Re: what do y'all think?
 

Thanks, Steve. Once again, DNA has added a valuable insight to my life. Hereinafter, I will proudly call myself a radical atheist (the term 'radical' befitting my ever-growing beard).

Full ack.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Back from the land where the smell of horse-droppings is still mixed with exhaust fumes from camions...
http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...709f87e431.jpg

and where the winter dark is even darker, the wet is even more wet and the cold is creeping in to the bone from the very first centigrade below zero.
http://www.borndirty.org/forums/pict...&pictureid=107


Sorry if I´m a bit of topic but this is the only way for me to describe how I feel...

Last week we had a gathering at the concrete as well but not as pleasant as the gatherings at the National Theatre these days.
http://www.borndirty.org/forums/pict...&pictureid=106


Deep in contemplation I was sitting there and pondering about this opportune "What is God" question, while I was watching my father in that tiny wooden box. I was wondering if there was anybody on Earth who had a clue why we got the intellect to think about and searching for the meaning of our lives, if many of us have to depart this life without the answer anyway.
However, at some point I think I came to a conclusion that "God" must have been the universal synonym for the "Unknown" throughout the history of mankind. That this "Unknown", no matter how we try to explain everything around us, is still around, both in our spiritual and our scientific world. We name the unknown "God" and "Lord" or "N" (in mathematics) but names make people associate to different things so I guess this is the main reason for the conflicts between the fanatics. The ostrich-heads in the sand really need a major upgrade like a software in a computer, just as much as old scripts, like the Bible itself. I may be naive but I do believe one day we will find a general term/concept that fits everybody. We need to handle the "Unknown", things that is beyond the bounds of human knowledge, there is no doubt about that.

As a matter of curiosity, apropos of the "Unknown", while I was sitting and contemplating at my fathers funeral, I was totally unaware that a few hours later, during a dinner with relatives I haven´t seen in 30 years, I would find out that I´m actually a relative of one of the famous Hungarian poets, Kölcsey Ferenc, who also wrote the Hungarian national anthem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Kölcsey
What a coincidence, what a surprise and what an amazing timing! I mean is it Richard Dawkins memetics or genetics or the "unknown" that made me be interested in art, music and poetry so intensively during the last few years? The wonder is that none in my family ever was writing poems or was interested in literature or art so deeply so nobody ever told me about this until now, and I still can´t recall how or why I started to paint and write lyrics for a couple of years ago. Kinda 'Spooky Action At A Distance' eh? :)
And this is only one of the funny coincidences with an excellent timing among many others in my life. It´s like I have to pinch myself sometimes to be sure I´m not dreaming. Whatever power it is I have a deep respect for it but I´m still not religious, at least not that I know of.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I get what you're saying, but there is a difference regardless of how insignificant the semantics may sound on a superficial level. It's not that I "don't want to appear to have positive beliefs", it's that I actually DON'T have any positive beliefs associated with gods or religion. I choose to live my life and shape my philosophies around knowledge rather than beliefs. So the conclusions I have reached regarding gods and religion are informed conclusions.

Meanwhile, others out there may not be actively pursuing knowledge in regards to how the biological and social evolution of our species led to the advent of gods and religions, and as such, may very well reach their conclusions about god's non-existence based solely on a personal, unsupported belief about it.

Yes, in both cases, you have people who say god doesn't exist. But their philosophical approaches in reaching their conclusions are very, very different.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Before I start, I want to say to you bryant that I fully understand that it can look suspiciously as if some of us are being a bit sneaky or even dishonest about this question. That we want to profess one part of the definition of atheism but not be lumbered with the bit that supposedly implicates us as having a belief system. After all, faced with a firm positive belief that god does not exist, the theist (along with many who view themselves as an in-the-middle agnostic) would then be quite right to shift the responsibility for providing evidence onto atheism, which should then justifiably be treated as a rival belief system. And on that basis, you could quite reasonably attack it. But really and honestly, it's simply the case that I don't share your belief in god. I don't believe. I lack that belief. And that's it.

