NationStates Jolt Archive

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me."
-Psalms 23:4

Overcoming fear of death, in my opinion, is the most important goal of every human being's life, even more important than learning how to live. Because being afraid of death makes any virtuous or purposeful life meaningless. To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair. This is why, I believe, atheism is the religion for the young, who will not face death for years, and the eccentric, who can, despite logic and reason, face death as an end without fear. But atheism is not a belief I would ascribe to and religious belief should certainly be encouraged by non-political authorities.

"Life is suffering."
-Siddarth Gautama (The Buddha), 6th Century B.C.E.

Life is suffering. Because all pleasures are temporary, most pleasures are short-lasting, all pleasures must be sought through struggle, pain is often inevitable, pain is easy to come by, and difficult to overcome. There is a Ba'hai proverb, "The only thing a man owns is his tomb." Being that the opposite of suffering is lack of suffering, and the opposite of life is death, how can death be anything but permanent bliss?

The philosopher, Socrates, once remarked that we do not know with certainty what comes after death. So, to fear it would be foolish. And, even if you assume, based on empirical evidence for a blissful afterlife, refusing to rely upon rhetorical evidence alone: Accepting that "life" is merely the culmination matter and energy coming together in a certain way, that time and space are infinite (all of which are indisputable or generally-accepted theory), then even if one dies, the matter and energy will divide, but one day possibly forming a new life, billions of years in the future. It would possibly also be in a new universe if the universe collapses on itself before that point, forming a "new" universe, according to the "breathing in and out of the Gods" in Hindu theology.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists. Furthermore, unless you are the type of obscure, unusual, idiosyncratic person who is the rare minority, atheism leads merely to disillusionment and despair, so even with equal evidence, believing in the afterlife and God is superior to atheism. Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.

However, not fearing death is not to say that we should not value life or seek to keep it. And, as Socrates also said, not life, but good life should be chiefly valued. We should seek to live good, long, prosperous lives, and dying with nobility, peacefuless, and dignity. Not fearing death does not equate with desiring it, like the vikings in history or current Muslims who see death as life's single goal than as just the last rite-of-passage. Because not valuing one's life does not merely reflect upon this physical reality, but upon your transcendental existence as a whole; your "soul." With an afterlife, your personality and developed behaviors here carry over to the next. With reincarnation, the butterfly effect of positive or negative actions also carry over, like waves through water, from one life to the next. So, to not value good life is to not value existence, and fearing death is the same as fearing life. Because death is life!

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Exchange "God" with "afterlife," and there you have your whole statement.

Furthermore, unless you are the type of obscure, unusual, idiosyncratic person who is the rare minority, atheism leads merely to disillusionment and despair, so even with equal evidence, believing in the afterlife and God is superior to atheism. Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.

Pascal's wager is flawed. (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html)

The third objection targets the inference from the fifth and sixth premises to the conclusion. It is the objection that we cannot choose our beliefs. We form our beliefs on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of desire. No matter how much one may want to believe that a given proposition is true, one cannot bring oneself to do so simply through an act of will. Rather, in order for one to come to believe that a proposition is true one requires evidence for its truth. Pascal’s Wager, though, merely prescribes belief in God; it does not provide any evidence that such a belief would be true. As such, it asks us to do the impossible: to believe without reason.

This goes back to your first statement, i.e. believing without reason.

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Exchange "God" with "afterlife," and there you have your whole statement.
(1) I DO believe God doesn't exist! I DO believe God doesn't exist! I DO, DO, DO believe God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, all arguments for God's existence are flawed, and the burden of proof is on the generally-accepted majority, rather than the skeptical minority.


Pascal's wager is flawed. (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html)
In its original form, yes. That's why I mentioned there's no proof that one religion is superior to another. Pascal's wager originally only applied to a world with Christianity as the only religion, without polytheism, reincarnation, or non-vindictive Gods.

However, there is a benefit from believing in and practicing what is the truth. Applying Pascal's wager to religion (as a whole) demonstrates that the idea is still practical, but merely needed to be refined.

There are four possibilities:
Religion is true and I believe in it (+)
There is the possible benefit of not facing a vindictive God, but at least the benefit of having known and practiced the truth, such as Chinese doctors who used ginseng before its medicinal properties were proven.

Religion is false and I believe in it (0)
No change, as there's no chance for vindiction, and after death, there no ultimate consequences.

Religion is true and I don't believe in it (-)
There is the possibility of facing a vindictive God and the consequence of having wasted your life believing a falsehood. This is not comparable to religion, however, as religion brings hope (which is why it is often motivated by hope). Studies show religiousness improves a person, in almost every imaginable way, emotionally, mentally, and physically.

Religion is false and I don't believe in it (0)
No consequence at all, as you believed what was true, but after death, there is no consequence or benefit.

Judging from that, there is the possible benefit from believing in religion, but not believing in religion brings either no consequences or negative consequences. So, even though Pascal's original wager did not work, attacking that primitive argument would be a straw man, when faced with a more refined theory.

The third objection targets the inference from the fifth and sixth premises to the conclusion. It is the objection that we cannot choose our beliefs. We form our beliefs on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of desire. No matter how much one may want to believe that a given proposition is true, one cannot bring oneself to do so simply through an act of will. Rather, in order for one to come to believe that a proposition is true one requires evidence for its truth. Pascal’s Wager, though, merely prescribes belief in God; it does not provide any evidence that such a belief would be true. As such, it asks us to do the impossible: to believe without reason.

This goes back to your first statement, i.e. believing without reason.
Atheists believe "depressing logic with no evidence" holds greater value than "hopeful logic with no evidence."

If there is indisputable proof God that does or does not exist, then I ask: What is it? We have not explored the majority of the sea floor, we have not explored the majority of space, we can only study what we can observe (making it impossible for us to study "the entire universe"), we cannot travel back and forth in time, we do not know with certainty if there is a particle truly "smallest", we do not truly know the magnitude of time and space, we do not know if infinity can actually exist, our instruments and methods for measuring the electromagnetic spectrum are limited, our capabilities for logical analysis and data collection are limited, we are hard-wired to be inherently biased, we do not really know how human consciousness works, and we do not truly know why people are religious.

So, what is this "evidence" that atheists claim to have? They claim non-belief should be accepted before belief, without proof. Yet we've got this popular theory, supported by rationalist evidence. So, despite the lack of empirical evidence, it should be (and somewhat is) regarded as true, until disproven. And the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the skeptics and accusers, not the majority, with the popular theory.

Atheists believe "depressing logic with no evidence" holds greater value than "hopeful logic with no evidence."


What is depressing to you is not depressing to all of us … introducing god into a hypothesis is introducing an un falsifiable factor. It is non scientific so we prefer not to do so if there is an explanation that does not require thus for stated premise.

(at least us true atheists/agnostics … rather then anti-theists (or sometimes referred to as “hard” atheists))

Not all of us claim to have evidence of no god we just prefer not to make the leap without way more evidence then has so far been presented to us

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me."
-Psalms 23:4

Ah ... one of the most homoerotic passages in tehillin (that's the psalms to you goyisher types) ... thy rod and staff ... yowza!

Honestly I find it more plausible that a bunch of drunk 20 year olds from the far far future have hijacked their daddy's time machine and are the cause of all religion today.

Religion holds no value for me. I see absolutely no reason for believing in anything what so ever. Saying "Blah blah blah, therefore the burden of evidence lies with the atheists" is bollox. You can't argue that way.

If I tell you I had a revelation and will now procede to found a new religion, would you think you were the one who had to prove me wrong? I wager you'd advice me to find a good psychiatrist, and otherwise completely ignore my dribble. If you think atheists regard religion much differently than that, you're sorely mistaking.

Pascal's Wager is an amusing little concept. Reformulating the original wager to fit with my revelation and censequent founding of a new faith is also amusing. Expanding it to encompas all religion is probably the most amusing thing one can do, because it raises some important questions you have to resolve before it can even be considered.
But then, logic defying thought experiments are almost always quite amusing.

Fear of death... Why would anyone be scared of it? Unlike most religions, atheists doesn't need to write a book to convince themselves not to commit suicide, because there's a "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow". We're quite certain being dead is being dead. Ceacing to exist. That doesn't make the prospect scary, it's just an incentive not to fuck up our lives. To live our dreams and persue love and happiness above all else. Religion is counterproductive to human happiness in comparison.
But no, why'd any sane person be afraid to die? We all will at some point. There's no reason to fear it. Focusing on dying prevents people from being happy, and since this is the one chance any of us have, it would be a crime to waste it. Personally I look forward to being content but tired of life. Lying on my deathbed, looking back, and knowing I got what I wanted. Man I'll be so damn proud on my dying day, I'll shine.

"Atheists believe "depressing logic with no evidence" holds greater value than "hopeful logic with no evidence."".

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Where do logic figure into this? Religion's trademark is being a logic defying, baseless claim. There's no depressing anything. If religion qualified as worth being considered, then everyone would.

"If there is indisputable proof God that does or does not exist".

See this is what I'm talking about. If there's undisputable proof for or against life in (insert name of a different galaxy), I ask you to show it to me.
It's the fallacy from above. Why would anyone even consider the claim I just made? None of us can prove it either way, and chances are we'll never be able to. Does that make it valid to consider there's life in XXX galaxy? In particular, does it warrent us falling to our knees in worthship?

Religion is a mindfuck. Believe it if you want, but untill you start making sense, please don't bash us for not giving a toss.

Ah ... one of the most homoerotic passages in tehillin (that's the psalms to you goyisher types) ... thy rod and staff ... yowza!
mmmmm homoeroticlicous

I do not fear death because there is nothing one can do to ultimately avoid it. It will come to everyone, in time, so the key is to live well, laugh well, and love well till it claims you.

I agree that there is a God, but I don't think it's justifiable simply because it's "the oldest and most commonly-accepted theory"! There is evidence of God, all over the place. If there were not any evidence of God (which is not the case, but which most people believe apparently) I suppose I'd rather not believe in any religion so that I could go through life with a clear conscience, doing whatever I wanted with no consequences. Of course that's not what I believe, but that is why most people choose to not even look into the subject. Giving people a God makes them subject to God's laws and they'd rather not face that. But of course truth is truth no matter what you choose to believe...

I do not fear death because there is nothing one can do to ultimately avoid it. It will come to everyone, in time, so the key is to live well, laugh well, and love well till it claims you.
*gives you a big kiss* absolutly!

BTW did anyone else hear "dont fear the reaper" in their head while looking at this thread? I sure did (WE NEED MORE COWBELL!!)

(1) I DO believe God doesn't exist! I DO believe God doesn't exist! I DO, DO, DO believe God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, all arguments for God's existence are flawed, and the burden of proof is on the generally-accepted majority, rather than the skeptical minority.
There is no proof of non-existence, thats why the burden of proof lies with the one claiming existence. See criminal cases, WMDs in Iraq etc.

There are four possibilities:
Religion is true and I believe in it (+)
There is the possible benefit of not facing a vindictive God, but at least the benefit of having known and practiced the truth, such as Chinese doctors who used ginseng before its medicinal properties were proven.

Religion is false and I believe in it (0)
No change, as there's no chance for vindiction, and after death, there no ultimate consequences.

Religion is true and I don't believe in it (-)
There is the possibility of facing a vindictive God and the consequence of having wasted your life believing a falsehood. This is not comparable to religion, however, as religion brings hope (which is why it is often motivated by hope). Studies show religiousness improves a person, in almost every imaginable way, emotionally, mentally, and physically.

Religion is false and I don't believe in it (0)
No consequence at all, as you believed what was true, but after death, there is no consequence or benefit.

Wrong. You forget that almost every single different religion says "You can only believe in me." Which one of the vast numbers of different religions is correct? What if you believe in Allah, but it turns out to be Jehovah? Both of those say you can't believe in the other one. There are more negative posibilties than positives.

Pascal's Wager is incomplete and contradictory in a number of ways. The first thing I'd say is that anyone who lives their life based on what it says is not doing so because they feel that is how they should behave, but because they fear the consequences if they don't. This is not virtue; this is simply selfishness, trying to get into God's good books because they feel they will be rewarded in the end. I believe we should treat one another as the Bible tells us, but belief in God and therefore in His 'reward scheme' cheapens this sentiment and makes it meaningless. If you ARE following His will simply to obtain a spot in Heaven, I think He knows all about that and has very different plans for you.

Secondly, theists are all too willing to gloss over the other side of Pascal's Wager: what if you choose to follow the wrong God? How many religions are there in the world, what chance is there REALLY of choosing the correct one? If you follow the wrong God all your life, it may be WORSE than not believing in Him - at least with the latter option you haven't done anything to anger him.

I don't try to decide whether or not God exists, because it's ridiculous to attempt to argue either way. We have no ACTUAL evidence that He exists, only what we derive from speculation - somebody comes up with an axiom such as 'beauty and complexity cannot occur by chance' and therefore the world is proof of God's existence. Not true, I'm afraid; perhaps it was God's doing, but there is no reason to assume your initial assumption was correct, and that's what all these theological arguments do: begin with something somebody made up, and THEN follow a series of logical steps to come to the conclusion you want. Atheists pick these arguments apart and show why they don't work, but then they take it too far and act as though this proves the non-existence of God. It doesn't, it only proves that God's existence can't be proven. There is no way to disprove God entirely, because by definition He lives outside of our physical realm, and therefore no observation we make can be certain to tell the whole story.

One little gripe I have is that people seem to assume atheists or agnostics are depressing little people with nothing to look forward to; this is really not true at all, and goes to show how small-minded certain theists can be. Atheists are happy to enjoy life without hoping for something to come after it, and as they don't believe in God they are free to make their own decisions rather than have their morals spoon-fed to them with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't adopt them. They are more open-minded with scientific advances and discoveries that can potenitally benefit society, and are able to deliberate them logically, rather than simply dismissing a topic as 'ungodly' like so many theists, who would have humanity suffer rather than disobey the strict teachings of the Bible on gene technology (I hear it's mentioned somewhere, at the back perhaps).

I don't believe in an afterlife, but I'm not scared, or in despair. Once I'm dead, I won't care anyway.
So all I do is live as well as I can...

There are three major flaws that I can think of with Pascal's argument, and they're gaping ones.

First, it relies on the idea that people are, and should be, religious purely for selfish reasons. If that's what religion is according to him, I want no part of it.

Second, you can't force yourself to believe. You either do, or you don't. Mimicking religious rituals without faith would be absurd. I've thought the matter of God's existence through long and hard, and come to the conclusion that the idea of a god makes no sense.

Third, if there were a God, then he would be a truly mean-spirited bastard for casting people into eternal suffering simply for not worshipping him or not believing in him. Again, that kind of religion is something I would want no part of. And if I wake up after death and find myself in Hell, I'll at least have the ever-lasting satisfaction of knowing that I'm a far better person than God is.

Third, if there were a God, then he would be a truly mean-spirited bastard for casting people into eternal suffering simply for not worshipping him or not believing in him. Again, that kind of religion is something I would want no part of. And if I wake up after death and find myself in Hell, I'll at least have the ever-lasting satisfaction of knowing that I'm a far better person than God is.
Can I get an Amen? :p

I read God & the State by Bakunin some years ago. A great deal of it is about this exact thing. And honestly, I find it absurd that people would seek to appease such a being.
Some people will say "But you owe it your life", to which I can only say "If the point of my existence is to be tortured for all eternity, I would much rather not live at all".

