will, power and plan.” I have always perceived that as “Don’t ask. Just believe.”

This is the point where I always want to post a clip of one of the earliest episodes of The Simpsons, where in response to rapid-fire questioning by Bart, Lisa, and Millhouse, the Sunday School teacher exasperatedly shouts “IS A LITTLE BLIND FAITH TOO MUCH TO ASK?!?!”

Sadly, they’re really on top of their game on the Youtube copyright enforcement.

@Dutchess_III @Seek_Kolinahr People are skeptical of miracles, too, and they happen a lot.

Citation needed.

What is the opposite of a miracle? Whatever it is, it happens even more.

@Seek_Kolinahr Personal or factual?

@Dutchess_III Horrible things happen all the time to good, innocent people, that is why we have to trust that there is a God with a greater purpose.

You’re touching on one of the thing’s that actually brought me back to my faith. :)

Factual. Verifiable. And if it comes with a good reason why that happened as opposed to mana raining on starving African children and the worldwide disappearance of pediatric cancers, bonus points.

@Seek_Kolinahr You know I’ll have to find these one by one, so bear with me

“Do you blame all theists for our beliefs affecting your world?”

No. But many who do not directly oppress others are still a part of the problem. American Christians in particular seem more concerned with self-image than moderating their extremist brethren. Dan Savage has a name for such people: NALT (“not all like that”) Christians. Instead of speaking out against their own lunatic fringe, they displace blame by saying “well, I don’t believe those things.” That’s great, but it doesn’t do anyone any good telling me that. Go say it to the crazies. Do something to make them no longer the face of your religion.

“If you could rule the US without interference, what laws would you make or correct, or revise.”

I would never take advantage of such an opportunity as I am not in favor of dictatorship—no matter how “enlightened” or “benevolent.” With regard to the issues you mention, then, I can only say what laws or actions I support.

I am against displaying the Ten Commandment outside of courthouses. If a judge wants to put a plaque up on the wall of his private office, fine. But a monument constitutes an endorsement of religion by the government, thus violating the separation of church and state.

As for prayer in public schools, it has never been illegal. Students pray at their desks in the hopes of passing their math tests all the time, and I see no problem with this. What is illegal—and, in my opinion, appropriately so—is having some sort of official prayer or prayer time in a public school. Again, this constitutes an endorsement of religion and violates the separation of church and state.

The debate over abortion rights, meanwhile, has always seemed bizarre to me. Indeed, it is ultimately fueled by a persistent refusal to see what the Bible actually says (both in terms of when it says personhood begins and its rather odd pronouncements on fetal development). I have discussed this in brief previously here. In any case, I support unfettered abortion rights up until the development of higher brain activity (which is a necessary condition for sentience, which is in turn a necessary condition for personhood). After that, I believe that abortion should be limited to cases where there is a high risk of death or severe health issues for the mother.

“How do you know God’s purpose? Do you know all the repercussions of this child’s abuse?”

I do not know either of these things, of course. But I do know that any truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would—by definition—be able to find another way. If God made the universe such that children must be abused for things to go according to plan, then He’s one sick individual. Surely no one would give me a pass if I came up with a plan to cure cancer that required the involuntary torture and mutilation of millions of children. So while there may be an answer to the question of why God allows such horrendous suffering, “it’s all part of the plan” will not do.

Why do to have faith that choosing life is inherently superior to choosing death?

Your discrimination against death is simply assumed good and right. An absolute faith in existence or survival, along with an irrational fear of death, is “good”. This faith in life over death can be likened to a god or a mass delusion.

The obvious leap of faith is that one’s “self” and its preservation constitute the first measure of rationality. Yet if one begins reasoning with the unquestioned premise that life is good, or that one’s own life or any life is justified, this is very different from bringing that premise itself to be questioned rationally. It doesn’t look like you’re thinking through your biases and rather relying on instincts or intuition.

Irrationality, apparently, refers to a subjective experience in which the fear of death masters you, as opposed to the discipline of mastering your fear of death. Irrationality, seems like you feel compelled to bow down before this master (death). I don’t quite see how you’re free when you’re too scared to question obedience to the authority of the fear of death. I don’t see how unquestioned slavery is rationalism.

It also looks like the most common moral positions justify and cloak this fear of death, and like any traditional authority, time has gathered a whole system of rituals, conventions, and customs to maintain its authority and power as unquestionable, inevitable, and fated; fear of death as the true, the good, and the beautiful. The fear of death becomes the master that establishes all other hierarchies, both social hierarchies, and the hierarchies within one’s own mind. Humbly grateful for the very privilege of obedience.

Hi @eno, and welcome to Fluther.

I personally prefer being alive, because a good portion of it is pleasurable, and because my biological urges compel me to keep living. I can’t imagine it would be much fun being dead, since I would be… well… dead.

I have less fear of death now than I did as a devotee of religion. Whereas once I faced an eternity of torture, I now merely face oblivion. I am neutral toward oblivion, but am in no hurry to meet it, since it is the end game anyway, and I don’t get a do over at life.

I have followed with pleasure this discussion, especially the contributions of @Seek_Kolinahr. I think of myself as an agnostic. However the few devoted atheists I know reject this notion. They see my being open to the possibility of theism as making me a theist. Yet because I do not believe in a Trinitarian God, most self-declared Christians see me as an atheist.

It has been suggested here that religions are the root to the evils of the world. Religions, like all man-made institutions, provide opportunities for altruism and avarice. Delusional beliefs reflect human nature, and the deities derived are an exaggerated image of man.

I believe that one’s consciousness has a spiritual orientation with the universe. Before sentience, consciousness is focused upon the individual meeting their need to thrive. The potential for compassion, awareness of and concern for the needs of others, comes with sentience.

Sadly, too few have developed a consciousness greater than that of a toddler. Therefore, it should not be surprising that for many systems of belief the Creator is depicted as the perfect Mother/Father. Perhaps, when/if human societies devise a means for all to enjoy the four freedoms postulated by FDR, God will not be envisioned as a parent but as a sibling.

Why do they have groups of atheists that get together and put signs all over California? If you don’t believe in anything, why not just leave it at that? Why have meetings getting together and talk about things that you do not believe in?

Collateral question: Do you find David Silverman’s anti-theism motives inappropriate and/or annoying?

@SavoirFaire It’s interesting to me that you mention that Christians should somehow check the ‘lunatic fringe’ because that seems to be what Boehner and the Reps are doing now politically.

For me, that has been and always will be difficult, because our solidarity and fellowship is such an important part of our religion. Even here, when I disagree with a fellow Christian, it is not as hurtful to me as hearing God is a fairytale from non-theists. It is something to think about though, and to this day, I haven’t seen a Christian get too nasty here on fluther, myself excepted once or twice out of sheer frustration at the mean-spiritedness…lol

@KNOWITALL Even though I’m an agnostic I still usually prefer the company of Christians. I have found at least where I live that they are friendlier than atheists because of the “chip on the shoulder” which is really annoying. Most Christians I know are not militant about it. The ones that are generally are even more annoying than the atheists. We are all adults, we have all thought about it. Let it be. The lunatic fringe on both sides deserve each other, the rest of us get along just fine thank you.

@ARE_you_kidding_me Agree completely, on both sides.

What is also interesting is that when I get wound up and a bit out of line here, it’s usually not my fellow theists telling me to chill out, it’s my ‘other’ friends here that do. It shames me and I’ll admit it, I’ve just never had anyone talk about my religion in such a negative or judgemental way before. I’m a work in progress still..lol

@KNOWITALL This forum is filled with mostly introverted, slightly insecure science-nerd smartasses You have a lot of restraint so I was not calling you out. It was a compliment.

@ARE_you_kidding_me I know & thanks.

I just wanted people to realize that I get jerky sometimes, too, and it’s not theists telling me to shush. There are a lot of good people here, of diffferent faiths, that’s why I enjoy it so much. :)

@Seek_Kolinahr

But your moral positions are not empirical, biological urges are clear indication of bias, and yet it doesn’t stop you from following/living these positions, but when speaking of a deity, you require empirical evidence and won’t live accordingly unless such evidence exists. How do you explain this contradiction?

Pleasure is a hedonistic stance. Given your other comments, the next theme of pleasure to follow is utilitarianism and humanism. This is a pleasure theme. A “life stance”. You seem to have replaced one religion for another. I would call this secular theism.

@eno: “I would call this secular theism.”

Or you could call it a “roast beef sandwich”. Or maybe just string the first 6 letters in the alphabet together like this: “abcdef”.

You can call it whatever you want. It doesn’t change anything that I said.

@Bill1939 – Thank you!

@mowens – I occasionally attend atheist and humanist groups, and we never “sit around and talk about how much we don’t believe”. One meeting of the Humanist Association we discussed the pros and cons of organised sports for elementary and middle school aged children. That was a fantastically enlightening talk. And then we went out and got Vietnamese food, and discussed the similarities and differences of modern technology and the Borg from Star Trek. And that was just funny. When the Center for Inquiry or the Atheists of Florida meet, it’s usually about Church-State separation issues or science education issues, recapping the progress of current projects and what should be done going forward.

@dxs – I’m not familiar with David Silverman. I’ll look into it and come back with an answer.

@eno – I’ve never claimed empirical morals. Modern morality is a combination of evolutionary biological advantage and higher reasoning philosophy. I tend to follow a “bring the greatest proportion of happiness whilst causing the least harm” approach to my personal morality.

Believing in a deity as an external source of morality makes little sense to me.
For one, if there is no evidence the deity exists, there’s no evidence its version of morality is any more valid than my own.
Secondly, even if we presume existence, the only record we have to demonstrate the deity’s version of morality demonstrates a moral code that is entirely at odds with modern moral values and with itself.
Thirdly, those who claim to follow the deity’s moral code hold moral viewpoints that are at odds with the deity’s moral code, and choose to discard the less favorable notions contained in the texts.