I'm going to try to minimize the use of category labels here, because I want to concentrate on this important distinction - between not believing in god and believing there is no god. If you get to the end of it and feel I'm an agnostic but not an atheist, then that's fine, that's up to you. I've already outlined in this thread why I consider my theistic position to be atheism rather than agnosticism (agnosticism is my gnostic position!), so I won't go back into the argument here except to say that it's one that can be debated separately. For now, I want to focus on the fundamental difference between the two positions you mentioned.

As Sean said, semantically the difference might seem minuscule, but in fact it's more than merely saying something different; it's actually meaning something different. The distinction between the two statements is crucial in terms of what the person is or is not assuming to know. It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:

(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.

Dealing with these one at a time:


(1) Defining 'believe'
My dictionary defines 'believe' as 'assume to know' or 'accept as true'. The difficulty is that in day-to-day usage, the word believe is often used in a weaker way - people sometimes use the word to indicate that they are merely 'fairly sure' of something. And unfortunately this can make all the difference to this argument. For example, when I say I don't believe god exists, I'm saying I don't assume to know that god exists. I lack the belief in god that you possess. I reject your hypothesis that god exists. However when I also reject the other hypothesis that 'god does not exist', that's because I don't assume to know that for certain either. I don't assume to have that knowledge. (And the reasons for that I'll explain a little later.)

The confusion arises because, despite not knowing for certain that 'he' does not exist, I live my life 'as if' god does not exist. Now some mistakenly assume that living as if there is no god and positively believing there is no god are the same thing. My view is that no human being can know for certain that there is no god. Yes I lead my life 'to all intents and purposes' as if there is no god, just as I lead my life to all intents and purposes as if there are no invisible unicorns or trans-dimensional devils. The reason I live 'as if' there is no god is because it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I refuse to believe in your Christian God only in the same way that I refuse to believe in Nagaraja, the Hindu snake god, or indeed in anything else the human mind can dream up. Only in that sense am I believing (assuming) that god doesn't exist - but to term it like that requires a much looser definition of the word believe than we normally employ, so we just need to be aware of that.

(2) The logical error
For the sake of dealing with this second point, let's settle on one definition of 'believe' - any one, it doesn't matter which - so that we can examine the logical error. Let's take the common definition of believe as 'assume to know'.

Essentially, we are dealing with two hypotheses, and their counterpart rejections:

Hypothesis 1: I believe god exists
(Rejection of hypothesis 1: I do not believe god exists)

Hypothesis 2: I believe god does not exist
(Rejection of hypothesis 2: I do not believe god does not exist)

As a theist, you would presumably accept hypothesis 1 and reject hypothesis 2.
Douglas Adams, quoted earlier, has effectively rejected hypothesis 1 but accepted hypothesis 2.
My position (and I think Sean's position) is that I reject both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.

Now I might well live my life as if god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I feel sufficiently qualified or knowledgable to posit for certain that god does not exist.

[contd...]

Re: what do y'all think?
 

So we reach the question: why might someone lack a belief in god, but not believe in a lack of god?

There are several possibilities.

One is that they might never have come across the concept of god before. Perhaps they're too young. Or perhaps they've been too isolated. Unlikely in this day and age, I know, but it's possible enough to demonstrate the logical error in assuming the two statements to be the same. Denial pre-supposes something to deny, and in this case, there would be nothing apparent to deny. Another possible reason is that a person might be undecided. In that case, they lack a belief in god. Again, never mind the category labels for now, whether or not you think this counts as agnosticism - just recognize that this person would lack a belief in god, without having a belief that 'god does not exist', so this is perfectly possible. A further one is that they may simply be indifferent to belief in god, for whatever reason. Or they might just think the idea of the supernatural absurd and the claims of the theist absurdly overspecific and presumptious. Again, no belief in god, and no firm belief in the non-existence of god. Just a lack of belief. In none of these cases is it necessary that the person positively believes or claims to know that god Does Not Exist.