The three major monotheisms are quite hopless in this respect. Basically they damn people to hell unless we willingly submit to the divine dictatorship. And they maintain we have free will. Unless such a being is evil incarnate, I can't follow the logic. So if there should happen to be such a thing, I'll spit in it's face all the way to hell. I'll not bow down to any evil oppressor. No guts. no glory.

*snip*

Don't you think it's exaggerated and nihilistic to say life is suffering? It's also wrong to say that life would be worth nothing and 'death is life'. That idea is also the base for religious dictatorships and suicide bombers... :mad:

Don't you think it's exaggerated and nihilistic to say life is suffering? It's also wrong to say that life would be worth nothing and 'death is life'. That idea is also the base for religious dictatorships and suicide bombers... :mad:
And basically the reason why the major monotheisms are forced to tell their followers that suicide leads to eternal damnation.
I mean, no sane believer (don't laugh!) would go on living, if they could kill themselves and go to heaven.

*goes away muttering about Jim Jones*

i think that if you think of death as the end, the END end, then you know you've got only X amount of time on the planet, and you can pretty much get away with whatever you want. you can run the most risks, have the most fun, because you don't have to fear retribution.

being young and an atheist i doubt that i will change when i am older, cause religion seems like a bunch of bs to me anyways.

i consider life to be a bit like being a furbie (if you know what those are) once your batteries (consciousness, i don't believe in souls) run out, thats it. maybe something will come around and eat your body (not furbies ... mmm plastic :p ) and get some energy for their own battery from you.

Thats ridiculous, just because I am an atheist doesnt mean I fear death. The fact that I do not believe there is anything after life means I have no fear of what is coming. In your belief you could end up in heaven which is an eternal bliss which makes no sense, or you could suffer for eternity. You are the ones that have something to fear.

Also are you suggesting atheism is immature? That to be taken in by the baseless lies of religion is mature? Ill believe in religion as soon as I believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy as they all are equally likely.

Your topic title is wrong, you do fear death, which is the very reason you fear atheism. I rest my case

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me."
-Psalms 23:4

Overcoming fear of death, in my opinion, is the most important goal of every human being's life, even more important than learning how to live. Because being afraid of death makes any virtuous or purposeful life meaningless. To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair. This is why, I believe, atheism is the religion for the young, who will not face death for years, and the eccentric, who can, despite logic and reason, face death as an end without fear. But atheism is not a belief I would ascribe to and religious belief should certainly be encouraged by non-political authorities.

"Life is suffering."
-Siddarth Gautama (The Buddha), 6th Century B.C.E.

Life is suffering. Because all pleasures are temporary, most pleasures are short-lasting, all pleasures must be sought through struggle, pain is often inevitable, pain is easy to come by, and difficult to overcome. There is a Ba'hai proverb, "The only thing a man owns is his tomb." Being that the opposite of suffering is lack of suffering, and the opposite of life is death, how can death be anything but permanent bliss?

The philosopher, Socrates, once remarked that we do not know with certainty what comes after death. So, to fear it would be foolish. And, even if you assume, based on empirical evidence for a blissful afterlife, refusing to rely upon rhetorical evidence alone: Accepting that "life" is merely the culmination matter and energy coming together in a certain way, that time and space are infinite (all of which are indisputable or generally-accepted theory), then even if one dies, the matter and energy will divide, but one day possibly forming a new life, billions of years in the future. It would possibly also be in a new universe if the universe collapses on itself before that point, forming a "new" universe, according to the "breathing in and out of the Gods" in Hindu theology.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists. Furthermore, unless you are the type of obscure, unusual, idiosyncratic person who is the rare minority, atheism leads merely to disillusionment and despair, so even with equal evidence, believing in the afterlife and God is superior to atheism. Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.

However, not fearing death is not to say that we should not value life or seek to keep it. And, as Socrates also said, not life, but good life should be chiefly valued. We should seek to live good, long, prosperous lives, and dying with nobility, peacefuless, and dignity. Not fearing death does not equate with desiring it, like the vikings in history or current Muslims who see death as life's single goal than as just the last rite-of-passage. Because not valuing one's life does not merely reflect upon this physical reality, but upon your transcendental existence as a whole; your "soul." With an afterlife, your personality and developed behaviors here carry over to the next. With reincarnation, the butterfly effect of positive or negative actions also carry over, like waves through water, from one life to the next. So, to not value good life is to not value existence, and fearing death is the same as fearing life. Because death is life!

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll probably not make any very good arguments, but I'm going to respond to this anyway.

You're making unfounded assumptions about non believers. I am an Agnostic, and am inclined to think that death probably is the just the end, with nothing to come after (I don't know for sure, I just think so). However, that thought doesn't fill me with fear or despair either.

I think I agree with Epicurus: there's no reason to fear death because you aren't harmed by it. Once you're dead there's no one to be harmed. Of course that I don't think we *need* to fear death doesn't mean I don't. It's an instinct.

'The philosopher, Socrates, once remarked that we do not know with certainty what comes after death. So, to fear it would be foolish. '

On the contrary, in general, I think it's perfectly natural to fear the unknown. In some cases it's even the sensible thing to do.

Ihatevacations']Your topic title is wrong, you do fear death, which is the very reason you fear atheism. I rest my case
Exactly he fears ultimate death so he has to believe in an afterlife … the ultimate avoidance of death

He is afraid of it so he chooses a belief system where he can avoid ultimate death (at least in his mind)
I am not saying he is right or wrong but it defiantly made an effect in his decision

i think that if you think of death as the end, the END end, then you know you've got only X amount of time on the planet, and you can pretty much get away with whatever you want. you can run the most risks, have the most fun, because you don't have to fear retribution.This I don't understand at all. All can do whatever they please without retribution? I'd love to live where you live.

One of the primary reasons we have societies is to protect ourselves and eachother. We actively hunt down and harm people who present a threat to us.

If divine retribution was the only punishment, I'm dead certain we'd see an explosion in all sorts of crime. If you agree - and I'm fairly sure you all do - it raises a question.

Does people believe a social convention, or the divine?

Religion is true and I believe in it[/b] (+)
There is the possible benefit of not facing a vindictive God, but at least the benefit of having known and practiced the truth, such as Chinese doctors who used ginseng before its medicinal properties were proven.

Religion is false and I believe in it (0)
No change, as there's no chance for vindiction, and after death, there no ultimate consequences.

Religion is true and I don't believe in it (-)

.

What about 'I don't think we can know one way or the other whether any given religion is true or false so I don't know what to believe in'?

Yet another pointless thread. Oh the irony.

Yet another pointless thread. Oh the irony.
And you add to it by pointless whining about it? Oh how ironic :rolleyes:

What if you believe in Allah, but it turns out to be Jehovah? Both of those say you can't believe in the other one.Aren't they the same?

Ack yes - Pointless thread.

Forget about death, stop fearing life. Rather than clinging to religious beliefs to gain some sort of security about the value of your life [i.e. negating the value because none of it will matter in your after life], realise that this may be your only shot at existence and don't waste a second of it fearing death. Live well and embrace death as the culmination of your life once it's over.

The best argument an Atheist ever gave me was:

"I believe I'll live forever through my children and children's children."

Heck, why not. Conscience is lost, but parts of your essence is preserved for as long as there are humans. Makes you wish to clean the environment, just to be sure humanity will keep on going and going and...

The best argument an Atheist ever gave me was:

"I believe I'll live forever through my children and children's children."

Heck, why not. Conscience is lost, but parts of your essence is preserved for as long as there are humans. Makes you wish to clean the environment, just to be sure humanity will keep on going and going and...
And the beautiful part is it stays within the observably possible

And the beautiful part is it stays within the observably possible
Yes, and even though this argument can give some optimism about the purpose of life to Atheists, it is perfectly compatible with Christian views.

Furthermore:
1) What lives forever in one's descendency is not only biological; it's also the moral values and the teachings.
2) It requires humility, beause in the process, consciousness is lost (or: the self, the identity)
3) While the Bible insists more on the "Love your parents" part, this belief turns it around as "Love your children". These 2 teachings complement each other quite nicely.
4) It's a good incentive to make the world a better place.

Sorry for the bit of thread jacking here, but seeing how this thread has to do with fear of atheism (at least on the original posters view point) is there an actual name for the phobia for atheism like arachnophobia ect?

Sorry for the bit of thread jacking here, but seeing how this thread has to do with fear of atheism (at least on the original posters view point) is there an actual name for the phobia for atheism like arachnophobia ect?
Since "theophobia" is the irrational fear of God, fearing the absence of a god would be something like "atheophobia". It's not fear of Atheism, though. It's fear that there might be no god, or fear of the consequences of a universe without a god.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists.

As we generally believe there is no afterlife and the only life we'll get is the one we're currently living then why should we waste the one life we have trying to prove you're wrong?

Come to think of it, why am I wasting my life now typing this? ARGH!!! :headbang:

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me."
-Psalms 23:4

Overcoming fear of death, in my opinion, is the most important goal of every human being's life, even more important than learning how to live. Because being afraid of death makes any virtuous or purposeful life meaningless. To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair. This is why, I believe, atheism is the religion for the young, who will not face death for years, and the eccentric, who can, despite logic and reason, face death as an end without fear. But atheism is not a belief I would ascribe to and religious belief should certainly be encouraged by non-political authorities.

"Life is suffering."
-Siddarth Gautama (The Buddha), 6th Century B.C.E.

Life is suffering. Because all pleasures are temporary, most pleasures are short-lasting, all pleasures must be sought through struggle, pain is often inevitable, pain is easy to come by, and difficult to overcome. There is a Ba'hai proverb, "The only thing a man owns is his tomb." Being that the opposite of suffering is lack of suffering, and the opposite of life is death, how can death be anything but permanent bliss?

The philosopher, Socrates, once remarked that we do not know with certainty what comes after death. So, to fear it would be foolish. And, even if you assume, based on empirical evidence for a blissful afterlife, refusing to rely upon rhetorical evidence alone: Accepting that "life" is merely the culmination matter and energy coming together in a certain way, that time and space are infinite (all of which are indisputable or generally-accepted theory), then even if one dies, the matter and energy will divide, but one day possibly forming a new life, billions of years in the future. It would possibly also be in a new universe if the universe collapses on itself before that point, forming a "new" universe, according to the "breathing in and out of the Gods" in Hindu theology.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists. Furthermore, unless you are the type of obscure, unusual, idiosyncratic person who is the rare minority, atheism leads merely to disillusionment and despair, so even with equal evidence, believing in the afterlife and God is superior to atheism. Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.

However, not fearing death is not to say that we should not value life or seek to keep it. And, as Socrates also said, not life, but good life should be chiefly valued. We should seek to live good, long, prosperous lives, and dying with nobility, peacefuless, and dignity. Not fearing death does not equate with desiring it, like the vikings in history or current Muslims who see death as life's single goal than as just the last rite-of-passage. Because not valuing one's life does not merely reflect upon this physical reality, but upon your transcendental existence as a whole; your "soul." With an afterlife, your personality and developed behaviors here carry over to the next. With reincarnation, the butterfly effect of positive or negative actions also carry over, like waves through water, from one life to the next. So, to not value good life is to not value existence, and fearing death is the same as fearing life. Because death is life!
We suffer in life because we feel. The opposite of feeling is no feeling. It is not logical to assume there is bliss after death. It is, however, nice.

Humans do not fear death because of what might or might not come after, they fear death because they live, and life is precious.

Yes, and even though this argument can give some optimism about the purpose of life to Atheists, it is perfectly compatible with Christian views.

Furthermore:
1) What lives forever in one's descendency is not only biological; it's also the moral values and the teachings.
2) It requires humility, beause in the process, consciousness is lost (or: the self, the identity)
3) While the Bible insists more on the "Love your parents" part, this belief turns it around as "Love your children". These 2 teachings complement each other quite nicely.
4) It's a good incentive to make the world a better place.
Absolutely well said :)

We suffer in life because we feel. The opposite of feeling is no feeling. It is not logical to assume there is bliss after death. It is, however, nice.

Humans do not fear death because of what might not come after, they fear death because they live, and life is precious.

To be honest, the only reason NOT to fear death is BECAUSE nothing is coming afterwards. Just non-existence... that's actually what I'm hoping for, even though I'm not really an atheist.

I never understood why religion always convinced its followers with a promiss of eternal life, that always sounded like hell to me.

To be honest, the only reason NOT to fear death is BECAUSE nothing is coming afterwards. Just non-existence... that's actually what I'm hoping for, even though I'm not really an atheist.

I never understood why religion always convinced its followers with a promiss of eternal life, that always sounded like hell to me.
Yeah personally it would be a major drag …

Though the reincarnation thing doesn’t sound so bad
Being able to start fresh … to learn to grow and to see the world with new eyes again … that seems at least closer to heaven then just eternal life

I never understood why religion always convinced its followers with a promiss of eternal life, that always sounded like hell to me.
It always seemed to me to be a distortion of the concept inherent in the earliest-known central European and Middle Eastern religion(s), of the Great Goddess, Mother of all Life. She is eternal life, immortal, i.e. life itself that continues from generation to generation through birth, species to species through consumption ("zoe" in Greek, as opposed to mortal life, which is "bios").

We are mortal, so eternal life is not for us. I, too, don't understand how the myth made a leap from Her eternal life to giving it to us (I may have read about it at some time, but I don't recall).

However, there is a benefit from believing in and practicing what is the truth. Applying Pascal's wager to religion (as a whole) demonstrates that the idea is still practical, but merely needed to be refined.

There are four possibilities:
Religion is true and I believe in it (+)
There is the possible benefit of not facing a vindictive God, but at least the benefit of having known and practiced the truth, such as Chinese doctors who used ginseng before its medicinal properties were proven.

Religion is false and I believe in it (0)
No change, as there's no chance for vindiction, and after death, there no ultimate consequences.

Religion is true and I don't believe in it (-)
There is the possibility of facing a vindictive God and the consequence of having wasted your life believing a falsehood. This is not comparable to religion, however, as religion brings hope (which is why it is often motivated by hope). Studies show religiousness improves a person, in almost every imaginable way, emotionally, mentally, and physically.

Religion is false and I don't believe in it (0)
No consequence at all, as you believed what was true, but after death, there is no consequence or benefit.

Judging from that, there is the possible benefit from believing in religion, but not believing in religion brings either no consequences or negative consequences. So, even though Pascal's original wager did not work, attacking that primitive argument would be a straw man, when faced with a more refined theory.

that's just silly. there are not merely four possibilities, because there are an infinite number of possibilities as to what is actually true. even going just with religions and belief systems actually practiced in human history, we have hundreds mutually contradictory possibilities - hindu people ain't getting into christian fundie heaven, and the hadza don't even believe in an afterlife. even worse, we have no evidence to suggest that any culture got it right. which means that it is just as likely that the gods that really exist only punish those that believe in an afterlife while rewarding the atheists. or perhaps they punish and reward people at random. or perhaps they only punish people with the silly idea that "all religions fundamentally have the same message", while rewarding the followers of each of the mutually intolerant fundamentalisms. or they just feast on the souls of everyone. or any of a million other possibilities

you have no rational way in which to decide between these options, and without being able to figure out the payoff scheme, pascal's wager doesn't even offer probablistic reasons for choosing.