So, if God’s followers don’t actually follow the code, the code doesn’t follow itself, and the code is not of divine influence anyway, what good reason is there to rely on it, as opposed to secular morals that serve all of society quite well?

I would argue that secular morality is more valid than the Judeo-Christian moral approach, since as a secular humanist I face no ultimate consequence for choosing to act immorally. I’m good for goodness’ sake.

@Seek_Kolinahr Like the Santa Claus song, so be good for goodness sakes.

The only thing I could add is that for me, without God, I’m not so good just ‘because’. Being bad is more fun and much more popular.

That depends on your definition of “bad”.

I doubt you ever killed anyone, or stole from little old ladies’ handbags. So you partied a little? Who cares?

@Seek_Kolinahr Maybe not just partying, but not killing anyone for sure…lol

Well, I care. Self-respect and self-loathing are real and important. I want to be a good, honorable person, and a good role model for my family.

So do you all FEEL like theists hate you or are against you personally?

During this conversation, I’ve realized how much I like many of you as human beings, and wondered how you perceive theists perceiving you.

@Seek_Kolinahr

My mistake for not being clear. I don’t care what you think about theism, a deity, or its morality. I’m asking you why, as an empiricist, are you choosing to live or choosing a lifestyle that is not empirical? And why you, or those of your kind, apply this to society and even go as far as applying it universally?

As an empiricist, you should only be descriptive and it requires a stoic adaptation (an indifference to pain or pleasure) along with habituation which are distractions if not gotten use to (balance). Reality, along with the humans in it are like rats in a testing tube experiment. You describe what you see and not create what you feel, what you imagine. You’re also intervening your natural environment to such an extent that you’re governed by human ideals rather than nature. You cannot talk with the universe, and nature does not care about your morals/ideals.

The deity example was brought into attention to show and ask, how and why, your empiricism isn’t consistent and is rather selective. You apply it for a deity but not elsewhere.

I’m curious to know why.

“choosing to live or choosing a lifestyle that is not empirical?”
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean.
I mean, eating regularly and not being a violent douchebag makes me feel empirically good.

As an empiricist, you should only be descriptive and it requires a stoic adaptation
Aaahhh… I see. You’re mistaken as to the definition of “empirical”. “Empirical” means “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.” Stoicism is harmony with reason and enduring pain and pleasure without complaint or comment.

Displaying an indifference to pain is rejecting a stimulus, and is thus hindering an empirical approach to any situation.

I don’t see how it is a mistake in meaning. An Observation and experience is descriptive. You’re not creating ideals and living out your imaginations. You’re using a method to describe.

As for stoicism, you’re using one of several definitions. It has several meanings. I defined the other meaning for you (an indifference to pain or pleasure).

So by showing an indifference to pain or pleasure, and habituation to stimuli, you remove biases and distractions to properly describe your environment.

You’re not being violent because it makes you feel good, but that is not empirical.

@eno You can’t just choose any definition you like and then argue from that standpoint. The definition I’m working with for “stoicism” is the one that is relevant to philosophy.

I observe that XYZ feels good and harms nothing, and ABC feels good, but harms others. Thus I do more of XYZ and less of ABC. That is an empirical judgment, based on observation and experience.

@Seek_Kolinahr That I can get on board with. We are borg.

@eno – I can’t understand a word you are saying. It’s likely that I’m just not smart enough. But clearly there are some problems with the terms you are using. If you are using these specific terms to communicate concepts to us, it might be helpful to define what you mean by them, or simply “dumb it down” so we can all be on the same page.

@Seek_Kolinahr

Well first here it the definition from websters

Full Definition of STOICISM

1 capitalized : the philosophy of the Stoics
2: indifference to pleasure or pain : impassiveness

Second, the definition is irrelevant since an indifference to pain or pleasure is still required to remove biases.

Third, the point is you’re adopting and actively living what you observe and experience rather than just describing it and moving along. That is nihilism. It is no longer exclusively descriptive. You put value judgment and you just made up an ideal that harming others is bad. That is not empirical. You just created it out of thin air, which you admit to doing in your earlier comments. This further contradicts empiricism.

This is what I have been asking, why you’re using empiricism selectively.

I think this horse is thoroughly beaten.

If you say so.

@tom_g

Tell me what concepts you don’t understand and I’ll define it.

empiricism for starters. It seems there a ton of claims here. What does this mean….

@eno: “Third, the point is you’re adopting and actively living what you observe and experience rather than just describing it and moving along.”

Scrap that. Try talking down a little. Pretend none of us just came from Philosophy 101. Drop the terms and explain what you are talking about. What are you talking about?

I’m not exactly sure why one should be expected to observe life and not act. That’s not a moral code at all. Morals inform your actions. That’s… kind of what the point is.

Strict empiricism about concepts like god is about as interesting and useful to me as stale bleached white bread with the crust cut off. Philosophy and “what if” bring nutrition to thought.

“Why do they have groups of atheists that get together and put signs all over California? If you don’t believe in anything, why not just leave it at that? Why have meetings getting together and talk about things that you do not believe in?”

Answer: I would guess they are motivated by Dominionism.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

@tom_g

Atheists, supposedly, are empiricists. What is an empiricist? It is someone who derives knowledge by relying on observation and experimentation of his or her’s environment. Otherwise known as a realist. To properly observe and experience, you have to be free of biases (mental and biological). You cannot be influenced by the fear of death or the affirmation of life, nor by pain or pleasure (physical or emotional). You cannot be influenced by memes (an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture) or by ideals (mental images or in fancy or imagination only) created by yourself or other people. So to free yourself of all this, you must adopt the most basic form of learning called habituation (a decrease in responsiveness upon repeated exposure to a stimulus). That gets you eventually into a stoic state of indifference. Similarly, you adopt asceticism ( practicing strict self-denial, as an aid in the pursuit of physical and metaphysical health).

Just like an empiricist requires empirical evidence in the subject of deities, so to an empiricist requires empirical evidence of everything to even consider the idea of adaptation (even, though, description, not adaption is the goal of an empiricist). Since ethics/morality are not empirical and since you have not freed yourself of the biases that I mentioned, why do you live so accordingly to that which is not empirical? Why is empiricism selective? Why do you apply it as an argument against deities and not elsewhere?

I want to name the logical fallacies you’re using, but it would be a long list, so lets just boil it all down to “Making Shit Up”.

I never claimed to be an “empiricist” whatever that is supposed to mean. Nor have you demonstrated that “all atheists are empiricists”. I do demand empirical evidence for a creator being that watches people masturbate and threatens punishment if they don’t feel bad about it.

Besides, even if my moral code was in some way erroneous (and I’m sure it has its problems, I’m no great moral philosopher), that doesn’t make theistic morality – general or specific – right by default.

@eno – Forget the Philosophy 101 class you just took. Just express what you are trying to say. You are making a shit ton of claims here without anything to back them up. Most of it makes little sense. I can’t get past the first sentence. I suspect you have little idea of what “atheist” even means.

Oh, screw it. I started to list your unsupported claims – even the ones that are nonsensical – but ended up quoting your entire comment.

If you’re interested in finding out anything about atheism, go ahead and ask.

As Whoope Goldberg said in “Jumpin’ Jack Flash,” Speak English eno!”

@Seek_Kolinahr

I’m sure that is convenient way for you to put it, but that is a very poor argument.

You seem to be confused by your own stance. Another apparent contradiction. You claim you’re not an empiricist, you claim to not understand what an empiricist is, even-though I defined it several times, but you then that you require empirical evidence. It sounds like you’re an atheist who uses empirical arguments without understanding what you’re talking about.

Theistic morality, nor your own holds any water, but you use empiricism as an argument against theism. Hence why I ask to explain the contradiction.

I mean look, you can’t even consistently hold true to your own comment of “beating a dead horse.” If you decided to end it, then end it. By not doing so, you show a sign of no discipline. Impulsiveness. You’re all over the place which looks like you don’t know what you are, what you want, and what you know. It shows me that you’re obedient to many other masters, just not the abrahamic one (secular theism).

@tom_g

What claims am I making and which haven’t I backed up? A lack of understanding is your limitation, not mine. I “dumbed” it down for you, I used your standards of definitions to explain atheism, empiricism, and everything else that was written, and you still give the same, primitive one-liner “makes little sense”. I think you’re just trying to meddle in affairs that are beyond your abilities. Why else are you acting passive aggressively and offering little to this conversation except abstract one-liners? Very coy of you.

@annabee @eno, thanks for your attempts at dumbing it down for me. Sorry I couldn’t keep up.

Empiricism just means a physical thing. You can see it, hear it, smell it. It would have been nice for you to argue from a much easier and clearer stand-point @eno.

@eno

The fact that I look for evidence to justify belief in a thing does not imply that I espouse some philosophical belief that you have chosen of your own accord to attribute to me.

I do not study philosophy. I am not exactly sure what an “empiricist” is in the philosophical sense. I admit, I had to look up “stoicism” to be sure it meant what I thought it meant. (It did). I know what the simple adjective “empirical” means, and that is “verifiable by observation”.

There is no governing body I answer to that determines how I view life or act in mine. Secular or theistic. I am my own person. If I want to change my mind and blow up a building tomorrow (Hi, NSA! * waves *) that would be my own prerogative. I’m not going to, because I have no desire to hurt people. Not because it’s part of some highfallutin’ moral code I signed myself to in blood under a full moon at the bequest of the Holy Men of Empiricism, but because hurting people doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

^ Refresh, less mean.

@Seek_Kolinahr: “The fact that I look for evidence to justify belief in a thing does not imply that I espouse some philosophical belief that you have chosen of your own accord to attribute to me.”

But empiricism stoicism atheism morality secular theism. You just don’t get it. But if you took the class you would.