My own reason for lacking a belief in god but not believing in a lack of god can be summed up in an argument that runs along this path...

1. It seems realistic to suppose that there are limitations to human comprehension.
2. We are not in a position to be able to say "this is all there is."
3. God is a human-posited Being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension.
4. If a realm beyond human comprehension exists, then by definition we cannot say or know anything about it.
5. We can say nothing about the non-existence of a god.

This by the way is pretty much how I'd have responded to Douglas Adams' atheist comments - a man who I otherwise greatly admire, but who I suspect, on this issue, allowed his over-enthusiastic defiance of/rebellion against religion to carry him into a more strident but intellectually shaky position than he might otherwise have adopted.

If you're not already bored to tears, this will finish you off ;) Those 5 points in more detail:

Point 1) It seems realistic to suppose there are limitations to human comprehension.
Brain capacity/cognitive ability is one thing. We will probably make great advances in this area in centuries to come, but for now it places a constraint on what we can know. However, irrespective of brain capacity, there are other limitations placed on us from living in the Universe in which we do. Some of these limitations - such as the physical constants, the speed of light, etc - may place a fundamental limit on what we're ever able to discover. But even if we were able to conquer those physical constraints, there are other factors that may place a fundamental limit on what we can ever comprehend. Being creatures of a very specific number of dimensions of time and space, it seems reasonable to me to think that, beyond a certain point, humankind is as destined to ignorance as the fictional characters of Flatland. Consequently.....

Point 2) We are not in a position to be able to say "this is all there is."
Yes this life may be all there is for humanity - this organic body, this brain-based personality and this strange attribute we call consciousness may be all there is for each of us for the few decades that we're lucky to be alive. Yes the observable Universe may or may not be all humankind can ever observe. But it does NOT follow that all the things we're capable of discovering or comprehending represent ALL of "everything" there is. Because, by definition, we would never know.

Point 3) God is a human-posited Being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension.
If we are defining god as the ultimate Being, as we usually are, he would have to encompass not just the realm that we can comprehend, but also the realm that we cannot - not so much in a different parallel realm, but rather in a greater more all-encompassing realm. Our inability to comprehend infinity tells us just how far beyond human comprehension such a Being must be. Generally, when we're talking about the concept of a god, we're talking about something and/or somewhere and/or some-(?) that we accept as being fundamentally beyond our ability to comprehend.

Point 4) If a realm beyond human comprehension exists, then by definition we cannot say or know anything about it.
Yep, the famous tautology. We cannot say what this aspect of reality contains, and we cannot say what it does not contain, because we are incapable of knowing anything about something that's being posited as being beyond human comprehension, including whether or not it even exists. The entire question is off the page.

Point 5) We can say nothing about the non-existence of a god.
Since we cannot know anything about the area beyond human comprehension, and since god is supposed to occupy such an area, we cannot possibly confirm his absence (nor his presence, but that's not the point of this particular argument).

As such:

- I label myself an atheist because I do not believe in God, I have no belief in God
- But nor do I have a belief that god 'does not exist' - because I feel that question cannot be answered by any of us.
- By placing the concept of god outside the realm of human comprehension and evidence, I am asserting that this hypothetical being is unknowable. By doing this, I am also an agnostic. Anyone else who places god outside this realm (which, I should think, is almost everyone in the modern world) will, by my reckoning, be similarly agnostic.

But as I say, category labels weren't the main point of this post. If you think I'm not a true atheist, then that's entirely up to you, but be aware that many people who share my position also call themselves atheists and refuse the narrow definition of atheism foisted on them by self-labelled agnostics and theists. The main point here was to elaborate on the specific nature of my position and to let you know what I am claiming and what I'm not.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Andrea - God as a synonym for "the unknown" is a good point, and the history of mankind - with an ever-retreating/less interacting God - makes that painfully apparent.