To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair.


No, it doesn't.

To me, it has always created a sense of urgency. It has always been a motivating force... that I must do what I'm going to do, because there aren't any second chances... and nobody can ever know when their time is up, until it IS up.

Sorry - but your assertion is just plain illogical.


So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists.


No... not true... there is STILL NO evidence for an afterlife of any kind.

Just one or two other thoughts:

One: I know Atheists that believe in an 'afterlife', and I know religious persons that believe that death IS the end. You make the assumption that somewho religion=afterlife... which is patently not true.

Two: To my way of thinking, the idea of an afterlife is a coping-mechanism, nothing more. So - the way I see it, if you beleive in heaven, you NEVER learn to 'cope with' death... you just replace reality with a happier hypothesis.

Why I Don't Fear Death, But Fear Atheism "...because I'm a Christian."


By the way, I fear neither.

This is why, I believe, atheism is the religion for the young, who will not face death for years, and the eccentric, who can, despite logic and reason, face death as an end without fear. But atheism is not a belief I would ascribe to and religious belief should certainly be encouraged by non-political authorities.
Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is derived from the Ancient Greeks.

It's formed from two words; a (no) theos (gods).

So you get a word meaning 'no god'. It's used to stress a no belief in any god(s) and/or godess(es).

However, you seem to forget one thing here. Atheism isn't equated with a lack of beliefs. Atheism in its modern form is known as Secularism (which has a lovely sister, Pluralism, and a cousin, Ecumenicism). It is essentially believing as you will; focusing on the belief in civil and political rights free of religious influence. Religion is seen as an excuse for war, discrimination and hatred.

Belief is something with you and only you and you alone can know. It come through a lot of self-analysis and soul-searching to know what's good for you.

Whats so terrifing about an end?

Whats so terrifing about an end?
Well, picture the one on Rosanne Barr and you'll know.

I see no point to this thread. Life, afterlife, god, reincarnation...none of it is fact, but belief. A belief is just that, a beleif. There is no way whatsoever to prove either side wrong or right. I, personally, see religion as a justification for war, hatred, discrimination, and murder. The belief of an afterlife is merely a comforting thought that helps to avoid the real issue. Those are my beliefs. Nobody is able to sway me one way or another, just as those pissed off about everything I just said will not be swayed by my words. A question for the owner of this thread...why is it that you are so afraid of atheism? What has the atheist society done to frighten you? Hindu, Shinto, and Buddah should frighten you just as much. After all, unlike Islam and Judism, Hindu, Shinto, and Buddah aren't even close to Christianity. So really, your post topic should read something like this:
Why I Don't Fear Death, But Fear Other Beliefs of Which I am Ignorant...

Fear is an emotion based on irrationality and ignorance. People fear that which they do not understand. By admitting that you fear Atheism, you are admitting that you are ignorant. By admitting that you are ignorant, you admit that your opinions are based on nothing. By admitting that your opinions are based on nothing, you admit that your opinions have no argumentative value and should therefore be ignored. If anyone else falls under this short list of admitions, you, too, are ignorant and your comments cannot be taken at face value. If anyone has difficulty understanding this paragraph, I advise you to read a bit more carefully next time and be sure to sound out every word to make sure that you are reading it correctly. If I have misspelled anything, I blame the public schools.

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Where do logic figure into this? Religion's trademark is being a logic defying, baseless claim. There's no depressing anything. If religion qualified as worth being considered, then everyone would.
This is a really troubling conclusion, because this is mostly western religion. Western religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have "divine texts" and it's highly dogmatic, being that they center on the idea that the truth was handed down to the them by God. Eastern religions (Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism), however, have "wisdom texts" and it's highly open to interpretation, being that they center on the idea that their books were written by men that were very wise, but not Gods. Both western religions and eastern religions also contain arguments, as well, particularly eastern. Because there are arguments, there are means to interpret them, which is why Theology evolves.

To give you several examples:

Judaism
Judaism is primarily dogmatic, because it's based on poor analagous reasoning. In other words, the Tanakh tells a long history of the Jews, explaining what God did or did not do when people took certain actions, in order to guide people on how to live (compiled into the 613 mitzvot or "commandments"). Within the Tanakh (aka "Old Testament") itself, it isn't obviously explained why something is right or wrong, or why something is true, but just that it is. For example, if you commit the sins of rape and inhospitality, it's highly unlikely fire and brimestone will come raining upon you (though that happened to Sodom and Gomorrah). Today, this implies that such things are wrong, but for whatever reason, God punishes us mostly in the afterlife. "Why does God not want us to worship other Gods?", "Because God is angry and jealous", "Why is God angry and jealous?"

The more questions you ask, you can clearly see that the Tanakh itself is not logical or clear. That's why Jews emphasize intense study, reading it in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, studying manuscripts, and reading thousands of pages of commentary. Books on Judaism since the original texts have also built upon it, to make it more reasonable. In fact, from what I've heard of the Kabbala (I haven't read it yet--want to read Torah first), but it's a lot closer to "eastern" theology than western, in that it's far more logical than dogmatic, and more abstract than concrete. S, though the main texts themselves are illogical, and many of the followers' arguments are, not all, and there is a large amount of strong logic built upon Judaism to support it.

The book of Proverbs practically is just a long series of logical syllogisms about morality.

Oh, and.. To give you insight to the fact that Jews admit their dogmaticness. There's a Jewish legend that the wise, King Solomon once wrote a book explaining why each of the 613 Mitzvot were logical and reasonable. He did 612 of them successfully, but couldn't explain animal sacrifice. So, fearing that he was somehow wrong about the other 612 (possibly teaching people some immoral beliefs), he ripped the booked up, torched it, and no one's ever seen it. So, they admit, people should not expect to understand everything. Even Solomon could not.

Christianity
Christians may deny this or may agree with it, depending on how they view the statement: But, arguably, Christianity was founded on logic. Many non-Christians have said that Jesus was very much a learned, Hebrew philosopher, who saw logical flaws in Judaism, hypocrasy in the culture at the time, and put forth logical arguments rather than dogma to support his beliefs. Jesus used analogous reasoning as well, but it was far stronger than, say, "People commit rape, people get killed. Therefore, you commit rape, you get killed."

For example:
The parable of the mustard seed. Jesus said that we must have the "faith of a mustard seed." He explained that a mustard seed is the smallest seed there is, yet it grows to be an extremely large and bountiful plant. How is it that such a thing is possible? Jesus implied that it was through the inherent determination in the thing, not magic, but something very real. That it is very much possible for little things to become great, and they do so by choice, not by circumstance.

This is also why he said "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth", implying that those who are oppressed and persecuted are the ones that face adversity and grow stronger. In the apocrypha, Jesus is quoted as saying, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first", implying that those who place their own values before everything else will recieve nothing. Now, there is a difference in the way that Jesus has been interpreted, however.

"It is harder for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven." Jesus uses more analagous reasoning. Conservative Christians believe that Jesus's statements about wealth only applied to specific people, that he meant "rich man who don't serve God", and that the goal is to serve God by becoming individually successful, and by helping people to have faith, rather than requiring every person to take oaths of poverty. Liberal Christians (and most non-Christians), on the other hand, believe that Jesus's statements implied that acquiring massive amounts of wealth is inherently immoral and that serving fellow mankind through charity is serving God, in fact, the only way to serve God.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Once again, Conservative Christians believe this was a specific case, rather than a rule. Liberal Christians (and non-Christians) interpret it to mean that Jesus opposed the death penalty--In other words, no person is without sin, so it is not our place to judge others, especially to the extent of death. Jesus also added to this logic with "Judge not lest ye be judged", explaining that how a non-judgemental society would be more positive, as no one likes to be judged improperly.

Despite both of these comments being interpreted differently by Conservative Christians, Liberal Christians, non-Christians, and Jews all agree. The Rabbinical courts during Jesus' time had descended from the judges appointed by God, and according to the Tanakh, had divine right over others' lives. According to Liberal Christians, Jesus opposed that, believing that no man, only God, could end a person's life. This challenge to the authority of the Rabbis is what made them label him a heretic, because according to their scripture and doctrine, their ancestors were appointed by God, and the descendants of the ancestors would have the same authority as the originals.

Since then, through a matter of historical events, the original family line of Rabbinical judges has been lost. So, Rabbis, currently, oppose the death penalty on the grounds that they admit, they could be wrong, as they don't have the authority.

"Catch fish for a man, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime." This is more logical reasoning from Jesus, and rather remarkable for the time. In fact, whether you're a Christian or not, Jesus is, without question, an extremely fascinating historical figure. Anyway, within this parable, he explains that, contrary to Judaism (past and present), people should be taught to tend to themselves, with a lesser emphasis on requiring the clergy to constantly settle everything for you. In other words, rather than having people go to the clergy every time they have a moral question, educate them on moral principles so that they can figure things out on their own.

And there are many more examples, that would be long to list.

Islam
I know little of Islam, but from what I know of it, it was a return to a more Jewish religion, with a focus on more on rules rather than principles, with dogma without parables. Being that their beliefs rely on Judaism and Christianity, as well as the Qu'ran, however, their religion contains the logic and parables of both, to some extent.

Ba'hai
Ba'ha was formed roughly three centuries ago, by Baha'ullah, founded more on philosophy and logic than any western religion. Because of this, it's more similar to Secularism than religion. Despite being founded 300 years ago in Iran, Ba'hai teaches:
Neither religion, nor science are more important, or should be taken as immediately more correct than another, but there should be a "divine marriage" between them.
Men and women are completely equal. Because such classes were necessary in the past (what Sociologists call "the family-unit"), but isn't necessary in a modern world, where both men and women have the opportunity to become educated, work, and children may be easily taken care of by others.
There should be no division among religions. Interestingly enough, every western religion teaches this, but none adhere to it. Both the Tanakh and Bible talk of the glory of the "unity of mankind." And Mu'hammad, especially, gave an explicit command to make no divisions in Islam. Yet all three religions have formed thousands of sects, persecuting eachother for not interpreting the scriptures they way they do.
There is no need for a priesthood. Ba'hai saw how the Catholic Church abused the clergy, and likely, Islamics had as well. Being that there are modern translations of all texts and people are (or can be) educated enough to read and decide for themselves, it isn't necessary for there to be a clergy.

Needless to say, Islam has labeled Ba'hai "Muslim heresy" and is one of the few religions that the Iranian government and others do not recognize as a religion.

Hinduism
Hinduism was an extremely logical religion. In fact, although I don't ascribe to it, sometimes eugencism interests me when I see the difference in religions and the difference in different races, even today. Computer science and medicine are both dominated by Asians and Asians were the first to even create modern medicine. And, whereas, for centuries, white western religion relied upon miracles and magic for good health (learning their shortcomings during the Black Plague), Asians wrote and studied "wisdom texts."

A great deal of cosmology is extremely similar Hindu thought. For example, I mentioned the "breathing in and out of the Gods." Hindus believe that the universe is in a continuous, endless cycle of creating itself, then uncreating itself. In other words, the world began in non-existence, then exploded into existence, expanding to what we are now. But eventually, the universe shrinks back into non-existence. Although without mathematical proof, this is virtually-identical to the Big Bang and Stephen Hawking's theories of the universe's potential collapse on itself.

I need to read all of the Hindu texts (and have read through some), but looking again now, the Upanishads, itself, begins with a description of what the fundamental state of matter is. This is what Greek philosophers, trying to give non-supernatural, pseudoscientific theories did, as well. Like the Greeks, rather than trying to tell people what God commands, they try to define "What is the good life?" through logic and philosophy. And though they often use myths and stories, there's no doubt the logic is there. Your perceptions of religion being inherently intolerant is also very western. In India, there are countless sects of Hinduism, but no one is considered "more" or "less" Hindu, like with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Even their class-structure is more loose than it once was.

Buddhism
Buddhism is, without question, a highly-logical religion. A lot of people who are disillusioned with religion don't realize that there are huge exceptions, such as Buddhism. Buddhism is really more of a philosophy than a religion, though it was built upon Hinduism. Many religions say that to attract people to them, but I say it just because there's no rituals required, there's no "God" required, you don't need to pray, and the rules of morality are self-governed by logic. When Buddha was born, he wasn't an average thug like Moses, a poor carpenter like Jesus, or an illiterate clan-leader like Muhammed. Buddha was born in a rich family, but he was described as being a genius scholar, even as a young child, being able to impress adult scholars with his wisdom. This is similar to Jesus, in that Jesus impressed local Rabbis with his knowledge of the Torah as a child, but Buddha's knowledge extended to all subjects.

After traveling outside his palace, seeing the three sufferings of mankind (sickness, old-age, death), he realized that life could have no meaning. According to Hinduism, we are reincarnated, and it centered on trying to be prosperous. So, we are to be reincarnated, just to suffer and struggle? That seemed pointless to Buddha. So, through a long journey and lots of meditation, he realized: Desire is the cause of all suffering. This idea is still philosophically valid today.

But, at the same time, Buddha realized life would equally be not worth living if it was total renunciation. If we all gave up all wealth, all fun, then that would be no different than living a life of suffering. So, Buddha proposed "the middle path", which is a balance between total renunciation and total greed. Just like Greek philosophy and Hinduism, Buddha focused on, "What is the good life?" He didn't claim to be a God and even told people to never believe anything he or anyone else said unless it made sense to them. Whereas Jesus said he was God, who came to save mankind, Buddha humbly claimed to be merely a man and said, "Seek your own enlightenment."

Taoism
Other than the religious views of nature, Taoism is highly logical. The entire Tao Te-Ching is a series of paradoxes, centered around the idea of, "If you take action, it won't work. If you don't take action, it will work."

Many of the ideas were valid. For example, Lao-Tse explained, the more you oppress the people, the more they fight back. The more free the people are, the less they challenge you. So, the wise ruler, "Keeps bellies full and hearts empty." This idea is very relevant even in non-religious situations, such America's situation in Iraq today.

So...
Saying religion and logic are polar opposites is incorrect. Religion is merely theological philosophy. To deny the validity of religion is to deny the validity of all rationalist philosophy. The Greeks came up with the idea of "atoms" millenias before such things were proved by science. Meditation was used by religion millenias before its benefits were known. And according to the Journal of Psychology of Religion and various other reliable sources, religion benefits a person in practically every way possible. The religious are generally healthier mentally, emotionally and physically, have more friends, commit crimes less often, and do more drugs. So, why should religion be attacked so vociferously?