(If you want, refresh again, I just can’t stop adding things. It’s a sickness, I’m sure.)

@Dutchess_III

Sense-experience, yes.

I never had a complaint of communication before. It seems unique to this site. My own personal explanation is you guys are dabbling in topics that are above your head. As arrogant as that might sound, that is the feedback I’m experiencing. Or perhaps the issue is with me. Who knows? Us vs them?

@SavoirFaire claims to be a philosopher by profession. Ask for his input. They’re good at sorting this out.

@Seek_Kolinahr The fact that I look for evidence to justify belief in a thing does not imply that I espouse some philosophical belief that you have chosen of your own accord to attribute to me.

You labeled yourself, not I. My question follows your labels. By labeling yourself an atheist, you’re telling me (according to the definition of an atheist) that you don’t believe in a deity. Why don’t you believe in a deity? Your answer is because you require empirical evidence and none such exist. According to your choice of words, empirical evidence implies that you’re an empiricist (someone who derives knowledge by observation and experience).

So my questioning continues on based on how you defined yourself. I’m trying to figure out why you’re inconsistent, and flip-flopping between everything. You now continue to tell me that you’re not an empiricist and that you just do what seems to make you feel good and don’t do what feels bad. This is exactly what I’m trying to find out. You require empirical evidence for deities, but for everything else, you do what feels good and don’t do what feels bad. This is all filled with inconsistency and contradictions.

@eno: “I never had a complaint of communication before. It seems unique to this site. My own personal explanation is you guys are dabbling in topics that are above your head.”

You could try a philosophy site. Nothing to see here.

@eno: ”@SaviorFaire claims to be a philosopher by profession. Ask for his input. They’re good at sorting sorting this out.”

Oh he is. You’d be surprised how clear he can make even the most complex topics. He’s able to – without prodding – explain himself quite clearly to non-philosophers like myself.

@tom_g You could try a philosophy site. Nothing to see here.

I have. You guys deliberately put yourself in the spotlight. If you cannot take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Oh he is.

Good. I hope he chimes in. We will get a professional perspective.

@eno

Keep beating on those straw men.

What happened to our respect guys? ;)

It left when other people started to decide for me what I think.

If I wanted someone to tell me how I think, I’d go to church.

@Seek_Kolinahr Keep beating on those straw men.

Like I said, the communication problem is with you. You accuse me of using a straw man without pointing out where? what? how?

Or are you just finally done beating horses?

It is you that have decided atheists must necessarily be empiricists – again, whatever you’ve decided that means. My own comments specifically mention what my personal moral code is and how I developed it.

Your continued attack toward me, against a philosophy that I have never claimed is quite tiring.

You said you don’t believe a deity exist because you require empirical evidence and that there is a lack thereof.

So how is it that you don’t see why atheists must necessarily be empiricists when you’re clearly emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence.?

How’s this for mixing up your philosophies:

I believe my vibrator exists because I have empirical observational evidence via orgasm.

Hedonism and empiricism unite!

Do I have to wade back through every answer as to if atheist are afraid to die? Plus, when an atheist dies, how would they know they were dead?

@Seek_Kolinahr

I believe the correct term that describes your reply is called “pussy-footing around”.

And I believe the correct response from me to you at this moment is checkmate.

@Hypocrisy_Central Do a ctrl-f search for “hell.” There was a bit of discussion on that topic.

@Hypocrisy_Central:

I’m not in a hurry to die, because it’s the end-game no matter what, but I’m neutral toward oblivion. I will not know I’m dead, because I’ll be dead.

@MadMadMax – Why do Atheists put up signs? (Or any other advertisement about Atheism, for that matter.) Because they want others to know the truth that they know. Like doing a random act of kindness.

@seek Yeah he is the one who put up those signs that @MadMadMax talked about, among other things. You can see him on Fox News a lot, too. Those debates are pretty entertaining if you can get past the frustration of dealing with…well…Fox News.

If he appears often on Fox News, that tells me enough.

One or two appearances is reaching out to the uninformed. Numerous appearances is showboating. They’re probably paying him to portray a whackadoo so they have an atheist straw man to beat.

Yep! They do just that. I confess that I have watched some of the debates on YouTube. I sit there whispering to myself Go David! as he is insulted and attacked by everyone else on the panel. It is definitely set up, but the ignorance is entertaining.

Do you know the difference between a parable and historical accounts?

Sure. But the problem is, many Christians present the parables as actual happenings…often as miracles.

What is the difference between faith and superstition?

@kritiper why do atheists put up signs?

I can’t speak for those who do. But I kinda get it. I’ve read Richard Dawkins books and I agree but I’m not all that motivated to argue what I don’t care or think about.

“When it comes to religion we’re not two sides of the same coin, and you don’t get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens.” Bill Maher

”“atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position” Bill

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color” I don’t know who said that but it’s cool.

Now here’s my response to proselytizers: Leave me the fuck alone you brainless moron. I said that.

@MadMadMax The good thing for you is that most theists would never treat you the same way.

@KNOWITALL What way? I don’t get it.

They all are determined I join their club and if I don’t I’m going to burn in eternal helllfire.

They are all the same. My aunt drove my father insane; to the point he wouldn’t let his own sister in the house anymore. She was a Jehovah’s Witness and claimed there was only a specific number of places in heaven and he didn’t have much time. Now they have decided, considering the population explosion, that there are really a lot more places in heaven.
That’s bloody crazy shit. God misjudged the baby-boom or something?

@MadMadMax Do you realize at all how difficult it is to take the high road talking to non-theists? To walk away from people like you calling us brainless morons?

Even Jesus got angry you know.

God cares if you join the club and tells us to care.

I am not the same as theists even on this small site, let alone across the US or the world so it’s pretty ignorant to call us ‘all the same’.

All I’m saying is that treating theists poorly just because you can get away with it, based on our religion, isn’t very smart.

Notice no theists, even me (with my violent tendencies) talk to you like you talk to us. So who’s the better person in this equation?

@MadMadMax They all are determined I join their club and if I don’t I’m going to burn in eternal hellfire
I am not determined to get you into heaven, I can’t get you or anyone else into heaven, that is up to the individual. I am determined to do as God say and let everyone know where threw life preservers are before the boat sinks and they are shark bait. As far as I am concerned, I let know, and you are off at the bar or in ship casino thinking the ship is the Titanic: unsinkable. I will not have your lost soul on me when I met the Father, you went your own way, no one denied you salvation,

God misjudged the baby-boom or something?
Many baby boomers (some who are JWs) misunderstood God.

@MadMadMax – If you don’t want to see the message, don’t look at the signs. I doubt anyone is holding a gun to your head to make you do so.

@ Kritper I haven’t seen any signs. I thought you had.

@Hypocrisy_Central Of course you are. You have to proselytize to get into heaven – ultimately you die alone and you have to prepare yourself and do all the rituals that will ensure YOUR salvation. Mine would mean nothing if your religion didn’t scare you into driving me nuts.

@KNOWITALL You haven’t had to put up with years of pummeling and social isolation because you didn’t buy in.

I knew a guy from Sweden who had no religious inclinations who joined a Mormon group just to socialize – then he went back to Sweden and never perused the idea again. That would drive me nuts. I have to hand to him – he was welcomed into homes and his kids had friends but I couldn’t go through that.

I told you. If I could get respect, I’d have no problem. But there is no respect for my philosophies I’ve been dedicated to helping others all my life and because I’m not a Christian I’m labeled as some kind of deviant.

@MadMadMax Mine would mean nothing if your religion didn’t scare you into driving me nuts.
My faith doesn’t tell me to drive you nuts, it tells me if anyone don’t want to receive it, to dust off my shoes in that town/house and leave them be. If I care for your soul or not is of no value if you do not value it enough yourself to try and save it.

@MadMadMax – I didn’t see any signs. I heard my 8th grade science teacher talking about the “Big Bang” and I knew somebody was lying to me. My search for the truth brought me to Atheism.

@Hypocrisy_Central

your handle is just so perfect it serves as an answer,

You don’t even recognize when you’re being insulting.

I was responding to your post about physcial SIGNS – BILLBOARDS i presume

“Why do Atheists put up signs? (Or any other advertisement about Atheism, for that matter.) Because they want others to know the truth that they know. Like doing a random act of kindness.”

My answer was: Probably in response to Dominionism. I don’t want to see us a Theocracy and I assume others recognize this as a frightening threat, as much I do.

@MadMadMax – Someone else made the comment about signs but you made a comment to that comment some ways back before I did.
“Dominionism?” I can’t find a definition of that word. Do you mean you fear the country being overrun and ruled by Atheists? Or by any other religious sect?
I fail to see the threat.

Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

At least under this name, it exists primarily among Protestants in the United States. It is a form of theocracy and is related to theonomy, though it does not necessarily advocate Mosaic law as the basis of government. Prominent adherents of Dominion Theology are otherwise theologically diverse, including the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism and the charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology and New Apostolic Reformation.

Some elements within the mainstream Christian right have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term “Dominionism” more broadly to the mainstream Christian right, implicitly arguing that that movement is founded upon a theology that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians. Mainstream conservatives do not call themselves “Dominionists,” and the usage has sparked considerable controversy.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

@MadMadMax – Oh. Like a return to the Dark Ages. I fail to see any real threat. Were it ever to occur, however, we wouldn’t be the country, or planet we were or wanted to be. Total chaos would abound. The end of life as we know it.
No need to worry. MRSA will get us before that could EVER happen!

@MadMadMax Do yourself a favor, buddy. Get the hell out of the Bible belt, or the South, or wherever the hell you’re living. There are places where people really don’t give a shit what you are because whether or not a person has a relationship—or what kind of relationship—with God is considered a deeply private matter. It’s personal.