A nice claim to fame btw. Yes it could be genetics or memetics or coincidence - there's plenty there to choose from! Was your father particularly creative or musical?

Re: what do y'all think?
 

????

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Just curious in light of what Andrea mentioned about genetics/memetics.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

makes sense to me. i think the bigger difference, though, is whether you try to spread the belief that you do not believe in G-d, while believing other belief systems are incorrect, or you just accept it as your own personal non-belief, that is the biggest difference— if that's what you're trying to say, then i can see the difference. either way i don't think G-d really cares whether or not you believe in him as long as you don't hurt anyone else and work to better the world, but i can't really speak for G-d (no one can). i also don't really accept you defining G-d as a christian G-d, being that i'm not christian— but i think we have the same G-d no matter what religion you are, so i guess he could be a christian G-d, muslim G-d, jewish G-d, hindu G-d, whichever— it's like different ways to eat: hindu people don't eat beef and love curry, and i don't eat pork and love smoked salmon, but regardless we're getting the same proteins and carbohydrates that everyone else is getting.

but i'm getting off track. if your (non) belief system differs because you don't believe you have a hold on the truth, whereas dawkins thinks he does, i have infinite respect for you.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

In all honesty I rarely talk about religion in everyday life, let alone spread anything. I have family and friends who are religious and I have no desire to raise the issue with them. I would say something if I thought they were damaging themselves or others. But their comfort and happiness is more important to me than the particulars of an academic debate on religion. I don't think that's tip-toeing around the issue or being 'scared' to offend them; I think it's just consideration.

If they raise the issue themselves, then I might respond. But mostly I don't feel anything productive can be gained from a face to face religious debate. It's generally less effective than written debate anyway, because (a) emotional reactions are more instantaneous (b) the response time is shorter, and (c) some issues require lengthy elaboration and clarification that lend themselves better to written than verbal debate. So there's a difference between that kind of 'everyday life' scenario, and a platform specifically intended for debating, such as this one, where people are (generally) stepping up to debate, explore and challenge. Which brings up full circle to your original dilemma! In this respect, does a social network count as everyday life - or internet debate? It's a thorny one. Perhaps it ultimately depends on who's in your friends list.

The one truth I hold is that no-one who claims to hold the truth really holds the truth, apart from the person who declares that...
(and loop back to beginning of sentence)

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Oh no, not at all. Believe it or not, my father was a dental technician :)

I would like to add:
(3) or speaking a different language

Is "I believe X does not exist" grammatically correct? However I try to translate the two, "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists", to Swedish or Hungarian I get the same sentence. In both cases it starts with "I do not believe..."

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Being a dental technician probably involves a certain amount of creativity - certainly here in the UK, with our teeth. :D

I should think it's exactly the kind of subtlety that can be lost in translation very easily. If you're translating, probably the best starting point is to decide which object you want to be taken in the negative: I, or X (shown in bold below) then work from there.

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Um they are the same thing. . . if one does not believe x exists, what, then, do they believe? They believe that x does not exist.

Furthermore. . . if they were not equivalent, then the following would be reasonable. . .

"I do not believe x exists, yet I believe x exists."

You must admit that is foolish, no???

Back to your original contention. . ."I have no belief in God" is different from "I believe there is no God".

Consider the statements "I have no belief in God, yet I believe there is a God" and "I have belief in God, but I believe there is no God" . . . again both are foolish statements.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

So now you understand why this thing "being an Underworld fan" is actually running in my blood. :D
http://www.youtube.com/user/Underwor.../4/jUemgrazg-U

Language...
I don´t know if I ever gonna understand the difference you describe since the languages I speak on a decent level doesn´t have this subtlety in this case.
It´s just not my mindset. Here is another, less subtile example so you understand what I mean:
In Hungarian if you talk about a third person (she or he) it´s called "ö" ("ö" funnily enough means island in Swedish btw. :)) so whenever I get going and talking fast in Swedish about a third person I easily mix the "she said so and so…" or "hi said so and so…" even though I´m totally aware about the difference between the two. It´s just not my mindset to distinguish a male from a female when I´m talking about them in third person.