After all, very few, or no, war were truly fought over religion, but just economics under the guise of religion. For example, the Crusades began because the Muslim nations had been attacking Constantinople because they wanted it (not religions reasons). Christian Europe coveted the Muslim lands, felt sympathetic towards the Christians in Constantinople, and also feared an invasion if the Muslims took Constantinople. So, for those primary reasons, this "Crusade" began. And though it was stimulated by religious reasons, those weren't the primary reasons. The idea that Christians just randomly woke up one day and said, "Hey! LET'S GO RE-CLAIM THE HOLY LAND!!" or from guidance from God is a myth. Also, the Christians were unsuccessful. The land the Muslims lost was quickly reclaimed and, to the Muslims, the Mongols to the east were a bigger threat than the sporadic, unorganized Christian forces.

"If there is indisputable proof God that does or does not exist".

See this is what I'm talking about. If there's undisputable proof for or against life in (insert name of a different galaxy), I ask you to show it to me.
Very few people believe there is life in another galaxy, nor have they, throughout history. But the majority of people now and since the dawn of mankind have believed in God or Gods. So, though it's rationalist rather than empirical, the burden of proof lies on atheists' shoulders.

And it's not impossible, as I said. We merely need to discover how consciousness works, "what" life is, create much better models of the universe, and invent time-travel. Yes, those are incredibly difficult tasks that will be impossible for years, but not forever. So, claiming God's existence and religious truth are always scientifically-indisputable statements is false.

Wrong. You forget that almost every single different religion says "You can only believe in me." Which one of the vast numbers of different religions is correct?
Not true.

Unitarian Christians
Deists
Buddhists
Hindus
Ba'hais
Wiccans
Buddhists, Hindus, and Ba'hais, especially, account for a lot of people in the world. China and India are fucking huge. You're viewing religion from a western perspective.

Pascal's Wager is incomplete and contradictory in a number of ways. The first thing I'd say is that anyone who lives their life based on what it says is not doing so because they feel that is how they should behave, but because they fear the consequences if they don't. This is not virtue; this is simply selfishness, trying to get into God's good books because they feel they will be rewarded in the end. I believe we should treat one another as the Bible tells us, but belief in God and therefore in His 'reward scheme' cheapens this sentiment and makes it meaningless. If you ARE following His will simply to obtain a spot in Heaven, I think He knows all about that and has very different plans for you.

Secondly, theists are all too willing to gloss over the other side of Pascal's Wager: what if you choose to follow the wrong God? How many religions are there in the world, what chance is there REALLY of choosing the correct one? If you follow the wrong God all your life, it may be WORSE than not believing in Him - at least with the latter option you haven't done anything to anger him.
And I explained that. Yes, that's possible. But believing in any religion has a probable benefit greater than 0, whereas not believing in any religion has a negative consequence or none at all.


One little gripe I have is that people seem to assume atheists or agnostics are depressing little people with nothing to look forward to; this is really not true at all, and goes to show how small-minded certain theists can be. Atheists are happy to enjoy life without hoping for something to come after it, and as they don't believe in God they are free to make their own decisions rather than have their morals spoon-fed to them with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't adopt them. They are more open-minded with scientific advances and discoveries that can potenitally benefit society, and are able to deliberate them logically, rather than simply dismissing a topic as 'ungodly' like so many theists, who would have humanity suffer rather than disobey the strict teachings of the Bible on gene technology (I hear it's mentioned somewhere, at the back perhaps).
And what is the meaning of life, for an atheist? Hedonism? Or Existentialism? Either way, without religion, you are without purpose--seeking temporary pleasure, in a world based on science and mathematics.

There are three major flaws that I can think of with Pascal's argument, and they're gaping ones.

First, it relies on the idea that people are, and should be, religious purely for selfish reasons. If that's what religion is according to him, I want no part of it.
No, because people can be religious for a variety of reasons.


Second, you can't force yourself to believe. You either do, or you don't. Mimicking religious rituals without faith would be absurd. I've thought the matter of God's existence through long and hard, and come to the conclusion that the idea of a god makes no sense.
I used to consider the same thing. But belief is merely repetition of thought. According to psychology, we naturally rationalize, making ourselves sub-consciously believe things we don't understand. But faith can be gained, not just through self-reflection, but through what Zoroastrianism calls: "Right thought, right word, right action." In this way, faith is both a choice and a gift from God, as explained in the Bible.


Third, if there were a God, then he would be a truly mean-spirited bastard for casting people into eternal suffering simply for not worshipping him or not believing in him. Again, that kind of religion is something I would want no part of. And if I wake up after death and find myself in Hell, I'll at least have the ever-lasting satisfaction of knowing that I'm a far better person than God is.
You're judging western religions, not religion as a whole. Even Judaism, which is a western religion, has an explanation for this, in that God is both good and evil, but ultimately good in a way we can't percieve.

The three major monotheisms are quite hopless in this respect. Basically they damn people to hell unless we willingly submit to the divine dictatorship. And they maintain we have free will. Unless such a being is evil incarnate, I can't follow the logic. So if there should happen to be such a thing, I'll spit in it's face all the way to hell. I'll not bow down to any evil oppressor. No guts. no glory.
You're attacking western-religions only.

Tink, Similized, you children need to learn about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Ba'hai.

Don't you think it's exaggerated and nihilistic to say life is suffering? It's also wrong to say that life would be worth nothing and 'death is life'. That idea is also the base for religious dictatorships and suicide bombers... :mad:
No, because life is suffering!

Pleasures must be sought through struggle, it's always temporary, and a lot of people (in poor countries) are forced to suffer with nothing they can do. And furthermore, there's always the chance that you can randomly die, from the moment you're born.

And I explained the difference between suicide-bombers, in that suicide-bombers believe the after-life is worth more than this life. They don't value "good life", at all, but sacrifice their lives for a fantasy-world afterwards. Both the life and afterlife should have equal value.

On the contrary, in general, I think it's perfectly natural to fear the unknown. In some cases it's even the sensible thing to do.
Naturally-foolish, because it makes arguments based on ignorance.

"Faith is taking the first step before seeing the whole staircase."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What about 'I don't think we can know one way or the other whether any given religion is true or false so I don't know what to believe in'?
Uncertainty is non-belief.

The best argument an Atheist ever gave me was:

"I believe I'll live forever through my children and children's children."

Heck, why not. Conscience is lost, but parts of your essence is preserved for as long as there are humans. Makes you wish to clean the environment, just to be sure humanity will keep on going and going and...
I read once in a book about Buddhism, "The only thing with permanence is change."

To think the human race will live forever is foolish (Buddhism teaches, "There is no past and no future, only the moment you're in now."). Who knows what the future could bring? There could be an apocalyptic WW3. Furthermore, parents loving themselves through their children rather than loving their children is sickening. You see it in childrens' sports, where the kids don't want to play the game, but the father wants his son to be the star he never was, so he trains his son like Stalin. Some mothers do the same thing with ice-skating or ballet. And finally, the same also happens with parents who are lawyers, doctors, businessmen, or work within some specific field that they absolutely demand their children follow.

As Baha'ullah said, children are not clay to be molded, but a fire to be tended to. Treating children to be a legacy, in a way that you demand they speak, think, and act the way that you would like is wrong.

And the beautiful part is it stays within the observably possible
How is every moment from now into infinity "observably possible"?

you have no rational way in which to decide between these options, and without being able to figure out the payoff scheme, pascal's wager doesn't even offer probablistic reasons for choosing.
Mathematically, if you chart every possibility (which would take time), the results are the same. There is no form of "no god" which offers a benefit and there is no form of "God" which offers a benefit. But I'll do it, in another post.

No, it doesn't.

To me, it has always created a sense of urgency. It has always been a motivating force... that I must do what I'm going to do, because there aren't any second chances... and nobody can ever know when their time is up, until it IS up.

Sorry - but your assertion is just plain illogical.
And what is your motivation?

In other words, after your time is up, what then? What do you hope to achieve?


No... not true... there is STILL NO evidence for an afterlife of any kind.

Just one or two other thoughts:

One: I know Atheists that believe in an 'afterlife', and I know religious persons that believe that death IS the end. You make the assumption that somewho religion=afterlife... which is patently not true.
True.

"...because I'm a Christian."
Actually, I'm a Deist.

http://blog.fatbusinessman.com/blog-post-images/tshirt-jesus.png

Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is derived from the Ancient Greeks.

It's formed from two words; a (no) theos (gods).

So you get a word meaning 'no god'. It's used to stress a no belief in any god(s) and/or godess(es).
What you said equates to saying, "Satanism comes from Judaism, because it originated in the Hebrew language", even though Jews don't even believe in Satan.

Yes, it comes from the Greek language, but not Greek tradition. The Greeks were strongly religious. Though it was rarely ever brought up in court, it was illegal to "not believe in the Gods", and that was one charge brought forth against Socrates---whom almost believed in the Greek Gods, but in a more unorthodox way we don't really understand. He claimed to have believed in the Gods, but challenged the Gods' authority on many things, like with his primitive cosmology (calling the sun a stone in the sky, contrary to Greek mythology), but clearly, at the same time, believed in them. For example, he believed that the Oracle at Delphi actually was speaking with the Gods or else he wouldn't have gone on some huge quest based on what the Oracle said. At his trial, he also denied being an atheist, but he didn't deny putting forth anti-religious philosophy, either.

But rest assured, the Parthenon was not designed to honor science or logic. And furthermore, all of the great philosophers who INVENTED logic (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) were religious.

Holy crap that was a long post.

Everything dies. So what? Why do you need to lie to yourself with a religion to feel better about what will happen, regardless of your beliefs?

To think the human race will live forever is foolish (Buddhism teaches, "There is no past and no future, only the moment you're in now."). Who knows what the future could bring? There could be an apocalyptic WW3. Furthermore, parents loving themselves through their children rather than loving their children is sickening. You see it in childrens' sports, where the kids don't want to play the game, but the father wants his son to be the star he never was, so he trains his son like Stalin. Some mothers do the same thing with ice-skating or ballet. And finally, the same also happens with parents who are lawyers, doctors, businessmen, or work within some specific field that they absolutely demand their children follow.

As Baha'ullah said, children are not clay to be molded, but a fire to be tended to. Treating children to be a legacy, in a way that you demand they speak, think, and act the way that you would like is wrong.
You really make a caricature of what I have written. Why don't you start with the hypothesis that I write reasonable things, not based on sick ideas about children? It would be respectful. And please, stop patronizing people; if you're Buddhist, you're giving your religion a bad name.

I've said children are our legacy to the world. See it more like a gift to mankind, as a work of art. We give them our genes and our teachings, we give them our best. Where did I write that we must coerce the children in being something that they are not? It's important to give our children moral teachings. Unless you think that you're a perfect moron (in which case, you shouldn't want kids), you'll try to make the world a better place, and teach your children the important things you know, so that they succeed in what they want to do.

And oh -- so there could be a WWIII ? Yes, and there could be NO WWIII from what we know. So why not trying to make the world a better place, and not treat it like a dump that will be nuked in 10 years. From what I know, there has been animals on this planet for at least 650 million years, and if we play it clever, humanity could live for billions of years. Your arguments are just lame.

Your interpretation of my writings is highly disturbing. You've just proven how disrespectful and unreasonable you can be.

I see no point to this thread. Life, afterlife, god, reincarnation...none of it is fact, but belief. A belief is just that, a beleif. There is no way whatsoever to prove either side wrong or right. I, personally, see religion as a justification for war, hatred, discrimination, and murder. The belief of an afterlife is merely a comforting thought that helps to avoid the real issue. Those are my beliefs. Nobody is able to sway me one way or another, just as those pissed off about everything I just said will not be swayed by my words. A question for the owner of this thread...why is it that you are so afraid of atheism? What has the atheist society done to frighten you? Hindu, Shinto, and Buddah should frighten you just as much. After all, unlike Islam and Judism, Hindu, Shinto, and Buddah aren't even close to Christianity. So really, your post topic should read something like this:
Why I Don't Fear Death, But Fear Other Beliefs of Which I am Ignorant...

Fear is an emotion based on irrationality and ignorance. People fear that which they do not understand. By admitting that you fear Atheism, you are admitting that you are ignorant. By admitting that you are ignorant, you admit that your opinions are based on nothing. By admitting that your opinions are based on nothing, you admit that your opinions have no argumentative value and should therefore be ignored. If anyone else falls under this short list of admitions, you, too, are ignorant and your comments cannot be taken at face value. If anyone has difficulty understanding this paragraph, I advise you to read a bit more carefully next time and be sure to sound out every word to make sure that you are reading it correctly. If I have misspelled anything, I blame the public schools.

You need to read The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. I believe that atheism is bad, but not horrible if it is replaced by something. However, too often, atheism is replaced by sheer nihilism, which is the worst possible situation. If the world became nihilist, life would be degraded to the point of essential non-value. Human nature dictates that we need to believe in something, that it is vital that we "believe" in some concept, whatever that may be, that we fail to understand. Living in a world of pure fact would be too rigid and emotion would become meaningless. Sorry if I appear the Literary buff, but I again must refer you to two more brilliant novels, 1984 and Brave New World. These deal with a society that has essentially become atheist and only believes in science and progress. This is a disadvantage, because through it we become dependent upon earthly conditions which are at many points very drab and disheartning.

After all, the church is what saved Medieval Europe from the dark ages and actually preserved science, literature, and intellectual thought for 800 years. Without religion and belief giant masses of people would live and die without hope and live meaningless existances.

Just a quick post.

But no one seems to have mentioned a fear of immortality. Continued existance forever. Which I think I probably have.

There is only so much you can experience in life. There might be more than you can fit in one life time, but still not an infinity. Immortality is scary in all it's possibilities for boredom and repeatitiveness.

That said, reincarnation would be cool. But just so long as I couldn't remember a thing about my last life.

[/Quote]Religion is a mindfuck. Believe it if you want, but untill you start making sense, please don't bash us for not giving a toss.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I've ever heard that better said. I've always tried to think of the words to describe how religion does a lot more harm than good. Granted, it helps many people and does good things for many people, but hell, we shouldn't need religion to make us do nice things.

Fear is an emotion based on irrationality and ignorance. People fear that which they do not understand. By admitting that you fear Atheism, you are admitting that you are ignorant. By admitting that you are ignorant, you admit that your opinions are based on nothing. By admitting that your opinions are based on nothing, you admit that your opinions have no argumentative value and should therefore be ignored. If anyone else falls under this short list of admitions, you, too, are ignorant and your comments cannot be taken at face value. If anyone has difficulty understanding this paragraph, I advise you to read a bit more carefully next time and be sure to sound out every word to make sure that you are reading it correctly. If I have misspelled anything, I blame the public schools.
I have to take exception to this, specifically that the unknown is the only thing people fear; that is not so. It has nothing to do with ignorance. People can fear knowns just as well, but even in the case of an unknown, the reason people fear is not because they don't know, but because their minds fill in the blanks with something horrific. It is the fictional substitute that is feared. They do not fear nothing, they fear something.

Sorry to hi-jack the thread. I'm done.

Just a quick post.

But no one seems to have mentioned a fear of immortality. Continued existance forever. Which I think I probably have.

There is only so much you can experience in life. There might be more than you can fit in one life time, but still not an infinity. Immortality is scary in all it's possibilities for boredom and repeatitiveness.

That said, reincarnation would be cool. But just so long as I couldn't remember a thing about my last life.
:D

What would be the point of believing in reincarnation if you could not know, in your next life, what happened before?