I’ve stopped proselytizers dead in their tracks by asking them how many times a week they fuck their wives or girlfriends, how they fuck them, how long does it takes to get them off, what is her favorite little trick, and does he think she’s happy with his performance. I usually don’t have to get past the first question before the guy is telling me that it’s none of my bloody business, and my answer to him is: “Precisely.”

Haven’t had to do this to any females yet. I just tell them I’m Jewish.

@MadMadMax I’m sorry you’ve had bad experiences and I apologize for getting upset yesterday with your comments.

I have had my own poor experiences with a church, a preacher and a few hardcore Christians, so I really do understand. One of my uncles actually turned me off with his constant preaching at me, and it took awhile for me to come back to a place I wasn’t resentful.

Try not to paint us all with the same broad brush if at all possible. Peace.

Actually I’ve found that I tend to get along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, Spiritualists and Amish much more easier than most mainstream Christians from conservative denominations. My experiences with conservative Christians have been very nasty, which is one of the reasons why I tend not to speak too kindly of them on here and elsewhere.

My local newspaper is a giant hate article, where Christian editors are always attacking good samaritan nonbelievers. There was a brutal murder that happened only about 15 miles from my house, where a young couple strangled and repeatedly stabbed a loner to death in his car and dumped the body near someone’s backyard. The hate comments came out yet again, even though religion was not a factor, but rather boredom and curiosity, yet my newpaper and comments claimed the murderers must have been atheists. I suppose when it comes out that the murderers were actually Christians, that of course I’ll be hearing that they weren’t ‘real Christians’.

@Espiritus_Corvus That relationship, not a religion thing gets on my nerves so damn bad. If I’m a Wiccan I should state that it’s not a religion, but a relationship too (with the Divine Masculine and Feminine that is). I could say the same thing for Allah as well. Doing this is an example of the Special Pleading Fallacy.

It just blows my head away that so many people find what people believe to be more important than the type of person they are. Why is it so important to prove that your religion is the ‘right’ one vs simply just trying to be a decent human being? The irony is that I’ve lived a much more conservative lifestyle than most Christians around me have. I used to hide my feelings when religion came up, but now I tell others how I really feel. I make no exceptions for any religion either, whether it’s New Age or conservative. I don’t have too many New Agers trying to convert me though.

@Paradox25 People are blowing up other men, women and children for what they believe; not what kind of people they are. That tends to focus out attentions on belief systems.

@Paradox25 I find that in RL I get along with everyone of many faiths and cultures, but here I’ve seen very nasty, profane posts here by atheists/ other. I’m hoping that we’ve all learned a lesson about not projecting a negative opinion on people based on a few idiots. :) I try really hard to be respectful and watch myself, but I do find myself being a little more apprehensive with non-theists now.

@KNOWITALL People seem to come here to actually chase confrontations. While that sounds bad it’s actually not so long as we are all learning from them. I’m not really talking about the information we talk about but learning the skills to deal with people who don’t think the same in RL. It’s a skill few have. That said while I’m not a theist I share your view of many non-theists.

@ARE_you_kidding_me Yes, I definately need the skills, so I’ll look at it like that.

In RL no one talks to me like that nor wants to.

@KNOWITALL Yup, but this anonymous forum is a window into what they are really thinking or would like to say in RL though isn’t it?

@ARE_you_kidding_me I’m not sure about that. I’ve went to a Wiccans house, I’ve been the only white girl in all-black gang house, I’ve been the only christian in a White Pride group and none of those people have ever called me names or mocked my God. It does make me wonder about the calibre of people here.

In my RL, if you show respect you get respect, but not here, it’s like venom spewing freely and with no restrictions, people with no filter.

@KNOWITALL Face to face changes everything but this is a clear window of how people perceive each other based on what they believe in general. It’s shocking sometimes where the hate, bias and intolerance actually comes from. Especially under the cloak of anonymity. The only reason I have been putting up with this “scene” if you call it that is to gain that kind of insight. This is not speaking bad for anyone here obviously. There is on occasion decent conversation and a sometimes healthy debate. A lot of insecurity though, can’t miss that one.

@KNOWITALL @ARE_you_kidding_me Amen.

^ You guys know that we can see what you’re typing, right?

@tom_g lol, yeah I do. Are you offended? I’m sorry if so.

It’s just an odd dynamic here that does not reflect RL.

@KNOWITALL: “Are you offended? I’m sorry if so.”

No :). I don’t believe in being offended. As we’ve discussed before, it’s not something I feel has any useful purpose, and is usually quite harmful. Anyway, I was just kidding. I just wanted to make sure that you guys were aware that saying some of that stuff where we can all see it might be a bit embarrassing.

@tom_g I can see what you’re typing, too.

@tom_g Good. I’ve seen many threads that I haven’t participated in that were highly offensive to me, but I just went on with my life…lol Anyone can call me out anytime and do quite often, I’m not real skeered. ;)

@tom_g Na, not embarrassing at all. Wait! What,everyone can see this?! Dammit!
@KNOWITALL I have seen those threads too. I’ll admit though sometimes I just have to feed the trolls.

@ARE_you_kidding_me Yeah, I don’t do that, I take it too personally when it’s about my religion. To me that’s like talking smack about someone’s kid, husband or dog, not cool.

“Why do you have faith that choosing life is inherently superior to choosing death?”

I don’t. Life isn’t always better than death. There are situations in which I would prefer to die than to keep on living. Also, your attempt to foist the word “faith” onto atheists here is a red herring. Remember that one can believe something without having faith that it is true. But again, I do not believe the claim you have tried to attribute to atheists here.

“Why do they have groups of atheists that get together and put signs all over California?”

Why does any group of people get together and do anything? It just so happens that a group of atheists in California had a common interest and banded together to see it through. That’s what humans have been doing for thousands of years.

“If you don’t believe in anything, why not just leave it at that?”

Just because atheists do not believe in God does not mean that they do not believe in anything. Remember, there are atheistic religions (e.g., Jainism). And plenty of atheists still have moral and political beliefs. There is no reason for thinking that being an atheist comes with some responsibility to silence oneself forever.

“Why have meetings getting together and talk about things that you do not believe in?”

We don’t. Atheist groups come in many different forms. Some are formed around common interests (such as films or science). These ones you almost never hear about because they don’t stick out or get much press. Others, however, are formed to take action against violations of church and state or other attempts to marginalize non-believers. These ones you hear about more often because they do things that get covered in the news. Even the more philosophical groups aren’t talking about things they don’t believe in so much as things they do believe in. Yes, arguments against the existence of God will be part of that. But they will also discuss other issues such as ethics and metaphysics. These are subjects that require both positive arguments for what one does believe and negative arguments against what one does not believe.

“Do you find David Silverman’s anti-theism motives inappropriate and/or annoying?”

You’ll have to give me some examples. Most of what I know about Silverman suggests that he is far tamer than others you could have mentioned, but I’m not terribly familiar with him. Understand that atheism is not a movement for me. It’s just one belief among many others. Typically, I don’t even identify as an atheist. I am one, but I primarily identify as an apatheist.

As for the signs, I don’t find them to be bothersome in any serious way. They are mostly about removing the invisibility of atheism and letting others know we exist as more than an abstraction. Thus theists are reminded not to presume that everyone they meet shares their beliefs, and atheists are reminded that they are not alone.

“So do you all FEEL like theists hate you or are against you personally?”

Not at all. Most people who know my views just file it away in their minds as one more fact about me. Rabid anti-atheists, like rabid anti-theists, are fairly rare. Most of the hate I have encountered for my views has come from the internet or from the pulpit. Occasionally, you see it on television. But these are sources that draw out or spotlight extremists.

“Do I have to wade back through every answer as to if atheist are afraid to die?”

You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to. But as to the question itself, it depends on the atheist. Personally, I hold the view that death is not to be feared.

“Plus, when an atheist dies, how would they know they were dead?”

If death is non-existence, then the dead never know they are dead. They might realize they are dying as the end approaches, but there would never be a point at which they could say “I am now dead.” In any case, it’s not terribly important at that point.

“Do you know the difference between a parable and historical accounts?”

Yes.

“Notice no theists, even me (with my violent tendencies) talk to you like you talk to us. So who’s the better person in this equation?”

I am aware that this wasn’t aimed at me, @KNOWITALL, but I hope you realize that it’s not even close to true—not on Fluther, and certainly not in the world. Atheists have been called all the names that theists have been called and more. The Bible itself insults us. And many of us have been killed for not believing. And of course, people have been killed for being Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Wiccan, and probably every other religion.

@Bill1939 I’m sorry to hear that the atheists and theists you’ve met have both drawn such strange conclusions about your beliefs. Both are clearly reasoning in a very poor way to think that your disagreement with them forces you into the opposite camp with no possibility for a position in between. I must take issue with one thing you said, however. You wrote: “Before sentience, consciousness is focused upon the individual meeting their need to thrive.” Unfortunately, this makes no sense. There is no such thing as consciousness before sentience unless you are defining these terms in very strange ways.

@KNOWITALL In response to this post, I will share with you a quote from Brennan Manning that you may already know: “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” Jesus was an exquisite questioner and challenger of the religious authorities of his day. Fellowship may be important, but it would not be very Christlike to put solidarity above all other values. And for the record, Christians have gotten nasty on Fluther just as often as atheists have. But of course, what each side considers “getting nasty” tends to be a bit self-serving.

@MadMadMax You seem to be judging all Christians by a particular subset that you have personally experienced. Here’s a helpful tip: whenever you find yourself saying that every member of a very large group is exactly the same, you’re almost certainly mistaken. Most large groups have just as many differences among their members as they do with the members of other groups. Not all sects of Christianity have the same orthodoxy. Not all practice their religion in the same way. It’s best to be a bit more nuanced in your critiques, especially if you want them to be taken seriously.

@eno You seem to have an overly narrow conception of empiricism and an overly broad notion of bias.