If you are talking about a third person who is unknown the Swedish s say "X and Y" and the Hungarians say "Y". Does "X" mean the same in English? …just curious.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

No they're not. . .

What's foolish is your if/then statement. It doesn't in any way follow.

Once again, two hypotheses, which can each be accepted or rejected:

1) God exists
[ACCEPT] I believe God exists.
[REJECT] I do not believe God exists.

2) God does not exist
[ACCEPT] I believe God does not exist.
[REJECT] I do not believe God does not exist.

Whereas when you say...

That's a contradiction because you're accepting - then immediately rejecting - the same hypothesis ('God exists'), though you're confusing it unnecessarily by wrapping it around a mere semantic difference - to believe, and to have a belief. (I've not claimed any meaningful difference between 'believing' and 'having a belief'.) So all you've really done is applied one negative to the subject without changing the hypothesis. And the result, inevitably, is a contradiction.

Ditto, just in reverse.

They can believe anything they like, as long as it's not that 'x exists'.

No they don't. That would be a different hypothesis. Does a person completely unfamiliar with the concept of x somehow "have a belief" that x does not exist? No of course not. Does a newborn baby believe that God does not exist? Or does s/he simply lack that particular belief? The same applies to anyone who is either undecided about God's existence or feels that, because the posited concept of God lies beyond human reach, then so presumably does the answer. Such people don't have a belief that God exists. But if they're undecided or they think the answer inherently unknowable, then they won't have a belief that God does NOT exist either.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

X is a lot more abstract in English. I really wish there was a gender-neutral word for when talking about a third person of unknown sex. It always ends up sounding either clumsy ("s/he", "(s)he", "he or she") or a bit wrong (the plural - "they").

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Let's first use proper english,

The clause "I have a belief that..." is considered poor grammar. This usage indicates the verb is "to have" and is called "passive construct" as it corrupts the conveyance of the subject's action-"to believe". Other common examples include statements of the sort "I made/took a decision" (I decided), "they took a vacation" (they vacationed) etc...

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply... has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe? Two states... you are in one or the other. Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.

I believe in God... am I without doubt? At times, no. As a matter of fact, sometimes I have great doubt.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

The grammatical difference between "believing in" and "having a belief in" is not what's at dispute here.

Then that alone proves the two statements do not mean the same thing. You are now forced to accept the axiom that not believing a claim does not mean making an alternate claim. And it's not only the infant to which this applies...

I remain unconvinced by the theists' hypothesis that God exists, so to answer your question directly, I do not believe. But that is not the same as declaring that "I believe God does not exist". It might mean that I assume or live my life 'as if' God does not exist, but that is different to a firm belief or assertion that 'God does not exist'. If you doubt that, go back to where I covered at length why I refuse to posit a lack of God despite lacking a belief in God.

Correct. But notice how you chose not to word it as: "the infant believes that God does not exist". Ask yourself why you chose not to word it that way...

Re: what do y'all think?
 

oh, even the Swedish language is missing a world for a third person with unknown sex so they have to say "she or he"
my question was if "X" means an unknown person/individual solely

Re: what do y'all think?
 

No, it can mean anything, not just a person. And when it's used for an unknown person, it's usually as part of an impersonal discussion such as when making a statement of logic. For instance, you would be very unlikely to hear a statement such as: "When X comes in, we will introduce them and then seat them at this table." We would just use 'the person' or 'the people' or be more specific - e.g. 'the guest'.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

The infant example most certainly does apply in that it starkly highlights the differences being discussed. You are right that the infant "does not believe in God". And that statement is far different from saying that the infant "believes there is no God". The infant holds no active beliefs on the subject at all since, as you pointed out, it has no knowledge of the concept.