I'm no expert, but I believe these beliefs stem from memories or dreams of what appear to be previous live-times? At least, in the Western world.

Religion is a mindfuck. Believe it if you want, but untill you start making sense, please don't bash us for not giving a toss.

I'm not sure I've ever heard that better said. I've always tried to think of the words to describe how religion does a lot more harm than good. Granted, it helps many people and does good things for many people, but hell, we shouldn't need religion to make us do nice things.

I don't. Your conscience dictates to you that your belief system (or lack of one) is the best system for you, and it would be a sin for me to try and make you think otherwise. I believe in salvation by works; you do good, you are saved regardless of belief.

Religion (or lack of it) only does more harm than good when the state takes it over. Almost all of the atrocities occured when the state used it for power and corrupted it. Religion motivates people to do good when it is properly taught and the people actually learn their faith; the same goes with atheists who have a personal moral code drawn from their own selves.

Secular democracy is the best kind of government we have, and it is a moral duty to preserve our liberties.

Atheism assumes theism.

Proof of God is in your reasoning. If the world was not made but exploded into existence and is in a constant state of change (evolution), then who could say that what we do today would still be true tomorrow? Our reasoning is based on a belief in a creator and a designed, consistent creation. For example, if nature were always changing then we could not assume an experiment one might do today could be duplicated tomorrow. So, one must first believe that nature does not change before he could prove anything. Hence, without the assumption that nature will remain as it was we cannot even reason, thus making this entire thread meaningless.

You need to read The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. I believe that atheism is bad, but not horrible if it is replaced by something. However, too often, atheism is replaced by sheer nihilism, which is the worst possible situation. If the world became nihilist, life would be degraded to the point of essential non-value. Human nature dictates that we need to believe in something, that it is vital that we "believe" in some concept, whatever that may be, that we fail to understand. Living in a world of pure fact would be too rigid and emotion would become meaningless. Sorry if I appear the Literary buff, but I again must refer you to two more brilliant novels, 1984 and Brave New World. These deal with a society that has essentially become atheist and only believes in science and progress. This is a disadvantage, because through it we become dependent upon earthly conditions which are at many points very drab and disheartning.

After all, the church is what saved Medieval Europe from the dark ages and actually preserved science, literature, and intellectual thought for 800 years. Without religion and belief giant masses of people would live and die without hope and live meaningless existances.

The society in Brave New World was great. I'd swap this one for that one any day. And to say that some religious belief is necessary because a world without it would be drab and disheartening is idiotic. Should one believe in Santa Claus because a world where one doesn't get free presents as reward for good behaviour is less attractive? Should one believe in life after death because a world where death is final is less attractive? I have no problem with religion as such, but believing in something unprovable simply because it's "better than the alternative" is idiotic. As if world views were fruits in a super market and the trick was to choose the one that looked freshest. And what's wrong with existing without some divine meaning of life? To demand having some meaning or importance to the universe is just egoistic. There's no reason to lose hope for an enjoyable life just because one's existance is meaningless.

And as for believing in some religion simply because it's better for society is undemocratic. It imbues a possibly fictional being with power above and independant of human laws and governments. A group of "mere mortals" claiming to speak on behalf of said superhuman being can, have and still do use such power for their own means. -A power which is above humans to question or oppose. An example of this would be the great "Big Brother" in "1984". In an atheist society, power would always lie solely with human wielders, be it a dictatorship or a democracy, and thus could always be questioned and opposed by other humans. This is not quite the case in a simply secular and religion-tolerant society, as this means at least certain groups will place some superhuman's commands above human questioning, but what do you do. You can't force people not to believe this or that, so a secular, religion-tolerant democracy is pretty much the best one can do.

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Where do logic figure into this? Religion's trademark is being a logic defying, baseless claim. There's no depressing anything. If religion qualified as worth being considered, then everyone would.
This is a really troubling conclusion, because this is mostly western religion. Western religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have "divine texts" and it's highly dogmatic, being that they center on the idea that the truth was handed down to the them by God. Eastern religions (Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism), however, have "wisdom texts" and it's highly open to interpretation, being that they center on the idea that their books were written by men that were very wise, but not Gods. Both western religions and eastern religions also contain arguments, as well, particularly eastern. Because there are arguments, there are means to interpret them, which is why Theology evolves.

To give you several examples: <Snipping with a vengeance>
You know what? I think it's tragic you took the time to write all that. At least if it was an attempt at demonstrating something to me. Speaking of which, please quote me properly. You made the next quote of mine incomprehensible. Also, note I'll refer to the 3 major monotheisms as the "3MMT's". In the interest of eliminating misunderstandings, they are: Christianity, Judaism & Islam. But I digress..

I was not questioning the philosophical validity of religion. In prior posts, it was made clear that not considering religion is silly. The above was me objecting to that statement. As such, the finer points of religion is irrelevant. What is relevant is the concept of Divinity, or magic if you will. I object strongly against regarding such things as credible, because so far, not a single being on the planet have been able to lend credibility to the concept. Do that, and we can start talking about the particulars of it.
By the way, it was a very interesting read, if slightly misplaced. Thank you for taking the time.

"If there is indisputable proof God that does or does not exist".

See this is what I'm talking about. If there's undisputable proof for or against life in (insert name of a different galaxy), I ask you to show it to me.
Very few people believe there is life in another galaxy, nor have they, throughout history. But the majority of people now and since the dawn of mankind have believed in God or Gods. So, though it's rationalist rather than empirical, the burden of proof lies on atheists' shoulders.

And it's not impossible, as I said. We merely need to discover how consciousness works, "what" life is, create much better models of the universe, and invent time-travel. Yes, those are incredibly difficult tasks that will be impossible for years, but not forever. So, claiming God's existence and religious truth are always scientifically-indisputable statements is false.
I see. So because I am not the majority, it's up to me to prove you wrong?
Here's how I look at it: Untoold billions claim a variety of things. Mostly these things share only 2 principles. 1) they defy logic. 2) They exclude eachother (yes there's many execptions to this, but really. Those execptions are rarely commonly accepted).
The first of the common traits alone, makes it their responsibility to prove me wrong. It doesn't matter how many people they are. If they claim the ability to levitate or claim to know one who can, it is up to them to prove it. Numbers means nothing here. I don't suppose you believe in witches? So far, noone have ever proved witches don't exist, and millions of people believe they do exist. Is it up to you & me to prove them wrong? Or is it up to them to prove their fantastic beliefs?
Personally I believe you don't really grasp how an argument works.

Pascal's Wager is incomplete and contradictory in a number of ways. The first thing I'd say is that anyone who lives their life based on what it says is not doing so because they feel that is how they should behave, but because they fear the consequences if they don't. This is not virtue; this is simply selfishness, trying to get into God's good books because they feel they will be rewarded in the end. I believe we should treat one another as the Bible tells us, but belief in God and therefore in His 'reward scheme' cheapens this sentiment and makes it meaningless. If you ARE following His will simply to obtain a spot in Heaven, I think He knows all about that and has very different plans for you.

Secondly, theists are all too willing to gloss over the other side of Pascal's Wager: what if you choose to follow the wrong God? How many religions are there in the world, what chance is there REALLY of choosing the correct one? If you follow the wrong God all your life, it may be WORSE than not believing in Him - at least with the latter option you haven't done anything to anger him.
And I explained that. Yes, that's possible. But believing in any religion has a probable benefit greater than 0, whereas not believing in any religion has a negative consequence or none at all.
Still, it's silly as hell. Why? Because you're more likely to damn yourself to hell than save yourself, and the religions that doesn't damn you usually don't care if you're an atheist. They're more concerned with your actual deeds than your perception of the divine. In these cases, an atheist will have the same standing as someone who believes in a wrong religion. It just falls apart if you encompass all religions.

One little gripe I have is that people seem to assume atheists or agnostics are depressing little people with nothing to look forward to; this is really not true at all, and goes to show how small-minded certain theists can be. Atheists are happy to enjoy life without hoping for something to come after it, and as they don't believe in God they are free to make their own decisions rather than have their morals spoon-fed to them with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't adopt them. They are more open-minded with scientific advances and discoveries that can potenitally benefit society, and are able to deliberate them logically, rather than simply dismissing a topic as 'ungodly' like so many theists, who would have humanity suffer rather than disobey the strict teachings of the Bible on gene technology (I hear it's mentioned somewhere, at the back perhaps).
And what is the meaning of life, for an atheist? Hedonism? Or Existentialism? Either way, without religion, you are without purpose--seeking temporary pleasure, in a world based on science and mathematics.
Yay! 42!! You just told me the meaning of my life! Your arrogance is simply unmatched. Do you think religion has a patent on ethics? You will never know how offensive your statement is.
Anyway, here's an unholy braingrenade for you: Why do you think there's atheists involved in civil rights initivs?
Other than that, try to read back in this thread. You'll see several atheists have shared what the meaning of their lives is.
Have no doubt I consider your statement a very very low personal attack. You're labeling me amoral scum, because I do not believe. I hope you're confident about that "First stone" bit.

There are three major flaws that I can think of with Pascal's argument, and they're gaping ones.

First, it relies on the idea that people are, and should be, religious purely for selfish reasons. If that's what religion is according to him, I want no part of it.
No, because people can be religious for a variety of reasons.
Yes, but the premise of Pascal's Wager is that it's desirable to be religious, because it's dangerous not to be religious. It's a stick-and-carrot scenario. In the interest of self preservation, you must follow a religion.
Whatever the motivation of someone who haven't converted because of Pascal's Wager is, it isn't relevant here.

Second, you can't force yourself to believe. You either do, or you don't. Mimicking religious rituals without faith would be absurd. I've thought the matter of God's existence through long and hard, and come to the conclusion that the idea of a god makes no sense.
I used to consider the same thing. But belief is merely repetition of thought. According to psychology, we naturally rationalize, making ourselves sub-consciously believe things we don't understand. But faith can be gained, not just through self-reflection, but through what Zoroastrianism calls: "Right thought, right word, right action." In this way, faith is both a choice and a gift from God, as explained in the Bible.
I see. But I can't help but wonder... What bearing does this have on the wager? Granted, someone like you, who doesn't need (presumably) to be threatned with eternal damnation, can likely convince himself of what he wants. The key word here is want. I don't have any want for religion. I simply can't take it that serious - regardless of what it threatens me with. It's comparable to a foureyed midget threatning to shoot me dead with an empty water pistol. It lacks credibility.

Third, if there were a God, then he would be a truly mean-spirited bastard for casting people into eternal suffering simply for not worshipping him or not believing in him. Again, that kind of religion is something I would want no part of. And if I wake up after death and find myself in Hell, I'll at least have the ever-lasting satisfaction of knowing that I'm a far better person than God is.
You're judging western religions, not religion as a whole. Even Judaism, which is a western religion, has an explanation for this, in that God is both good and evil, but ultimately good in a way we can't percieve.
Again, these 3 quotes have been concerning Pascal's Wager. The point of the wager is that it's preferrable to pick Christianity (or even just one of the 3 MMT's), because not doing it may damn you to eternal torment.
Anything beside the 3 MMT's undermines the wager completely, as I breifly explained somewhere above.

The three major monotheisms are quite hopless in this respect. Basically they damn people to hell unless we willingly submit to the divine dictatorship. And they maintain we have free will. Unless such a being is evil incarnate, I can't follow the logic. So if there should happen to be such a thing, I'll spit in it's face all the way to hell. I'll not bow down to any evil oppressor. No guts. no glory.
You're attacking western-religions only.

Tink, Similized, you children need to learn about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Ba'hai.
Shockingly, I clearly stated - and you even quoted me on it - that I was speaking of the 3 MMT's. By the way, what makes you think I'm a child? I've decided to take the moral high ground here, but you're sure as hell not making it easy. Oh, and strictly speaking, the 3 MMT's aren't western at all. They just happen to be the dominant religions in the west right now. I think you need to learn a bit about them.

Don't you think it's exaggerated and nihilistic to say life is suffering? It's also wrong to say that life would be worth nothing and 'death is life'. That idea is also the base for religious dictatorships and suicide bombers...
No, because life is suffering!

Pleasures must be sought through struggle, it's always temporary, and a lot of people (in poor countries) are forced to suffer with nothing they can do. And furthermore, there's always the chance that you can randomly die, from the moment you're born.

And I explained the difference between suicide-bombers, in that suicide-bombers believe the after-life is worth more than this life. They don't value "good life", at all, but sacrifice their lives for a fantasy-world afterwards. Both the life and afterlife should have equal value.
...And you accuse atheists of being hedonists... We're not the ones saying pleasure must be sought through struggle. BAsically the guy you're arguing with has a much better deal going on than you do. Quite obviously he's got a good life, whereas you suffer, and will continue to suffer for all eternity. I don't suppose you're a hedonistic masochist by any chance?
Joking aside, it sounds like you have some serious issues. I hope it works out for you.

What about 'I don't think we can know one way or the other whether any given religion is true or false so I don't know what to believe in'?
Uncertainty is non-belief.
Not really. Last I checked, it was called agnosticism or even atheism

The best argument an Atheist ever gave me was:

"I believe I'll live forever through my children and children's children."

Heck, why not. Conscience is lost, but parts of your essence is preserved for as long as there are humans. Makes you wish to clean the environment, just to be sure humanity will keep on going and going and...
I read once in a book about Buddhism, "The only thing with permanence is change."

To think the human race will live forever is foolish (Buddhism teaches, "There is no past and no future, only the moment you're in now."). Who knows what the future could bring? There could be an apocalyptic WW3. Furthermore, parents loving themselves through their children rather than loving their children is sickening. You see it in childrens' sports, where the kids don't want to play the game, but the father wants his son to be the star he never was, so he trains his son like Stalin. Some mothers do the same thing with ice-skating or ballet. And finally, the same also happens with parents who are lawyers, doctors, businessmen, or work within some specific field that they absolutely demand their children follow.

As Baha'ullah said, children are not clay to be molded, but a fire to be tended to. Treating children to be a legacy, in a way that you demand they speak, think, and act the way that you would like is wrong.
First of all, you judging an atheist statement based on religious writings is silly. You accomplish nothing. You're mixing metaphors with regular statements and you're somewhat selfcontradicting.
I'm 99% sure you know exactly what Sarkasis was trying to say: A patent's legacy is it's offspring. There's no Stalin or abuse implied, quite the opposite in fact. And like I said, I don't for a second believe you don't know it. The idea is that your kids will grow up to love you, respect you and pass on what you tought them. Child abuse have nothing to do with it, and pretty much undermines the statement.

And the beautiful part is it stays within the observably possible
How is every moment from now into infinity "observably possible"?
Meaning that it's observable. Not by the parent, but by society.

you have no rational way in which to decide between these options, and without being able to figure out the payoff scheme, pascal's wager doesn't even offer probablistic reasons for choosing.
Mathematically, if you chart every possibility (which would take time), the results are the same. There is no form of "no god" which offers a benefit and there is no form of "God" which offers a benefit. But I'll do it, in another post.
Say what? If you include all religion in the wager, you'll have roughly the same odds of a pleasant afterlife, regardless of which you choose or if you choose at all.
If you only include Christianity, or perhaps the 3 MMT's, the odds still doesn't favour you, because there's no salvation for pretenders.