While an empiricist may claim that all knowledge is ultimately grounded in the senses, this does not make anyone who values empirical knowledge an empiricist. Indeed, almost no one these days—be they a philosopher or not—is purely an empiricist or purely a rationalist. And if we go back and look at philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz (the canonical rationalists) or Locke, Berkeley, and Hume (the canonical empiricists), we’ll see that they have much more in common with one another than the standardly taught taxonomy suggests. Indeed, the whole purpose of Descartes’ Meditations was to give a firm grounding to science (a quintessentially empirical discipline). And all six of these early modern philosophers were more united by their opposition to Aristotelian Scholasticism (the general system of belief and discourse that had developed under the auspices of the Catholic Church during the medieval period) than they were divided by epistemological differences. Spinoza used empirical observations in his arguments. Hume appealed to logical relations between ideas. The difference was a matter of emphasis and methodological priority.

As for bias, it is mistaken to think that an empiricist—or even just someone employing an empirical method—must discard as much data as you suggest. The most obvious example is your exclusion of memes. Any belief or idea could be considered a meme. Yet if we cannot even consider ideas or beliefs, then we cannot reach any knowledge at all. Every empirical theory is built on a model, which in turn reflects beliefs and ideas about the system being modeled. These beliefs and ideas come from the observation and experimentation that you mention, and are tested by further observation and experimentation. Similarly, it makes no sense to exclude ideals. No experiment is perfect, but an empiricist judges an experiment by how closely it approximates the ideal method. Similarly, practical geometry—that is, the geometry of real objects—is based on pure geometry—the geometry of idealized objects. All applied mathematics is based on taking an idealization and using it to get results in the real world.

But not only are your exclusions mistaken, you assume too much when you assert that an empiricist must proceed from a Stoic state of indifference. The Stoic ideal—there’s that word again!—is a conclusion drawn from other ideas. It could not be the starting point of any epistemology. And indeed, it was not even the starting point of the Stoics’ own epistemology. It was where they ended up when their inquiries were over. The preeminent empiricist David Hume, on the other hand, reached quite a different conclusion. He took human sentiments as data for understanding human nature, and then took that theory and derived from it a theory of ethics. In this way, he came up with an empirical moral philosophy (which you have mistakenly declared impossible) and did so in a way that took account of things like human biological urges, pleasures, and pains. But he was not a hedonist. Hedonism, after all, is a conclusion—just like Stoicism. Taking account of pleasures and pains and understanding their place in the world and in a life well lived is a task that any philosopher must undertake. Though some conclude that pleasure has no place in the good life, most do not take that line. To value pleasure, then, does not make one a hedonist. To be a hedonist is to hold that pleasure is itself the good. And in any case, that could be a conclusion one might reach by empirical means. Epicurus, for instance, was an empiricist and a hedonist.

^Thank you for that very enlightening answer, @SavoirFaire

I need to study philosophy.

@SavoirFaire I know very well that not all Christians walk the walk. Every denomination has a different standard of what that means, too. We don’t all wear long dresses and hair in buns either, to FLDS, we’re all sinners bound for hellfire. That’s why I stress individual relationships so much here and in life.

Theists have left because it’s almost intolerable here sometimes. I think we’re trying to find our voices in a way God would be proud of us for doing, because that is really the primary concern for me anyway. You can never know how many posts I’ve deleted- lol

@Seek_Kolinahr No problem!

@KNOWITALL The point of my response was not to harp on any individual’s failure to adhere to their ideals. We all do that from time to time. It was meant to be helpful—though you never seem to take my encouragement as intended. Remember how the discussion progressed: I mentioned NALT Christians, you responded that you struggle with checking the lunatic fringe. I then responded by quoting Manning.

Manning’s statement seems to me a specifically Christian version of something Dan Dennett once said: “There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” The point, then, is just this: critiquing members of one’s own group is necessary work for any honest person to do, no matter how uncomfortable it may be sometimes. Moreover, it is in the interest of your own religious beliefs to do so.

Finally, I think the reason why many theists find it intolerable here is because we are on a forum that allows them to be questioned. They are used to being the majority. They are accustomed to being able to presume that everyone believes as they do. American Christians in particular are used to Christianity being an unstated prerequisite for having almost any sort of authority or public platform. This seems to be the simplest explanation for why they bristle so strongly at receiving far tamer criticisms than atheists have historically received from them.

(And bristle they do. I may not know how many of your own posts you’ve deleted, but you do not know how many personal attacks written on behalf of theism I saw during my time as a moderator. You know perfectly well how heated some of the discussions can become, and we used to spend a fair amount of time cooling both sides down. I imagine the current moderators still do. But the angriest, most personal barbs in my time were always written by theists.)

@KNOWITALL I’m defintely not an atheist, I defintely do not adhere to the mainstream paradigm on this site, and in my several years on and off on fluther (last 4 years) I feel it’s a safe bet that nobody has argued for the existence of an afterlife more than I have. I have debated for the existence of an intelligent creator too, though not as much. I feel it is important that I bring those points about myself before I move on for obvious enough reasons.

I had promised myself that I would try to look at the world through the eyes of others, and try to mentally apprehend what life must be like for them in the best way that I could. Despite my own beliefs I’d have to admit that it must be horrible to be a non theist in many parts of America. In fact my own family had told me that they would not approve of me dating an atheist, though this still won’t affect what I end up doing. Only 45% of Americans had stated that they would vote for an openly atheist presidential candidate. I don’t feel like bringing up too much more, but I can defintely justify having a bit of a chip on one’s shoulder if I had to live under those circumstances.

The only thing that is important to me is how decent and loving a person is, not what they believe. I just wish that more people, even pertaining to other issues, would try to view things through the eyes of another instead of just concentrating on themselves. I’m not perfect at doing this myself, but I try. Sometimes privileged people become blinded to the heartache of others.

@SavoirFaire responded, “You wrote: ‘Before sentience, consciousness is focused upon the individual meeting their need to thrive.’ Unfortunately, this makes no sense. There is no such thing as consciousness before sentience… ”

You are correct. Clearly, organisms without the capacity for consciousness behave purposefully (i.e., consume nutrients, eliminate waste, reproduce). However I cannot think of the word that would mean unconscious purposeful behavior, if it exists.

I lived most of my life and had many friends who I am sure belonged Christian churches—they were my friends and just didn’t talk about their religion 24/7 or insult me. It was not an issue so we were long time pals.

Now the first thing I’m asked is “What church do you belong to.”
Kids here have “church buddies” because it would be “dangerous” for them to just play with the average kids they meet in a school yard like we did.

Just keep in mind that I am not the one painting anybody with a broad brush.

@Bill1939 Ah, now I see what you are getting at. Thank you for the explanation. I agree that there is a gap in the language here. Indeed, some would take issue with your use of the word “purposeful” for an unconscious behavior, though I think your explanation makes it clear that you mean it in a functional sense (which seems perfectly appropriate to me). Maybe someone will come along with a word that we have both missed.

Since I forgot to ask.

@Seek_Kolinahr I’m not in a hurry to die, because it’s the end-game no matter what, but I’m neutral toward oblivion. I will not know I’m dead, because I’ll be dead.
Even though as an atheist you would not know you were dead if you died, (or got killed in come crime), an atheist would take a mamby pamby less than full on life because they want to hang into this life they won’t remember anyhow? If atheists were to pursue activities as shark hunting, racing motorcycles, stunt pilot, etc. and they died doing it they would not know, so why not do those activities? Living full tilt is not the same as rushing to death unless you believe that doing those types of activities are so reckless they are akin to unwitting suicide

I’ve gone fishing and caught sharks. Does that count?

Call me mamby pamby if you like, but I like being alive just fine without chasing adrenaline rushes.

@Seek_Kolinahr I’ve gone fishing and caught sharks. Does that count?
That would be like Running With The Bulls, at the front of the pack with 60 people between you and the bulls. Catching a shark from the safety of a boat is not like being in the water with them with just a spear in hand.

Call me mamby pamby if you like, but I like being alive just fine without chasing adrenaline rushes
Who is calling you mamby pamby? That would be <ahem> illogical. What I was saying is if you know this is a one-shot deal going through life but you won’t know it when it ends, an atheist would live it as if each day was the last, it just might be. What is the phrase, leave it all in the ring, or on the field? If you were given a trip and a cruise to some exotic land, would you spend all the time in the stateroom because you knew going parasailing might be dangerous or some other mishap could happen, or would you try to cram as many activities in as possible before the trip ended?

an atheist would live it as if each day was the last
Why do you think this? Do you wish to “live it up” and only deny yourself the opportunity because you fear retaliation in the afterlife?

I live in Florida. I could go parasailing tomorrow if I wanted to. I don’t. It doesn’t appeal to me.
I’m not a thrill-seeker. That’s not my personality. I’d love to visit some faraway places and explore ancient ruins, but I don’t have the financial means to do so.

I would skydive, given the opportunity. I think that experience would be worth the inherent risk.

@Seek_Kolinahr Do you wish to “live it up” and only deny yourself the opportunity because you fear retaliation in the afterlife?
I am not sure what that means, but I don’t have to ”live it up” here, because this is nothing but a shadow compared to what is coming. Here, I am to work for the good of the Kingdom. I do not need to raise hell here because all things are permissible but not all things are profitable.

I’m not a thrill-seeker
I was not speaking of you specifically, more of the generic, garden variety atheist. Even if one wasn’t seeking a rush of adrenaline, I am trying to figure out why atheist are not trying to cram as much into this life as possible since it is a one-shot deal. What would be the reason for being here then, if not one’s own pleasure and amusement?

I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. Everyone tries to enjoy themselves and have a good life, save the religious people who find their piety in self-denial.