Where you get off track is in assuming that simply because an adult is aware of the concept of "God", these clear differences no longer apply. Using myself as an example, I "do not believe in God". I've simply discarded the concept as statistically unlikely to the point of irrelevance based on the history of human knowledge as I understand it, and a complete lack of anything that could be considered scientific evidence to support it. Nothing in my reasoning requires an active "belief" on my part in the common, practical sense of the word. So to say that I "believe there is no God" is simply inaccurate, just as it is in the case of the infant example. I don't actively "believe there is no God" any more than I actively "believe there is no Easter Bunny", and yet I don't believe in either.

Now if I went beyond simply reaching a conclusion of unlikelihood based on history, statistics and evidence and started insisting that "I know for a fact that there is no God", then that would require belief on my part, and it would be accurate to say that "I believe there is no God". The leap from "exceedingly unlikely" to "definitive assertion" in this case is not based on any factual knowledge, so it inherently requires belief to make it.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Precisely. Being unfamiliar with the concept of God is only one reason why someone may lack a belief in God, though it's sufficient to debunk the argument that not believing a claim necessitates making an alternate claim.

Just a small point on this. The reason I don't believe in God is not just because of an absence of scientific evidence, but also (perhaps moreso) the likelihood that scientific evidence for such a Being might be fundamentally impossible. After all, if the commonly held notion of God is correct - that He/it is beyond human comprehension - then we should probably not be too surprised at the lack of scientific evidence available to humans!

Contrast this with, say, astrology. I don't believe in the claims of astrologers, not because there can be no evidence of astrology, but because there is no evidence. Unlike the notion of God, if there is truth to the claims of astrology, we would expect to be able to observe the evidence, to comprehend it, to measure it. The cause and the effect are safely within our observable Universe. With the posited concept of God however, that's not necessarily the case.

This isn't to say I disagree with you in the main point you're making, which is that you can simply "not believe" without necessarily positing anything more. It's just to pre-empt the possible counterargument to your reference to a lack of scientific evidence. When it comes to the concept of God, it's not (just) that there is no evidence, but that there probably can be no evidence (therefore no solid basis for positive belief either way, whether in something's presence or absence).

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Which is, of course, one of the most brilliant components in the invention of the concept of god-like beings.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Absolutely. In fact, the "unknowable" aspect of "God" is exactly why I maintain that there is a chance that he exists - albeit a minuscule chance from a reason-based outlook. And just to be clear, the absence of scientific evidence is only one part of what motivates my disbelief. More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Understood, and in the latter case, very understandable. Those moments when we're confronted with death and suffering are the only times that even a staunch atheist like me comes close to praying - more out of sheer human desperation and distress than anything. I suppose it's akin to grabbing at whatever passing branch you can. And obviously in the times when most of us are lucky enough not to be immediately confronted with these things, there's the permanent, almost unbearable prospect of a great looming void awaiting us all. But hey - way too heavy a subject for a Saturday morning. :D

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

The killer feature.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

In, like, slang, or like for real?*


(Damn, is it just me or do I sound like a valley girl?)

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Slang, and, like.... yeah you sooooo do (like)...

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Stop laughing motherfucker......you will never have that permission.....I already go by that name, it's MINE!:mad:



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MkqlcytX57...goose+5316.jpg






http://kaybee.mlblogs.com/easter%20cross.jpg

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

i don't regard it as a concept and i think it's misguided to call it a concept, but nonetheless. in practicality, though, think about it: if everyone had proof G-d existed, no one would be afraid to die, everyone would be asking him for everything, and life would be utterly pointless.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

If only I were able to code that into an app...

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Religion is for the weak. God doesn't exist.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

I would think people might still be uneasy about whether they'd be going to heaven or hell, no?

And could you expand on why you feel that "life would be utterly pointless" if everyone had proof that God existed?