No, it doesn't.

To me, it has always created a sense of urgency. It has always been a motivating force... that I must do what I'm going to do, because there aren't any second chances... and nobody can ever know when their time is up, until it IS up.

Sorry - but your assertion is just plain illogical.
And what is your motivation?

In other words, after your time is up, what then? What do you hope to achieve?
What is your motivation? I mean, when you reach your afterlife or whatever, what is your motivation?
Or do I read you wrong? Do you mean to ask what he hopes to achive after death? Because that's a nonsensical question to pose to someone who believes death is oblivion.
In any case, what makes you doubt his statement above? He clearly explains his motivation is a sense of urgency and a want to do things right (whatever 'right' is for him).

Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is derived from the Ancient Greeks.

It's formed from two words; a (no) theos (gods).

So you get a word meaning 'no god'. It's used to stress a no belief in any god(s) and/or godess(es).
What you said equates to saying, "Satanism comes from Judaism, because it originated in the Hebrew language", even though Jews don't even believe in Satan.

Yes, it comes from the Greek language, but not Greek tradition. The Greeks were strongly religious. Though it was rarely ever brought up in court, it was illegal to "not believe in the Gods", and that was one charge brought forth against Socrates---whom almost believed in the Greek Gods, but in a more unorthodox way we don't really understand. He claimed to have believed in the Gods, but challenged the Gods' authority on many things, like with his primitive cosmology (calling the sun a stone in the sky, contrary to Greek mythology), but clearly, at the same time, believed in them. For example, he believed that the Oracle at Delphi actually was speaking with the Gods or else he wouldn't have gone on some huge quest based on what the Oracle said. At his trial, he also denied being an atheist, but he didn't deny putting forth anti-religious philosophy, either.

But rest assured, the Parthenon was not designed to honor science or logic. And furthermore, all of the great philosophers who INVENTED logic (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) were religious.
I have no clue what you just stated has to do with what you quoted. Are you saying that atheism is a religion or belief system because Socrates wasn't one, or because Satanists aren't jewish or something? Atheism isn't really anything. It's a a descriptive of people who doesn't believe in god(s). Nothing more. There's no inherent ideas, values or philosophies associated with the word. If there were, I wouldn't be atheist.

Just a final note here at the end of this long, disorganised mess: What's with the insults? If you're gonna make sweeping generalisations, could you at least be a bit less obnoxious about it? You make it very hard to respond without hurling insults and deaththreats. Hardly conductive to a debate.

Sorry I accidentially missed this bit.
Saying religion and logic are polar opposites is incorrect. Religion is merely theological philosophy. To deny the validity of religion is to deny the validity of all rationalist philosophy. The Greeks came up with the idea of "atoms" millenias before such things were proved by science. Meditation was used by religion millenias before its benefits were known. And according to the Journal of Psychology of Religion and various other reliable sources, religion benefits a person in practically every way possible. The religious are generally healthier mentally, emotionally and physically, have more friends, commit crimes less often, and do more drugs. So, why should religion be attacked so vociferously?
I suppose you have some some proof to back you up, right? Mind you, I dismiss any statistical evidence from highly religious and/or fundamentalist nations, such as USA and Iran. Show me something from a nation where it's not a disadvantage to be an atheist.

Also, either you're religious and believe in god(s), and all the magic it entails, or you're an agnostic or atheist, and you only observe the philosophical aspects of religion. What you do above, is what most atheists and agnostics do. Sit down and calmly sort the useful bits from the bollox. Provided they give a toss. I don't, usually. I'm a firm believer in formulating my own values without resorting to philosophy. But most atheists & agnostics aren't like me. Just like most religious people wouldn't write what you just did, and still claim to be religious.

After all, very few, or no, war were truly fought over religion, but just economics under the guise of religion. For example, the Crusades began because the Muslim nations had been attacking Constantinople because they wanted it (not religions reasons). Christian Europe coveted the Muslim lands, felt sympathetic towards the Christians in Constantinople, and also feared an invasion if the Muslims took Constantinople. So, for those primary reasons, this "Crusade" began. And though it was stimulated by religious reasons, those weren't the primary reasons. The idea that Christians just randomly woke up one day and said, "Hey! LET'S GO RE-CLAIM THE HOLY LAND!!" or from guidance from God is a myth. Also, the Christians were unsuccessful. The land the Muslims lost was quickly reclaimed and, to the Muslims, the Mongols to the east were a bigger threat than the sporadic, unorganized Christian forces.

I'm not sure if this bit was actually addressed to me, but I have 1 comment: What about all the atrocities, all the wars, all the discrimination, rape, slavery, killing and abuse religions has sanctioned or even started over the millenia? Just because a war isn't started by a religion, it doesn't excuse the religion. Especially with all the war and strife caused by various religious institutions' lust for riches.

It doesn't matter what they haven't done or haven't been successful doing. It matters what they have done. If you give me a history lesson in the role of religion in war, you'll most likely convince me to actively go out and kill religious people. Because you will demonstrate just how completely fucked religion is.

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me."
-Psalms 23:4

Overcoming fear of death, in my opinion, is the most important goal of every human being's life, even more important than learning how to live. Because being afraid of death makes any virtuous or purposeful life meaningless. To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair. This is why, I believe, atheism is the religion for the young, who will not face death for years, and the eccentric, who can, despite logic and reason, face death as an end without fear. But atheism is not a belief I would ascribe to and religious belief should certainly be encouraged by non-political authorities.

"Life is suffering."
-Siddarth Gautama (The Buddha), 6th Century B.C.E.

Life is suffering. Because all pleasures are temporary, most pleasures are short-lasting, all pleasures must be sought through struggle, pain is often inevitable, pain is easy to come by, and difficult to overcome. There is a Ba'hai proverb, "The only thing a man owns is his tomb." Being that the opposite of suffering is lack of suffering, and the opposite of life is death, how can death be anything but permanent bliss?

The philosopher, Socrates, once remarked that we do not know with certainty what comes after death. So, to fear it would be foolish. And, even if you assume, based on empirical evidence for a blissful afterlife, refusing to rely upon rhetorical evidence alone: Accepting that "life" is merely the culmination matter and energy coming together in a certain way, that time and space are infinite (all of which are indisputable or generally-accepted theory), then even if one dies, the matter and energy will divide, but one day possibly forming a new life, billions of years in the future. It would possibly also be in a new universe if the universe collapses on itself before that point, forming a "new" universe, according to the "breathing in and out of the Gods" in Hindu theology.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists. Furthermore, unless you are the type of obscure, unusual, idiosyncratic person who is the rare minority, atheism leads merely to disillusionment and despair, so even with equal evidence, believing in the afterlife and God is superior to atheism. Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.

However, not fearing death is not to say that we should not value life or seek to keep it. And, as Socrates also said, not life, but good life should be chiefly valued. We should seek to live good, long, prosperous lives, and dying with nobility, peacefuless, and dignity. Not fearing death does not equate with desiring it, like the vikings in history or current Muslims who see death as life's single goal than as just the last rite-of-passage. Because not valuing one's life does not merely reflect upon this physical reality, but upon your transcendental existence as a whole; your "soul." With an afterlife, your personality and developed behaviors here carry over to the next. With reincarnation, the butterfly effect of positive or negative actions also carry over, like waves through water, from one life to the next. So, to not value good life is to not value existence, and fearing death is the same as fearing life. Because death is life!

That, sir, was absolutely beautiful...I've never seen anything like that before! Thank you for posting that.

You've made many good points in this. One should live a life so that he may look forward to death, not fear it. This raises another point. Death is in essence an eternal slumber, one that is earned after a hard life of living. And what religion you are doesn't matter here, because it gives us all the same thing, hope! And that hope of earning that slumber is what gives you the strength to continue living virtuously, the promise of a rest, i which you can pass into worry free, because you no longer have any worries. And this is one of the core reasonings of all religions. That's why it shouldn't be feared, it's an earned reward...

Thank you again for such a beautiful post.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "Atheists are beyond belief"

As an atheist I realize how wrong that statement is. It implies not only that atheism is ridiculous but also that atheists are "above" religion or as you suggested, unable to truly think about death. Well, I've got some news for you, you're dead wrong. I'm young, but my decision to not believe in an afterlife/god was a decision that only came with a lot of thinking. I thought a lot about death and came to the conclusion that death will not scare me as long as I've lived a fulfilling life. Because the way I see it, the only opposite to death is immortality, and that, to me, is a hell of a lot more scary.

Well, nonexistance after death means that it does not matter what kind of life you have had. It really makes no difference. Nothing does not care where it came from or what caused it. Besides I do not see what is frightening about immortality, after all being nonexistant is not something to be desired.

Well, nonexistance after death means that it does not matter what kind of life you have had. It really makes no difference. Nothing does not care where it came from or what caused it. Besides I do not see what is frightening about immortality, after all being nonexistant is not something to be desired.
So if you only have this one chance not to waste your life, everything becomes pointless? You just lost me in a major way...

On the other hand, if you will be forever, everything doesn't become totally pointless? Again you lost me completely.

I'm not scared of dying. It's not something I desire, don't get me wrong.. But life kills. We all die, so I deal with it and try to be all that I can possibly be. And barring freak accidents, I look forward to the day when I'm old and tired, and long to get out of the race. I look forward to it, because I am sure I will be proud of my life. And I'm sure there will come a day when I no longer want to live. There's limits to how much a person can handle, and there's limits to how much a body can handle.

To anyone to whom it is a matter of proof, I say the burden is on those who believe in God. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, but it is possible to prove it does. So those who have the end that is possible to prove, ought to do so.

However, it's not a matter of proof to me. It's a matter of belief. I have complicated beliefs that most closely match up with Wicca, but I don't care if anyone else thinks that or not. I can't prove that I'm right and I don't want to, and if anyone else feels they have to prove their righteousness that's their nickel.

Well, if I am forever then it is the sign of a greater purpose and such. As well, life in its own way is pointless, why be proud of anything? I tend to have problems with the idea of no higher power because I see no reason to do, have or feel anything. There is no long term, and if the long term is going to be that bad no matter what, why does it matter how we get there because it would be like writing a novel only to delete it. As well spiritual immortality is not taxing on the body and heaven would not be taxing to anything at all considering that your soul would feel peace and all that good loving nonsense. As well, Zincite, considering that God by his nature is unprovable the idea of him being proven would be impossible. After all a supernatural being beyond logic and rationality can not be logically or rationally proven.

I don't fear death for one reason alone and that reason is who cares,not me whats so bad about death i bet you don't go to sleep thinking your gonna go to hell for 8 hours or so do you?No exactly.

Well, if I am forever then it is the sign of a greater purpose and such. As well, life in its own way is pointless, why be proud of anything? I tend to have problems with the idea of no higher power because I see no reason to do, have or feel anything. There is no long term, and if the long term is going to be that bad no matter what, why does it matter how we get there because it would be like writing a novel only to delete it. As well spiritual immortality is not taxing on the body and heaven would not be taxing to anything at all considering that your soul would feel peace and all that good loving nonsense. As well, Zincite, considering that God by his nature is unprovable the idea of him being proven would be impossible. After all a supernatural being beyond logic and rationality can not be logically or rationally proven.

I'm starting to suspect most religious people are very scared of death... Anyway, why would it be pointless to have a great life? This is what I don't understand about all the afterlife believers. Besides, other than the risk of damnation, what you do in this mortal life doesn't matter one bit in the long term, does it? You could just lock yourself in a closed with a bible, and wait for it to pass. I don't get it. I really don't. I keep seeing lemmings all over the place. Lemmings racing off to their death, because they're scared of dying...

Uhm.. Sorry I actually don't mean to be offensive, you guys just boggle my mind.

Whatever the status of religion may be, I have no problem with people of faith. It's not something I usually offer my opinion, but this forum makes it fun. I'm glad the two of you don't make all manner of outrageous claims & generalisations, and I'm glad you find comfort in your faiths. Inane dribble is great on the web. But it's overrated out in the real world.

Well, if I am forever then it is the sign of a greater purpose and such. As well, life in its own way is pointless, why be proud of anything? I tend to have problems with the idea of no higher power because I see no reason to do, have or feel anything. There is no long term, and if the long term is going to be that bad no matter what, why does it matter how we get there because it would be like writing a novel only to delete it. As well spiritual immortality is not taxing on the body and heaven would not be taxing to anything at all considering that your soul would feel peace and all that good loving nonsense. As well, Zincite, considering that God by his nature is unprovable the idea of him being proven would be impossible. After all a supernatural being beyond logic and rationality can not be logically or rationally proven.

Problem: Scared of the possibility that own existance might ultimately be pointless and that death will mean oblivion.

Solution: Belief that some omnipotent, yet invisible entity, whos existence or non-existence cannot be proved, has included one's life in almighty plan and that said being will grant eternal life as long if one follows the Divine Instructions.

When the day comes, there will be no proverb or verse that will change where you end up. So live with it or stress about it. Either way, in the end, you are still dead.

*<}:o) H-D :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang:

Anyway, why would it be pointless to have a great life? This is what I don't understand about all the afterlife believers. Besides, other than the risk of damnation, what you do in this mortal life doesn't matter one bit in the long term, does it? You could just lock yourself in a closed with a bible, and wait for it to pass. I don't get it. I really don't. I keep seeing lemmings all over the place. Lemmings racing off to their death, because they're scared of dying...

Well, it does not matter. The mortal world does not matter, it is filled with flawed material and such. I look throughout life and I see at times nothing. We hope for life and seek the best but if in the end all we find is nothing, then why does it matter. A temporary life is not life at all, a case could be made that we are as alive as rocks are. After all determinism can not be disproven and if true our sentience(the we are intelligent and such) would be no more than that of a rock(that reacts but in less complicated ways). The soul is of course immune to determinism and such. The reason you do not get it is because you are caught up in the material component of life, when that component if the only means that we literally exist(but only makes little distinction between life and death other than physical processes), the spiritual component involves the soul and in some ways is the greatest part. After all death is more spiritual than physical as it is given an attention that is greater than most other losses of function in things that may be more useful.

Problem: Scared of the possibility that own existance might ultimately be pointless and that death will mean oblivion.

Solution: Belief that some omnipotent, yet invisible entity, whos existence or non-existence cannot be proved, has included one's life in almighty plan and that said being will grant eternal life as long if one follows the Divine Instructions.

Meh, you don't have a better plan. Why does it matter anyway? I solve the problem and what is coming to me in the end will only change if I am right(if I am wrong it would not matter if I murdered babies or claimed to be God himself). I stand by my decisions.

I'm agnostic, don't believe in the afterlife and see no reason why I should fear death anyways. It happens to everyone, the only difference is when. You die, they have your burial or whatever you chose, and that's it. Nothing more. The infinite sleep.

"I am not frightened of dying. Anytime will do, I don't mind. Why should I be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it, you've got to go sometime..."

I wonder, though, what's so scary about atheism?