@SavoirFaire

Thanks for clearing that up. Wish you responded sooner to prevent all that back and fourth. I see where I erred, and I’m pretty burnt-out now from all this – need to rebalance, but just to clear up myself/my positions for you, i’ll just introduce my influences: Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Nieatzcshe, Heidegger, Evola, Spengler, Baudrillard, Sloterdjik.

@Hypocrisy_Central Just because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they are selfish. Atheists are caring too but rather than caring for the next world they care for this one and the people in it.

@flutherother Just because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they are selfish. Atheists are caring too but rather than caring for the next world they care for this one and the people in it.
I never said all who do not believe in God are selfish. As in the faith, there are those who manage to be quite benevolent and compassionate. Also as in the faith, many do it for inward gain, even if they do not realize it fully. If you do even the smallest act with the expectation of getting an iota of acknowledgement, recognition, or getting reciprocal action back, then it is selfish to some point; we all do it, that is why no man less Christ was able to be a perfect sacrifice.

^ Is there a point you’re trying to make?

@Hypocrisy_Central “I am trying to figure out why atheist are not trying to cram as much into this life as possible since it is a one-shot deal.”

Each of us does do this, in our own particular way. For some, living life to the fullest means being part of a family, for some it means having a fulfilling career, for some it means travelling the world, for some it means learning as much as possible about art… I could give many such examples. But more realistically, each of us pursues all of these things in varying degrees, to the extent that they find their lives fulfilling.

You seem to equate having a fulfilling life with doing things that will put that life at risk – undoubtably, there are people who do find that kind of life rewarding. I don’t, so you won’t find me strapping on a parachute. You will find me spending an hour or two in a good bookstore, or savouring the first sip of coffee of the day, or Skyping with my friend so she can introduce me to her new baby, or hiking in the Adirondacks once a year, or helping a student understand a concept they’ve been struggling with. Those are just a handful of things about life that I love.

Part of what I have trouble understanding about your question, which I’ve seen you ask here a few times, is that you seem to expect us to be rushing through life. Phrases like “cram as much into” or “living full tilt” make it sound like you don’t think we can enjoy life unless it is at high speed. Maybe some atheists do enjoy that kind of life, but I know that for myself, I would not be able to enjoy or appreciate that kind of existence. The act of “cramming” events into my life would likely take the joy out of it. Because, you know, I do have joy in my life.

Do you understand what I’m trying to explain? It sounds to me as if you don’t believe atheists can experience happiness. Is that true?

@glacial It sounds to me as if you don’t believe atheists can experience happiness. Is that true?
I would hope atheist do experience some sort of happiness because whichever way it goes down, this is all they will have. To me it seem knowing this, one would not live their life in the equivalent of sitting on the front porch, in a rocker, whittling a piece of hickory. I suppose because we are from different societies how we find happiness is way different. I am sure the way I find happiness you may see as giving up stuff that creates happiness. Careers, family (you are born into one so it is just a byproduct of being alive), recreation, etc. is all good, but what is the use of it when you are dead? Especially if you will no longer exist once the Grim Reaper dances with you.

@Hypocrisy_Central I think we may finally have found something we agree on.

And indeed – there is no use to any of it to oneself once one is dead. But we all leave legacies when we die, whether we made some contribution to society as a whole, or simply to those who remember us, or whether we left children who will carry our ideas or maybe only our genes forward beyond our own time. I think that everyone who lives leaves some impression on humanity, however small.

I think these and others I could look for, crammed in a lot of life before they died:

“It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.” [Darwin]

“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.” [Voltaire]

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.” [Einstein]

“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” [Nietzsche]

“I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul…. No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end.” [Edison]

“The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” [Lincoln]

“Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn’t killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?” [Arthur C. Clarke]

“Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” [Thomas Jefferson]

“Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.” [Kurt Vonnegut]

“Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” [Bertrand Russell]

@MadMadMax Thanks for some wonderful quotes. I keep a spreadsheet of notable ones, and your compilation added greatly to it.

In situations where death is imminent, but not quick and there is no possible way to avoid it, I.E. draped in a mine, sub, sinking ship with subzero waters and no rescue with in 6 or more hours of your location, or some chronic illness like cancer that will take you down slow and in pain, etc. if you had the means to end your life quickly (painlessly preferably) would you (the atheist) do it, or hang on (hours or years) and go through the agony while prolonging a for certain death anyhow?

Whether or not to commit suicide, despite the circumstance, is not something one can seriously consider in advance. Not that one could not think about doing it, but that the actual decision to act will be made in that final moment and not before.

Death is the only sure way to end persistent pain, mental or physical, or so we hope. My sister’s suicide, after repeated psychotic breaks, was her only viable option. However it was not a rational choice, in my opinion. But then, how many sane people can go quietly into that dark night.

@Hypocrisy_Central Since I expect death to be the end of all suffering, I’d end the pain of terminal cancer with a painless exit. If there is a real creator deity that never bothered to provide obvious proof of its existence, but could grant me eternal bliss, I am willing to present to that entity how I have lived my life and be judged on that behavior. Any deity that would deliberately hide Himself from all humanity then condemn all who didn’t believe in Him without any evidence of his existence to eternal torment of the most horrendous imaginable kind is such a demonic monster I’d frankly rather go to Hell then hang out with Him.

@Bill1939 My condolences. That must have been a terrible loss. I don’t know “how many sane people can go quietly into that dark night” but I do know I’ve thought about it enough to have the means at hand to go painlessly should the need arise.

I too, have thought about doing this, @ETpro, and have the means. Knowing how my passing that way would effect those who care about me, however, prevents my acting on it. That aside, I fear suffering far more than I fear death, so at some point the amount of suffering will drown out my concern for others and I will “exit, stage left.”

@ETpro If there is a real creator deity that never bothered to provide obvious proof of its existence, but could grant me eternal bliss, I am willing to present to that entity how I have lived my life and be judged on that behavior
Not that any of what you said has much to do with ending your suffering by choosing your exit from life, if one is stick around and suffer because God did not make Himself known the way they believed He should, is a mistake on them. If they do not believe in Him, then He is not real to them. If I never seen a radio I can say I don’t believe in radio signals but they would still exist.

Any deity that would deliberately hide Himself from all humanity then condemn all who didn’t believe in Him without any evidence of his existence to eternal torment of the most horrendous imaginable kind is such a demonic monster I’d frankly rather go to Hell then hang out with Him.
Have you ever thought you were looking in the wrong place with the wrong tools? You can’t find gold in a silver mine trying to excavate it with a rotisserie. So God is to simply be like gravity, which no matter what it affects you? We don’t have the choice on following the laws of gravity, it will affect the nun the same as the rapist should they fall 500ft. Maybe God should make all people worship Him and take free will out of your hands, then you would be assured of Heaven, but something tells me you would not like that either.–As for the last part, as the Incredible My Limpet said, “Be careful what you wish, because wishes can come true”, and this one you will have to keep for an eternity.

However, lets narrow it down to make it easier for you to answer. You happen to somehow be on a vessel way up North. It takes on water for some reason, and is sinking. The lifeboat is found defective for some reason, so you can’t use it. In about 20–35 minutes the ship is going under leaving you and the others bobbing in -15◦ Fahrenheit, with rescue at least 5 to 7 hours away. If you had the means to end your life before you froze to death (which may not be pleasant) would you, since you believe you will just cease to exist?

@Hypocrisy_Central I can’t wait until ETpro responds.
Yes, radio waves are invisible. But someone is producing them and that person can be seen, as well as the transmitter. I think you need a better line of explanation for that one.

This is like a train wreck that I can’t help but gawk at.

You guys know you’re not convincing each other of anything, it’s just arguing with no point right? An exercise in futility but neermind, carry on.

@KNOWITALL – It seems that there are those who think they can get a better position in heaven if they can convince others to join their church or follow the path of theism. So they continually strive to convince against all odds. But we all do love a good train wreck!

@Hypocrisy_Central believes in a specific God and has expectations that after death will be met or not. @ETpro believes this God does not exist. If it is there, one is unlikely to find it unless looking for it, and they know what they are looking for. Not knowing, we can look at it and, like Where’s Waldo, not see it.

Historically, humans seem hardwired to believe in deities. Maybe it is a projection of their genetically programmed parental behaviors. I presume God exists, but I am still working out what God is.

@kritiper I think they both just like to argue and show off their big brains. :)

@KNOWITALL – “Big Brains;” – that was a song by Peter Gabriel, right?

@Hypocrisy_Central The radio waves analogy has already been debunked, but to be clear, I believe in them because I can receive them with my radio. I can even generate them in a lab. I can calculate how they will propagate, and by golly, they do just as predicted. Are you suggesting there is some way of verifying the existence of your particular deity that’s as falsifiable as that? If there is, please explain it to me. I promise to test.

You ask, “Have you ever thought you were looking in the wrong place with the wrong tools?” After all the decades I spent in pursuit of God, no. I don’t believe that is the case. Imagine a human parent that gives birth to a child. This parent says they love their new baby dearly. But before the baby even opens its eyes, the parent disappears wiping out all traces of their existence except for a book they leave that is full of contradictions. Yet they expect their child to grow up dearly loving them and if the child does not, they vow to keep them alive for as long as humanly possible while constantly torturing them in the most hideous way imaginable. Would you call that a loving parent?

And yet the God you want me to accept is far worse. You believe in a particular deity and a particular doxology that pleases Him. All those unfortunate enough to be born where they didn’t hear of your deity, or didn’t hear of the specific doxology He approves, He is going to condemn to eternal horrendous torture because He, being omnipotent, set them up to fail. He plans to torture these children he “loves” for eternity for thought crimes. His ego is so huge he cannot stand anyone failing to worship him, even if he deliberately never gave them the chance.

How is this believable?