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

well, i'm jewish, i don't really believe in hell. the general consensus among jews is that virtually everyone goes to gehenna, which is sort of like a temporary hell, so that they can learn all the things they did to people during their lives and learn from their mistakes. afterwards several things can happen, one of which is reincarnation and the other is going to heaven.

i think if everyone knew G-d existed, the purpose of this life, which is to learn right from wrong and to help other people, and whatnot, our values would be totally different. if everyone knew there was a G-d, they would say, "why doesn't he help the poor/sick/etc.?" or "it doesn't matter, i'm going to live forever anyway". all questions, inquiries, conflict, etc. would all be directed towards G-d to get him to solve all of our problems, and we wouldn't learn anything from each other or have any purpose in anything you do— why work all your life, find a husband/wife, become president, anything when you know that what awaits you afterwards is going to be better and in comparison this life is pointless?

but of course, this life isn't pointless— but some people have reached that extreme even without absolute proof. for example, the extremist muslims in al qaeda believe that suicide bombing is okay because they're all going to heaven and they do not value human life because of this view.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

I think every human more or less knows what's right and what's wrong. We're just too lazy and egoistic to follow that knowledge. The odd sadist or egocentric might even find enjoyment in doing the opposite of what is considered appropriate.

If we had proof of god-like beings and heavenly afterlife, and if your assumptions of the results were correct, wouldn't it be the easiest and holiest path to kill yourself once you were enlightened and sufficiently brave? Consequently, we wouldn't have to worry about pointless lives down here on Earth for long.

I've always wondered if anyone could be that much of a believer. I mean, all this stuff about martyrdom, eternal life, a bunch of eager-to-please virgins etc. - just for blowing yourself to pieces, accompanied by the correct, sacred state of mind? I suspect there are more mundane motives behind this extremism, such as desperation, hate, or blindly following megalomaniac, charismatic, evil nutheads.

(Please excuse the heavy use of clichees.)

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

I guess my biggest question in response to this would be if faith in a god as it currently exists shares similar shortcomings. As you pointed out, there are suicide bombers who kill themselves and others because they're certain based on their faith that they'll be off to an afterlife filled with virgins. There are Christians who already ask why God doesn't help the poor/sick/etc. There are countless people who depend on prayer to solve their problems, and who attribute their successes and failures to God's response to their prayers. And how do people with extremely strong convictions about their faith today motivate themselves to do anything when the promise of the afterlife is so much better than their mortal life?

In short, what you described is a partial list of problems that I already have with religion in general, even when it's based on faith and not conclusive knowledge. I'm a little confused as to how these would be significant problems with conclusive evidence of God, but they're not problems now even though they already exist based on faith.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

Afetrlife? Is there a beforelife too? What is the meaning with the real life if the meaning is to live it before or after? I don´t understand...

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

This a very long and interesting thread. The one thing about it is that when these kinds of discussions ensue there usually is no clear definition of the concept of God. So, everyone reading this can have their own idea of this concept and it be different to everyone elses.

Therefor you can have people saying that they don't beleive in God, but that is based on a Biblical/Christian definition of God. And I have found most atheists come from this type of background. It seems that most people who denounce the concept of God come from Europe or the US, and these were the heartlands of Christianity.

So, perhaps, that speaks more about the religion of Christianity and how it defines God, rather than the existence of God in a general stance.

Re: what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

that was sort of my whole point in discussing it with the person i did at the beginning of the thread. christianity draws a lot from roman/greek mythology in that there is a lack of forgiveness at the end of life, and everyone who doesn't do what G-d wants will go to hell and have no second chance, burn for eternity, etc. and it paints G-d as an unforgiving character. that's kind of how i see christianity, it's not really judaism plus jesus, it's more than that— and i think it's mostly to do with the theologists that came after jesus such as paul and many of the european theologists, they took judaism, put jesus in, and then added an evil anti-G-d (satan) to kind of push everyone into doing what they wanted, and proclaimed that G-d was a non-forgiving character who would send you to hell if you didn't exactly do everything the catholic church proscribed.