Well, part of the reason I believe in an afterlife is to establish a difference between death and life. Because physically the difference is only of some bodily functions, death is not something to be mourned from any point of view. I believe in an afterlife to establish a point in life itself, if there is no afterlife then life is a delusion and its importance is overstated and there is no reason to live or to die(I do not believe that the purpose of life is happiness and could not live with that hedonistic belief).

"I wonder, though, what's so scary about atheism?

Well, atheism is scary in someways due to the moral corruption it spreads in its ideas of no God. I think that in many ways atheism(no religion) is a flawed idea because my question is "Why life?" because life can only be described as something worth having if we do not think of the mechanics and only of spiritual goods such as happiness and fulfillment which are only parts of a mind that is bound by instinctual urges to live and in being as such defies logic in desiring a life that is not different than a death as the material does not change but only a materially useless function does(all of materialism has no point anyway). Ultimately atheism is a threat because it spreads a belief that is against the only higher truth and assigners of worth that life could possess and denies its followers these higher truths in exchange for cold and hollow things.

Well, atheism is scary in someways due to the moral corruption it spreads in its ideas of no God.

Who are you to assume that atheists are morally corrupt. In the greater senses of morality - even relativism is in a sense a moral system - most atheists are far more 'moral' or 'ethical' (my concept of basic morality is, in the simplest terms: hurting people = bad, helping people = good) than theists who hold to an infallible set of rules they think were handed down to them by a deity. Think about it. 'Thou shall have not other gods before me' has caused more death, war, poverty, and general immorality than almost any other phrase uttered by men. That sense of morality justifies behavior that isn't even acceptable under the moral code it attempts to uphold. 'Thou shalt not kill' gives way to thou shalt not kill except in my name (Crusades, jihads, ect.) 'Thou shalt not covet / steal' gives way to the robbery of unbelievers and a more covert theft from believers via tithes. It's just bad when a theist has a universal moral code, because their theology makes it subjective and thus corrupts any ethical decisions that person will later make. I don't see atheism as being morally corrupt, so much as theism is morally and ethically bankrupt.

Of course your Holy-Awesomeness theist would probably have somethng else to say, bringing this discussion to something like: "I believe this." "No, I believe that."

So how about we both agree that we think the other is morally corrupt and go to sleep? Theist or not, we all need sleep.

(That means shut up and leave me alone. This thread is pointless in that nothing conclusive can be drawn from what is said.)

Why the hell post if you are going to dismiss the discussion? As well I never quote the bible. I have my own beliefs and such. Finally, I do not understand the whys behind atheist morality. Morality is usually done with respect to higher beliefs and orders, considering that nothing has proven to me that there is a point to life without religion(I have posted many times about a physical state of life being pointless on its own) which means that if life is unimportant why not the morality within? You merely attacked me without disproving my arguments about the point/pointlessness of life that are the basis of my disbelief in atheist morallity(their morallity is motivated by something that is not totally logical and materialist and therefore respects a higher belief which is the property of religion). Novikov, I suggest that you know your audience better and not assualt me with crap, after all my ideas were not disproven with your post as you never proved the why of atheist morality.

Well, atheism is scary in someways due to the moral corruption it spreads in its ideas of no God. I think that in many ways atheism(no religion) is a flawed idea because my question is "Why life?" because life can only be described as something worth having if we do not think of the mechanics and only of spiritual goods such as happiness and fulfillment which are only parts of a mind that is bound by instinctual urges to live and in being as such defies logic in desiring a life that is not different than a death as the material does not change but only a materially useless function does(all of materialism has no point anyway). Ultimately atheism is a threat because it spreads a belief that is against the only higher truth and assigners of worth that life could possess and denies its followers these higher truths in exchange for cold and hollow things.

Um, excuse me?

Look back at that list of Shrub's. There are several atheists and materialists that can be given credit for much of what you consider moral.

Not to mention the non-Christians that have contributed to your Christian morals.

You name one thing outside your faith, church, and/or dogma that you value that an atheist necessary does not. Good luck.

You were the very one engaging in Pascal's wager not long ago. Talk about cold and hollow things. :rolleyes:

As an Agnostic, I find this entire thread both hilarious and tragic.

"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me."
-Psalms 23:4

Overcoming fear of death, in my opinion, is the most important goal of every human being's life, even more important than learning how to live. Because being afraid of death makes any virtuous or purposeful life meaningless. To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair. This is why, I believe, atheism is the religion for the young, who will not face death for years, and the eccentric, who can, despite logic and reason, face death as an end without fear. But atheism is not a belief I would ascribe to and religious belief should certainly be encouraged by non-political authorities.

Atheism != nihilism. Strike one.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists.

Argumentum ad populum. Strike two.

Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.

As has been explained many times, Pascal's wager is fallacious and immoral.

Steeerike Threeee! Yer outta here!

/me chants "Teh Cat Tribe PWNZ j00!!!"

Hehe, I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's wrong with that first post :)

Why the hell post if you are going to dismiss the discussion? As well I never quote the bible. I have my own beliefs and such. Finally, I do not understand the whys behind atheist morality. Morality is usually done with respect to higher beliefs and orders, considering that nothing has proven to me that there is a point to life without religion(I have posted many times about a physical state of life being pointless on its own) which means that if life is unimportant why not the morality within? You merely attacked me without disproving my arguments about the point/pointlessness of life that are the basis of my disbelief in atheist morallity(their morallity is motivated by something that is not totally logical and materialist and therefore respects a higher belief which is the property of religion). Novikov, I suggest that you know your audience better and not assualt me with crap, after all my ideas were not disproven with your post as you never proved the why of atheist morality.

It's funny how certain religious people seem convinced it is impossible to have respect for your fellow man unless some divine being has told you to. Is it so hard to understand that one can base morality on how one would wish to be treated by others? Few atheists will tell you life is unimportant. They simply hold that life isn't important to anyone except the living. There is a very important difference there. One which allows for morality based solely on people, without the need for some allmighty being with a carrot in one hand and a whip in the other.

One thing is the question of why. You say these atheists are moral but why are they so? Do they believe in something? After all for the purposes of this discussion I was assuming that religions that lacked Gods were not considered atheism(such as Buddhism which is sort of a philosophy). I am assuming that atheism is nihilism because greater beliefs are by their nature spiritual and nihilism denies the spirit.

It's funny how certain religious people seem convinced it is impossible to have respect for your fellow man unless some divine being has told you to. Is it so hard to understand that one can base morality on how one would wish to be treated by others? Few atheists will tell you life is unimportant. They simply hold that life isn't important to anyone except the living. There is a very important difference there. One which allows for morality based solely on people, without the need for some allmighty being with a carrot in one hand and a whip in the other.
The fact is that life is only a state of a physical being. It is not special from a materialistic view. You say that atheists believe in the importance of life, I ask why? I am not always saying a spiritual carrot and whip but instead a higher purpose. But ultimately the idea that life has any higher purpose than death is not entirely materialistic and even to a certain extent a religious idea(it says that there is more than physical reality).

One thing is the question of why. You say these atheists are moral but why are they so? Do they believe in something? After all for the purposes of this discussion I was assuming that religions that lacked Gods were not considered atheism(such as Buddhism which is sort of a philosophy). I am assuming that atheism is nihilism because greater beliefs are by their nature spiritual and nihilism denies the spirit.

Thank you for making clear that you do not understand atheism or nihilism or the distinctions.

Shrub has claimed that atheism is nihilism. He is simply wrong.

Perhaps before fearing and equating them, you should learn a bit about them.

Atheists can believe in lots of things. Including morals.

Do a little research.

The fact is that life is only a state of a physical being. It is not special from a materialistic view. You say that atheists believe in the importance of life, I ask why? I am not always saying a spiritual carrot and whip but instead a higher purpose. But ultimately the idea that life has any higher purpose than death is not entirely materialistic and even to a certain extent a religious idea(it says that there is more than physical reality).

Perhaps tomorrow I will have the patience to teach you Ethics 101.

In the meantime, stop making assumptions out of ignorance. :headbang:

I have studied Christianity and theology extensively. I have read the Bible many times. I have studied other religions.

Before you condemn other beliefs, perhaps you will extend the courtesy of finding out what they are!! :headbang:

Thank you for making clear that you do not understand atheism or nihilism or the distinctions.

Shrub has claimed that atheism is nihilism. He is simply wrong.

Perhaps before fearing and equating them, you should learn a bit about them.

Atheists can believe in lots of things. Including morals.

Do a little research.

Explain yourself rather than make these claims without describing how we are wrong. Morality is based on assumptions that tend to be spiritual in nature(not really logical because what is most logical for a self-serving organism is not necessarily moral). Under a materialistic eye of the world rocks and people are not really different other than the dimensions and responses to outside forces. If it is not materialistic then it is spiritual, morals are not materialistic and because of that are spiritual, spirituallity is a form of religion, religion is something that atheists do not support or believe in because of the assumptions made to back up the spirituallity. Instead of claiming that we are wrong, explain what is wrong with the logic we follow. As well because someone claims they are something does not mean that is true.(so that way you don't just bring up moral atheists you bring up the logic of morality and atheism going together)

Perhaps tomorrow I will have the patience to teach you Ethics 101.
In the meantime, stop making assumptions out of ignorance. :headbang:
I have studied Christianity and theology extensively. I have read the Bible many times. I have studied other religions.
Before you condemn other beliefs, perhaps you will extend the courtesy of finding out what they are!! :headbang:
Look, morality requires an assumption, a faith in something. That is similar to religion, in the fact that something is assumed. Sure someone can argue that there is no assumption but ultimately there has to be. Now I am assuming that religion can not be atheism at the same time. Which means that religious qualities such as the leap of faith towards a spiritual/semi-spiritual ideal are not really atheist but are in fact religious. I do not care about your credentials, I do care that you think that you are better than me because you wasted your time obscuring your mind by reading some crappy books. I care little about the great philosophy of others, either you make an assumption out of faith and therefore have a belief in something greater than yourself or you do not. If all of our illusions and delusions were shattered even the atheists would probably kill themselves for their devotions to their wrong beliefs(assuming that this is a materialistic world).

Let me put something else on the table. Every human being worships something. They must put their faith in something(some ideal, some glorious thing) in order to accept life. Theists say God, but atheists of course have a broader range of idols, these idols keep us from realizing the real truth that we are insignificant worms(we may realize it consciously but ultimately our minds never embrace the idea unless we are deeply depressed). Atheists talk about how good they are and how human happiness is important but what makes you think that that isn't because they are worshipping something without the realization that they are. Atheism is misguided in that fashion, ultimately there is one God, he greater than all and even created the ethics and such that we say are so important. I believe I even heard somewhere that hinduism has a higher being or truth, just that the lesser gods are simply incarnations. I am not going to claim that christianity is the perfect religion, just that the ultimate belief in one deity is perfect (after all the greco-roman gods were not even worthy of worship).

Explain yourself rather than make these claims without describing how we are wrong. Morality is based on assumptions that tend to be spiritual in nature(not really logical because what is most logical for a self-serving organism is not necessarily moral). Under a materialistic eye of the world rocks and people are not really different other than the dimensions and responses to outside forces. If it is not materialistic then it is spiritual, morals are not materialistic and because of that are spiritual, spirituallity is a form of religion, religion is something that atheists do not support or believe in because of the assumptions made to back up the spirituallity. Instead of claiming that we are wrong, explain what is wrong with the logic we follow. As well because someone claims they are something does not mean that is true.(so that way you don't just bring up moral atheists you bring up the logic of morality and atheism going together)

<sigh>

I'm not teaching philosophy 101 tonight. Please look at the following.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)
Why Be a Good Person? (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/92/story_9263_1.html)
An Introduction to Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)
ETHICS WITHOUT GODS (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html)
Atheists Can Be Moral, Too (http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/4991-1.html)
Morality Requires God ... or Does It? (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html)
Is there anything good about atheism? (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/positive.html)
The Moral Foundations of Atheism and Christianity (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/mfound.html)
Why Be Moral? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/whymoral.html)
Why Be Moral? (version2) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/whymoral.html)

That should satisfy you for a while. ;)

Posting to keep my place. I think I looked at most of them. Ultimately all atheist beliefs are leaps of faith, and therefore due to their nature are to a certain extent a religion(I mean Buddhism is). Certainly there is no one enforcing that religion, I could even understand it if God himself did not care what we did and forgave us anyway. But I do believe that there is an absolute right and wrong in this world. That there are laws over laws describing perfection. The idea is that we act moral, I do want to be good and want the earthly reward of being good. However, my idea of good rejects the idea of secular humanism which is popular among atheists, after all good defined by rules that we might not understand disagrees with the idea(no supernatural) as well democracy and human reason can be inferior, as well I disagree with the idea that morality can be part of a godless universe(the idea of God creating morality). As well, I do not claim that a man is not responsible for his own morality but he is not responsible for insanity(clouds judgement unfairly) or acting under the orders of God(God is perfect and created morality, he even could warp our idea of good and make square circles if he wanted, I doubt we would ever understand a square circle if we saw one though). I am not really going to make a distinction between a philosophical idea and a religion if they take the same place(philosophies are often just idols in my mind and receive worship even if there is no prayer). Does all of that make sense? I view most arguments for atheism as childishly lacking understanding that a greater being is greater and of course is never wrong but possibly not always involved with the world's workings(physics works fine). So owing to the idea of religion and idol-worship I believe that everyone worships something even if it is a false idol and must be corrected(of course I am not going to advocate violence or anything). Also I will state that I am not a perfect believer under my system(I still sometimes have to use psychological tricks like pascal's wager and such to maintain my faith's strength despite the fact that I need it or else I would be lost but I pray for forgiveness). Ultimately morality requires religion, and this was a long post. :)

Holyawesomeness gives a rather bleak view of the religious. While me and many other atheists believe that at least some people are capable of feeling empathy and doing unselfish, good things, the religious seem to think that every human being is a sociopath incapable of thinking anyone but himself, and willing to help others only when there's a promise of a reward or a punishment in the form of an afterlife.

So which one of these world views was the glum and nihilistic one again?

Holyawesomeness gives a rather bleak view of the religious. While me and many other atheists believe that at least some people are capable of feeling empathy and doing unselfish, good things, the religious seem to think that every human being is a sociopath incapable of thinking anyone but himself, and willing to help others only when there's a promise of a reward or a punishment in the form of an afterlife.

So which one of these world views was the glum and nihilistic one again?

*tosses you a cookie*

...What? Were you expecting a comment? I'm tired and hungry, you know...

*wonders if it was such a good idea to toss his last cookie*

Ok, this is my philsophy, I know this is probably compleatly out of context. I am an athiest, I understand that all I am is chemicals and electric pulses. I know that these materials are not that special. Its when they come to gether that is special. So when I die, I know that these same chemicals will break down in to other things, some living, some not. I fear not death because I understand life. Not because I have a god, but because I know that the chemicals in my body are not that special, its their combination. And if that combination breaks down, so what, how does it matter. It does not, thats why I don't worry, because I know what is happening right now that makes up me is not that special.

two things here that are bugging me>

you made an inference/implications that atheists are arrogant what not cause we refuse to believe in some omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent entity.

many of us atheists(at least the scientifically literate ones) see ourselves as animals. maybe rather intellegent animals with some nifty tools, but still, animals.

you religous people always see yourselves as 'God's chosen people'

and we are arrogant?

secondly, is your sense of morals so immature that you require a reward to do what is good and right?
i forget who, believe it was a psychologist who came up with a moral development/maturation progression, and following laws/doing whats right in order to avoid punishment/obtain rewards was really, really damn low on the ranking...

kinda like those damned screaming kids at the market, where their parents have to promise them a cookie to get them to behave.

its been said already, and it will be said again, you dont need religion for morals. maybe to justify wierd 'morals' like claiming homosexuality is wrong, or eating craw-dads is evil, or its bad to wear poly-cotton or something, but for the basic foundation morals, like dont kill, steal, hurt other people, etc. dont require religion, only reason.