@KNOWITALL No, I argue because I believe that faith, meaning pretending to know things you can’t really know, is dangerous to the future existence of humanity, We live in a nuclear age and we have people from Judaism, Christianity and Islam all laboring to touch of Armageddon so they will be transported instantly to their version of heaven, and the rest of us can just be screwed. I want to resist that ideology, whatever faith it comes from. It id odious to me.

This short video captures it pretty well, @Hypocrisy_Central.

@ETpro I think what you find dangerous about it is beneficial in many ways. It’s unfortunate that you find it odious but in the end it matters not to me whatsoever. Peace.

@KNOWITALL Let me be clear. I did not mean I find having faith odious. It’s the faith driven people who are actively working to bring on an all-out nuclear war so they can instantly go to paradise and leave billions doomed. It’s their actions and thought process I find odious.

@ETpro Who are those people? I know some that dwell on Armageddon but none that actively work on it. Just curious what you’re talking about.

@ETpro The radio waves analogy has already been debunked, but to be clear, I believe in them because I can receive them with my radio. I can even generate them in a lab. I can calculate how they will propagate, and by golly, they do just as predicted.
This only works because you are seeing things in hindsight, if someone predicted radio waves existed before there were radios or a way to transmit them, those who did not believe they existed would be in error, because the radio waves would have still been there, they just would not have had a way to detect them.

Let’s get away from radio waves, Ferry Buildings and get to the crux of the biscuit; you used the radio waves to duck the question presented to you (or any other atheist who has the guts moxie to answer it truthfully)).

You happen to _somehow be on a vessel way up North. It takes on water for some reason, and is sinking. The lifeboat is found defective for some reason, so you can’t use it*. In about 20–35 minutes the ship is going under leaving you and the others bobbing in -15◦ Fahrenheit, with rescue at least 5 to 7 hours away. If you had the means to end your life before you froze to death (which may not be pleasant) would you, since you believe you will just cease to exist?_

Before you duck the question under ”I would never be in that position so I can’t answer”, let’s just say ANY situation where death is inevitable and suffering assured or a horrible, and/or violent death is the end. Are you going to prolong death to suffer days, weeks, or longer in a life you will not remember at point of death?

@KNOWITALL This conservative group’s page is pretty sensationalist, but they do tell the truth about the Rapture seeking Evangelicals and their cohorts in Israel and the Muslim world. If you’d like a far better source, read Michael Biagent’s Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World

@Hypocrisy_Central Radio waves were in our air long before we started making them. Stars make them. The sun emits them. They did exist, but nobody knew it. However, their existence was detectable, so a hypothesis that they existed would be falsifiable . The existence of a invisible, undetectable, metaphysical entity siting entirely outside spacetime is not only not detectable, a hypothesis that such an entity exists in not falsifiable.

Now, to the sinking ship question. I think I’d not end my life early. My understanding of death from freezing is that the discomfort is short lived, and it’s a relatively quick and painless way to die. I’d take my chances that’s true in hopes some rescue effort I am completely unaware of shows up in time. Imagine my disappointment it I took some lethal cocktail, and just before my eyes fell shut, I saw a boat with several Inuit fishermen approaching my stricken vessel ready to rescue any crew on board.

Let’s say it’s a cancer which has metastasized and I am in sever pain and certain I have weeks, perhaps even months to live but with ever increasing pain and I will soon be so incapacitated I couldn’t act to end the suffering if I tried. In that case, I would definitely end it. I have already collected the wherewithal—all quite legal—to carry this out if it becomes necessary, What does that have to do with my being an atheist?

Wreck

@ETpro I have already collected the wherewithal—all quite legal—to carry this out if it becomes necessary, What does that have to do with my being an atheist?
I think it has IMO everything to do with an atheist truly believing there is nothing beyond the here and now. If logically you know there is no other fishing boat, port, etc. that will arrive before the ship goes down, to sit there thinking that maybe, just maybe some miracle rescue will happen so rather than putting the barrel in the roof of your mouth and pulling the trigger, you would risk discomfort of freezing to death, no matter how quick, on a mathematical impossibility. The same way you would not pop yourself because you believe or hope, or imagine possible a rescue at the last minute is no difference than faith a believer has, however, a believer would not avoid suffering because we know what is on the other side of it. If you pull the trigger, even if you lingered an extra 90 seconds to see a fishing boat on the horizon, you won’t remember the regret, if any, long because you would die and not even remember what you done.

@Hypocrisy_Central When you can logically tell me what is going to happen an hour in the future, then I might believe it is possible to know. whether there is a fishing boat that will show up. I’ve given you the most honest answer I know how about perhaps the most intensely personal decision any human being will ever face, and you presume to debate me as if you know my inner workings better than I know myself. You don’t know what is on the other side any more than you know the inner workings of my mind. Enough of this silliness. I tire of talking to a tape recording.

@ETpro I’ve given you the most honest answer I know how about perhaps the most intensely personal decision any human being will ever face, and you presume to debate me as if you know my inner workings better than I know myself.
I am not trying to guess your inner thoughts, I would not do that….well, we will leave it at that. Since you are one of the die-hard quintessential atheist on this site I am trying to figure out why any atheist, (not just you) would be afraid of death to the point of suffering, even on a .001% chance of rescue when all the evidence (which atheist lauds) points against it? Even if one made the mistake of popping themselves in the head only to see a silhouette of a ship on the horizon, according to what atheist are saying, it won’t matter because you will no longer exist to know you could have waited. Why not follow the logic; too far from shore, all other vessels state that full steam they would not get there until hours after the vessel slips beneath the water, and you have no way to avoid bobbing in the water lime an apple in a barrel; where does a rescue seem remotely possible there? What reason would there be for any atheist, to deny the facts, enter a point of suffering rather than escape through inevitable death?

That is the underlying I would lo e to know.

@Hypocrisy_Central Why do you look both ways before you cross the street, if you’re going to heaven when you die anyway?

The discussion is centered upon the condition that one is cognizant at a moment of extreme peril. I suggest that one’s body is in command and that, even if conscious of the event, the executive functions, being too slow, are ineffective and are inhibited or ignored. In survival mode, one is past thoughts of God or anything. All the forces of the mind and body are focused upon one thing, living another moment.

@Hypocrisy_Central Try looking at it this way (although I will stress that this is definitely not the only reason): if we don’t believe that there is an afterlife, then an atheist’s only shot at existence is the one we’re experiencing right now. We don’t want this life to end, because it’s the only experience we ever get to have. So yes, we hang on to the lifeboat, or whatever. Because when it’s over, it’s really over. No second chances, no do-overs. This life, right now. We have to make it count.

@Seek_Kolinahr I’ll answer this one. A lot of theists believe God has a plan for our lives, basically a purpose to fulfill that we may not know, so it would be counterproductive for us to step in front of a car or otherwise be negligent with our lives.

I’ll take a stab at it: Just because I believe in heaven doesn’t mean I want to die now.

@KNOWITALL @jca

You guys aren’t the ones suggesting that all atheists commit suicide because we have nothing better to look forward to.

@Seek_Kolinahr That’s a horrible thing to say and I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t feel or say such a thing because every minute of your life is another opportunity to change your mind.

@KNOWITALL It’s been my experience that Christians don’t like to talk about the Old Testament’s endorsement of slavery; genocide; infanticide; ethnic cleansing; and brutal capital punishment for homosexual acts, adultery, apostasy, witchcraft, eating shellfish, and bad choices of meat. By the same token, they like to talk about Nice Jesus in the New Testament, but skip over the parts where Mean Jesus says in Matthew 5:17–18 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

I saw this conversation today that illustrates the Nice Jesus Yes / Mean Jesus NO! point.

Christian evangelist is CE and Atheist Respondent is AR.

CE; “Jesus said, ‘Peace on Earth!’ ” declared with a glowing smile.

AR; “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34.

CE, “You’re taking it out of context. declared with a disgusted glare.

Peace!

@ETpro I understand and Jesus does seem to be a dichotomy to some, as are most of us humans to some degree. The human experience is what His purpose was here to some degree as well.

Personally I think that all of us are capable of anger and righteous indignation at injustice as we perceive it. I believe that Jesus message was one of love and peace more than anything, but as with the moneylenders in the temple, I’m also not doubtful that He was more than capable of anger as well.

And that fig tree. Woo!

That Jesus had a violent temper. It’s one of the things I always liked about him.

@Seek_Kolinahr Me, too! ;) My favorite pic on fb is Jesus face with “Another hippie for peace.” and my pic is a smiling Jesus on mom’s wall and in my pics. I just see him differently than some people.

This is mine.

Nice, not sure he’d cuss, but other than that I completely agree- lol

Actually, because someone feels unloved and unwelcome, it puts me in the mind of Mary Magdalene and even Judas, when Jesus loved them regardless, even though Judas betrayed Him to His death. I do know some christians/ theists who feel the same, but some do feel a little uncomfortable with the Bible versus Jesus directives, like there is a conflict. Personally I don’t feel that conflict though.

He was a construction worker. Of course he’d curse.

What do you think he’d say when he hit his hand with a hammer? “Oh, my dad, that sure diddly-did smart!”

@Seek_Kolinahr I don’t know, but the son of God doesn’t cuss in my imagination..lol

I’ve said kooky things like “son of a buck snort” and all kinds of things to get away from cussing (I had a problem with it earlier in life.)

I don’t understand it.

You might have said “buck snort” but we all know you were thinking “Sonuvabitch, that hurt like a motherfucker”.

Who decided that cursing is a sin anyway? Where’s the scripture that says “thou shalt not say ‘fuck’?”

@Seek All I can do is repent for bad thoughts, but I don’t have to verbalize them, a small victory over my human fallibilities but still a victory- ha!

“Let not your mouth form the habit of swearing, or becoming too familiar with the Holy Name. ... one who swears continually by the Holy Name will not remain free from sin.” (Ecc/ Sirach 23:9).

@KNOWITALL I may be misreading it but that seems to be talking about taking God’s name in vain rather than saying something like “mother fucker”.

@Seek_Kolinahr, @KNOWITALL & @uberbatman Just observing the obvious here, but if being a mother fucker is a truly terrible thing, no woman would ever get pregnant more than once. So on average it would take two humans to make 1, and humanity would have a half life of say 20 to 50 generations before it self extinguished.

I always assumed “motherfucker” to be an insinuation of incest.

@Seek_Kolinahr Isn’t every woman who gives birth to a living child, by definition, a mother? What, then, is anyone who fucks her?

@ETpro I get what you’re saying, but when I call you a mother fucker I’m saying that you fuck YOUR mother, not A mother.

@ETpro I always assumed that the mother being fucked is in the same era as the bitch that people are sons of, so it’s a generation apart, making it different than any other lady.

@uberbatman @etpro I tend to think that trusting my own moral guideline between good and bad and we teach children that swearing of any kind is bad, thus any cussing and swearing to me is something we should be cognizant of when trying to improve ourselves. I’m better than that and anyone I converse with deserves more than that, imo.

I was going to post this, but then I thought people will say “JUST QUIT FOLLOWING! WE’RE STILL TALKING!!!” Because that’s what I would say. So I won’t post that picture and I will quit following! :)

@Seek_Kolinahr Why do you look both ways before you cross the street, if you’re going to heaven when you die anyway?
I would tell you but you are predisposed not to hear or believe any of it, so I guess I would be wasting the typing space trying to explain it.

@ETpro AR; “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34.
Could explain it but it will not sink in for those who are predisposed not to hear it or embrace it.

Please get with the Rock, before the Rock rolls over you.

Translation:

“I don’t have an intelligent answer, so I’m going to back away slowly and hope you don’t notice I’m avoiding you.”

Always devolves into snarky…...

^^ Translation:
“I don’t have an intelligent answer, so I’m going to back away slowly and hope you don’t notice I’m avoiding you.”
No……more like Translation: How does one tell someone the grass is green when they can’t fathom what grass is, or simply go out of their way to deny it? I can’t explain anything to anyone that doesn’t want to, or can’t acknowledge what I am trying to clear up for them.

That becomes unfruitful because goes nowhere.

It’s never stopped you from running your mouth before. Why stop now?

@Hypocrisy_Central Your ability to deliberately avoid the point and instead claim to rebut by deliberately failing to is on display once more. The comment in question did not even deal with the “translation” of the Bible’s English into your English. It dealt solely with taking things out of context, something you appear in your reply to excel at.

@ETpro Your ability to deliberately avoid the point and instead claim to rebut by deliberately failing to is on display once more.
There may be duck, dodge, and hiding going on, but it is not on my part that it is being done. You say show me the roots of the grass but refuse to believe the grass is grass, you want to believe it is green carpet, green painted floor, Astro turf, etc. anything but what it is. How can I even tell anyone something they are dead set against believing is probable? If there is one thing I have learned you can’t get a softball through a brick wall no matter how many times you throw it against it. The best people can do is figure out some quip they believe snappy a quaint then actually take the scales from your eyes and see something without a preset bias. You may quip a rebuttal now.

<insert joke about what the grass really is, and who might be doing what with it.>

@Hypocrisy_Central, I do not understand why you are trying so hard to get @ETpro to change his viewpoint. It is not as though you knew of something that would meet his criteria for scientifically demonstrating the existence of any kind of deity, much less Christian. As to existing bias, consider the mote and the beam (Mt:7:3). Perhaps you imagined that maybe one of the Fluthers following this question will see as you do, and so justify this prolonged and otherwise futile exercise. Unfortunately, I found nothing that could convince anyone that they should turn to or away from Christianity.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Independence arises and subsidies in quantum energy.” Don’t be jealous. You can get your very own just-as-cool deepity here.

@Bill1939 I do not understand why you are trying so hard to get @ETpro to change his viewpoint. It is not as though you knew of something that would meet his criteria for scientifically demonstrating the existence of any kind of deity, much less Christian.
I think my last comment made clear I have no expectation that he (or any of the rest) will see anything more than what they choose to see. It is equal to pinging a brick wall with softballs, eggs, ping pong balls, etc. with the idea of having the wall buckle. What I am trying to understand, with no answer that is not illogical or at-its-face hypocritical, is why would someone who know they are going to die, and die horrible will not take the logical act and end their life on their own terms; especially when they will not even know they checked out 20 minutes, 20 days, 20 weeks earlier than they would have if they did nothing. Once you are dead (as an atheist believes) you no longer exist; if you no longer exist, you will not remember anything about this life, so even if you popped yourself in the head, bit the cyanide pill, etc. only to see a rescue or possible rescue coming what is the lost? You won’t remember you jumped the gun early because you will no longer exist to ponder any mistake made. To hang around extra moments, days, etc. to avoid suffering before a death that is inevitable is not purely logical to me, and I thought that is what atheist were all about.

Maybe you have an answer to that I can at least half way hang a hat on?

This seems to be a variation of the Schrodinger cat in a box question. Does being a theist or an atheist make a difference when facing death? Is this what you are asking, @Hypocrisy_Central?

In the 1950’s movie “War of the Worlds” there is a scene where a Minister is walking towards a Martian machine firing death rays, fully confident in the power of the Cross he holds in front of him until zapped. I would imagine that someone with this degree of faith would endure horrific pain to their death waiting for a rescue that was never coming. But such people are rare.

As I said, four days ago, “In survival mode, one is past thoughts of God or anything. All the forces of the mind and body are focused upon one thing, living another moment.”

@Bill1939 In the 1950’s movie “War of the Worlds” there is a scene where a Minister is walking towards a Martian machine firing death rays, fully confident in the power of the Cross he holds in front of him until zapped. I would imagine that someone with this degree of faith would endure horrific pain to their death waiting for a rescue that was never coming. But such people are rare. In the 1950’s movie “War of the Worlds” there is a scene where a Minister is walking towards a Martian machine firing death rays, fully confident in the power of the Cross he holds in front of him until zapped. I would imagine that someone with this degree of faith would endure horrific pain to their death waiting for a rescue that was never coming. But such people are rare.
The way you end contends your one thought outcome; he is waiting for a rescue that is not coming. Once could see the mirror in that as the scene in the Towering Inferno where a man and woman are trapped, the phones down, the route to the elevator and stairs engulfed in flames. They know they are toast, yet the guy feebly tries to wet a towel or jacket and drape it over his head to make it out of there to help against impossible odds, only to burst into flames trying to get to the door. Then staggering like a flambé on legs to the window which he walks through in his dazed death throes. If he were an atheist, and he had some method to cap himself, and her, or bite the cyanide, why would he wait out those last few moments trying to hand on to a life he won’t remember once he dies a horrible death being burned alive?

As with the Bible toting priest if there was no God, he would not know he erred. If the person walked out of a window in flames or jumped from the Twin Towers to save getting burned alive if they were right in doing so, they would not know it, not even that they escape a horrible death, but they would not have to suffer through it. Even if you are never going to remember the suffering right before death, why do so if you don’t have to?

All the forces of the mind and body are focused upon one thing, living another moment.”
This says that humans are no better than animals who can’t fathom next year much less an hour from now.

Thanks for that answer though…...

We are animals. All animals have, as we do, a genetically established instinct for survival. That we have an intellectual ability that few if any other animals have, does not free us from our biological reality. We are not better than animals with lesser intelligence.

Is there anyone or anything that ever made you question your belief system? Does your family share your beliefs?

It was questioning my beliefs that led to my accepting theism. However it is my own brand of friendship with this creator as I believe all of us may choose.

How do you know she exists (yes, he’s not an it)? Simple, using scientific method of observation, theorizing, putting these ideas to the test. Observing how life around me alters with each successive experiment until, lo and behold, you {me} come to the only conclusions left available to you.

The atheists are right.
The agnostics are right.
Those who believe this creator exists are right.
The adherents to the Flying Spaghetti Monster are right.

We are all right, and we are alright. It is so easy peasy as to defy logic.

So finally, what do I want to ask an atheist? Easy.
How are you? Is life working out for you? That’s great. Have a nice day.

What would I ask a theist?
How are you? Is life working out for you? That’s great. Have a nice day.
And really, unless someone really is interested in knowing what I know about all this, then I certainly needn’t bother them with it. I surely don’t want to guilt anyone whichever way they believe {and their are theist who are so hopelessly lost in the brainwashing foisted upon them by organized religions per se that I shudder to spend time with them}.
But I will if I must.
I have actually out done visiting Jehovah’s witnesses with my particular brand of belief {personal friendship} and driven them from my abode to return nevermore.

Hi @Dan_Lyons Yes, contradictions and obvious illogic in my former belief system made me question it, and the answers I got made me abandon it. As an atheist, I do not have a belief system. Withholding belief in a deity till there is sufficient evidence of that deity’s existence to warrant belief is not more a theistic belief system than withholding belief in unicorns in the lack of evidence for them is a taxonomic belief system.

I definitely do believe in personal friendship, though. And to answer your question, I’m fine. I could use a bit more income, but I’m working on that. And thanks, I had a very nice day. I hope you had them same.

Best of tomorrows. as well.

Thanks @ETpro As a human being who is no longer co-dependent I find I am not at all concerned with what my fellow human beings do to make their way through this life to the portal out.

It is then when the adventure begins!

@Dan_Lyons That’s nicely New Age and all, but I cannot agree with your lack of concern with the direction of life. Not only do I hope to enjoy a decade or two more of freedom to explore life, the Universe and everything. I have had 3 children (one died shortly after giving birth to her first child) and I now have 11 grandchildren in 3 great grandchildren. I care a great deal about the world they inherit. And if the enemies of science and reason triumph, that world will be unlivable.