Look, I think that living ultimately takes some arrogance. After all, to live is to say that you are important, there is no evidence that human life is at all important. Also I am not sure you people are reading all of my posts(they are long). I actually did say that God might not even reward good deeds and just be nice to everybody(it was part of a very long post). Also, ethics that stem from nothing are merely made up, they have no purpose and only exist in a futile attempt at self justification. Also, in response to the negative responses against my nature, please note that I am also an authoritarian and am not the best religious person. As well, I would like to note that some psychologists have a tendency to base their theories on what they think, the ideas that do that belong to the humanistic school of psychology which to a certain extent could be more philosophy than psychology in my opinion, the person that you could be talking about Cave-hermits is Lawrence Kohlberg. Anywayl no one has responded to why life is important? I also put most philosophies under religion because of the faith required in putting a belief in such things(they usually claim that there is something greater or more important that could be considered an idol).

Ok, this is my philsophy, I know this is probably compleatly out of context. I am an athiest, I understand that all I am is chemicals and electric pulses. I know that these materials are not that special. Its when they come to gether that is special. So when I die, I know that these same chemicals will break down in to other things, some living, some not. I fear not death because I understand life. Not because I have a god, but because I know that the chemicals in my body are not that special, its their combination. And if that combination breaks down, so what, how does it matter. It does not, thats why I don't worry, because I know what is happening right now that makes up me is not that special.
But there is something special that will be lost. The coming together that is you.

Look, I think that living ultimately takes some arrogance. After all, to live is to say that you are important, there is no evidence that human life is at all important. Also I am not sure you people are reading all of my posts(they are long). I actually did say that God might not even reward good deeds and just be nice to everybody(it was part of a very long post). Also, ethics that stem from nothing are merely made up, they have no purpose and only exist in a futile attempt at self justification. Also, in response to the negative responses against my nature, please note that I am also an authoritarian and am not the best religious person. As well, I would like to note that some psychologists have a tendency to base their theories on what they think, the ideas that do that belong to the humanistic school of psychology which to a certain extent could be more philosophy than psychology in my opinion, the person that you could be talking about Cave-hermits is Lawrence Kohlberg. Anywayl no one has responded to why life is important? I also put most philosophies under religion because of the faith required in putting a belief in such things(they usually claim that there is something greater or more important that could be considered an idol).
HolyA, it would be much easier to read your posts, if you used paragraphs. The enter key is right there on the keyboard ;) - Thanks.

I don't think people missed your points. Perhaps they didn't fully understand them, but I'm sure they managed to read them. I did anyway.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but empathy is actually a demonstratable quality. It's more pronounced in females than males, and it varies from person to person. Some people are born without the ability. Again, the majority of these poor, braindamaged (because that's what it is) kids are male. A notable trait in sociopaths is their lack of empathy. It's not so much a disregard for their fellow beings. It's actually a lack of ability to relate to others. Psychopaths can mimic and to an extent learn to anticipate, how humans respond to them. This is why some of them can function in society.

I'm talking about this, because it's the basis of my ethics. Disregard philosophy for a moment, and just appreciate what is the physical reality.
People have emotions. These are measurable, chemical functions of our bodies. They are influenced by our experiences and a host of other, more tangible things. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else's place, and experience the emotional response they have to the physical reality - be it words or actual physical things like a kick in the teeth, a touch or an earthquake.

This quality - which we have a pretty good understanding of, and which we can demonstrate - pretty much undermines your arguments.

Sure, you can start arguing about whether ethics is simply something we have, because it is gratifying to treat others as we wish to be treated. Or if it's simply a capability we've evolved (by the way, many species are empathic), because it improves our chances of survival as a social animal. For me, that aspect is unimportant, and I don't really see why it would implicate something divine.

What counts (for me), is that I am able to appreciate the state of the world around me, and how my actions will affect it. Essentially, I have an immense respect for the entire world, because I am able to relate to it. I can put myself in it's shoes, if you will. Thus, I want to preserve it. I want to improve other people's lives, because I understand that not only do happy people make me happy, but they are happy too. And that makes me feel good when I relate to them.
The debate about altruism is still going on, but honestly, I don't give a shit. I prefer to think altruism is real - like you prefer to think god is - because the idea is nice. Whether my opinion about the idea actually undermines what I hope for, doesn't matter to me. But really, should I be wrong, it won't get me down for more than a couple of hours. It won't change my sense of ethics, it will just change the origin.

To believe death is an ultimate end, rather than a change or a new beginning, creates an existence of inevitable despair.

I cannot find words for just how wrong you are. Why should I despair just because I know that some day my existence will end? It's not that I'm not having fun in this world, I really am, but to me the biggest fear most definately would not be the end of existence, but the concept of having to live forever, long after all interest and hope is dead. In your belief, you have in no way quenched your fear of death, you have merely brushed it aside by taking upon beliefs that it doesn't exist, like a little child would. You are still afraid of it, you just believe you never need to face it. But ultimately the fear is only for weak souls, those who cannot live their life today so they always need a promise of a tomorrow when they can really start living.

* Everything that has a beginning, will have and end. Even me. *

Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is derived from the Ancient Greeks.

It's formed from two words; a (no) theos (gods).

So you get a word meaning 'no god'. It's used to stress a no belief in any god(s) and/or godess(es).

However, you seem to forget one thing here. Atheism isn't equated with a lack of beliefs. Atheism in its modern form is known as Secularism (which has a lovely sister, Pluralism, and a cousin, Ecumenicism). It is essentially believing as you will; focusing on the belief in civil and political rights free of religious influence. Religion is seen as an excuse for war, discrimination and hatred.

Belief is something with you and only you and you alone can know. It come through a lot of self-analysis and soul-searching to know what's good for you.

I disagree. Atheism is not "believing as you will." That is subjectivism. "Atheism" is merely a lack of theistic belief. "A-" without, "theism," a belief in god/-dess/-s.

That someone is an atheist by itself says nothing about what, if anything, they *do* believe. "Atheism" is in the same category as "a-unicornism," "a-elfism," "a-santaclausism," etc. An atheist can be a Communist, a laissez-faire Capitalist (e.g. Ayn Rand), libertarian, or totalitarian, or anything in between.

Someone can be an atheist because they believe there is no god (goddess, pantheon). They can be an atheist because they claim not to know if such creatures exist, or that it is unknowable (the agnostic still lacks theistic belief). A person can also be an atheist if they've never heard of religion, gods, etc. Since belief in gods is not inborn, and must be taught, every newborn child is an atheist! Now, for those of you scared of atheism, doesn't that give you a nice little fright!

i know its silly of me to jump into this after the 100th post is already passed but i did read most of the posts so here i go....


first of all, shrub, why do you fear atheism? are you scared that one day youll wake up and realize that you have lost your faith? do you wake up in the middle of the night and sit bolt upright with sweat beading on your forehead at the thought that heaven and hell might be meaningless words? its never bothered ME. why does it bother YOU?

secondly... what world do y'all live in where religious people are automatically MORAL? religions HAVE morals but that doesnt mean that the vast majority of their believers follow those morals. take a look at how many clerics of whatever denomination have had a problem with child molestation and/or having affairs with church members. it happens all the time. the common parishoner is no better. how many people are virgins on their wedding night? how many are faithful throughout their marriages? no big deal to ME but hardly a great moral example.

look at how many religions have lead their followers to mass suicide. they convinced their believers that "god" wanted them all to die.

consider the wars that have been fought and the number of people who have died over the question of infant baptism. then go on to all the other minutia of christian dogma that have spurred one war or another. THEN go on to the "crusades" of various religions. this stuff is MORAL?

charismatic religious leaders throughout the ages have changed religious morals to suit their own circumstances. do i need to name names? think of henry the 8th and joseph smith to name men whose actions are still in force today.

we all choose our own morality in the end no matter if we are believers or atheists. there are many very moral atheists and shockingly immoral believers. in my experience it has very little to do with the religion of the individual and everything to do with their basic character.

Ashmoria> thank you, well said.

Holyawesomeness> apologies if i was a bit angry and offensive on that last post, but im starting to get irritated at the multiple claims all over these forums that atheism==immorality, and various people telling me i can't have a moral system since i claim i am atheist/agnostic(not real sure where i am myself, i tend to waffle a bit...)

Ill be the first person to admit that i may not be the most moral person, but that is just weakness within me, i still have a moral code, i just fail sometimes to live by it.

i know its silly of me to jump into this after the 100th post is already passed but i did read most of the posts so here i go....


first of all, shrub, why do you fear atheism? are you scared that one day youll wake up and realize that you have lost your faith? do you wake up in the middle of the night and sit bolt upright with sweat beading on your forehead at the thought that heaven and hell might be meaningless words? its never bothered ME. why does it bother YOU?

secondly... what world do y'all live in where religious people are automatically MORAL? religions HAVE morals but that doesnt mean that the vast majority of their believers follow those morals. take a look at how many clerics of whatever denomination have had a problem with child molestation and/or having affairs with church members. it happens all the time. the common parishoner is no better. how many people are virgins on their wedding night? how many are faithful throughout their marriages? no big deal to ME but hardly a great moral example.

look at how many religions have lead their followers to mass suicide. they convinced their believers that "god" wanted them all to die.

consider the wars that have been fought and the number of people who have died over the question of infant baptism. then go on to all the other minutia of christian dogma that have spurred one war or another. THEN go on to the "crusades" of various religions. this stuff is MORAL?

charismatic religious leaders throughout the ages have changed religious morals to suit their own circumstances. do i need to name names? think of henry the 8th and joseph smith to name men whose actions are still in force today.

we all choose our own morality in the end no matter if we are believers or atheists. there are many very moral atheists and shockingly immoral believers. in my experience it has very little to do with the religion of the individual and everything to do with their basic character.

Finally! Thankyou! Someone who doesn't pick either side! However...you would sort of HAVE to pick a side in order to argue for or against anything (George W. Bush moment right there). In NOT choosing a side and neither defending nor advocating one or the other, what purpose does your post serve but to take up space? The point of a debate, or in this thread's case a verbal brawl (well we are spitting on each other's beliefs), is to defend/advocate a position. Granted, a political debate is to dance around the question, as you did moments ago, but this is not a political debate.

Back to actually posting something "useful" and "offensive", religion has been a way of controlling the masses, nothing more. Religion has nothing to do with morals. Morals have nothing to do with religion. Yes, many religions, not all of them mind you, include morals. People do not need to belive in anything. A puppet master pulling on the strings of everything around you may be comforting for some, but I for one wouldn't like to be a puppet in another person's show. I would like to ad lib my part and if I screw up, be kicked off the stage (meaning someone shoots me :mp5: ). Of course those of you who like the idea of not really being responsible for your actions and that the big guy in the sky (hey, that ryhmed!) will come save you if you behave, or at least atone for the killing spree you've been on, I give full support to. If you wish to live your lives knowing that you never truely die and will live forever, either in Satans torturium or God's santurarium (I like making words up), you are certainly welcome to. However, if any of you show up on my doorstep in a suit and tie with a book/pamphlet in your hand attempting to convert me, just know that you might be finding out about the afterlife a little sooner than you expected. That's at least one thing that atheists' have over religion. You will never see some stranger in a suit at your doorstep trying to steal your "soul" by convincing you to give up religion. One point for the atheists.

its never bothered ME. why does it bother YOU?
Are you joking?

And what is your motivation?

In other words, after your time is up, what then? What do you hope to achieve?


I believe The Similized World explained this for me... My motivation for what I do NOW, is that I do not have any 'later' to rely on... so, if I want to do things, I'd better do them now... right?

I want to leave behind a creative legacy... so I have to do that while I can. That is my motivation for doing things NOW. Did you mean what is my motivation for creating? I don't know... I am just a creative person, perhaps.

If you mean - what is my motivation, with regard to an afterlife... it is irrelevent. I expect no afterlife. Anything I leave behind during this lifetime can hopefully be appreciated by my children, and my children's children... but I expect to gain nothing from it after I cease breathing.

Am I missing the point? I'm not sure I understand the question.

Well, atheism is scary in someways due to the moral corruption it spreads in its ideas of no God. I think that in many ways atheism(no religion) is a flawed idea because my question is "Why life?" because life can only be described as something worth having if we do not think of the mechanics and only of spiritual goods such as happiness and fulfillment which are only parts of a mind that is bound by instinctual urges to live and in being as such defies logic in desiring a life that is not different than a death as the material does not change but only a materially useless function does(all of materialism has no point anyway). Ultimately atheism is a threat because it spreads a belief that is against the only higher truth and assigners of worth that life could possess and denies its followers these higher truths in exchange for cold and hollow things.

On the other hand:

Religion is scary in someways due to the moral corruption it spreads in its ideas of a God (or gods)..... Ultimately, Religion is a threat because ut spreads a belief that is against reality....

Perhaps, no?

Am I missing the point? I'm not sure I understand the question.

I do believe shrub is confused and is mixing up the beliefs of atheism and nihilism. Other then that no point whatsoever.

I do believe shrub is confused and is mixing up the beliefs of atheism and nihilism. Other then that no point whatsoever.

Glad it's not just me failing to see the point...

I feel like a contestant on the 'cryptic' version of "Name That Fruit".

Presenter: "So what type of fruit is this?"

Me: "It's an apple".

Presenter: "But WHY?"

Me: "Errr... because it is green, and apple-ish, and tastes like apples..."

Presenter: "Yes, But WHY?"

Me: "Errr... because it's parents were apples, and it came from an apple tree...?"

Presenter: "Yes, but WHY?"

Me: "I don't think I understand the question"....

(This is what it is like inside my head. Welcome).

Glad it's not just me failing to see the point...

I feel like a contestant on the 'cryptic' version of "Name That Fruit".

Presenter: "So what type of fruit is this?"

Me: "It's an apple".

Presenter: "But WHY?"

Me: "Errr... because it is green, and apple-ish, and tastes like apples..."

Presenter: "Yes, But WHY?"

Me: "Errr... because it's parents were apples, and it came from an apple tree...?"

Presenter: "Yes, but WHY?"

Me: "I don't think I understand the question"....

(This is what it is like inside my head. Welcome).
But WHY is it like that in your head? :p :fluffle:

But WHY is it like that in your head? :p :fluffle:

LOL... "Because it's green, and apple-ish, and tastes like apples"?

:fluffle:

:D

Simple simple question... how the hell can complete consciousness (soul if you wish) cease to exist? It easier to believe that consciousness can arrive from nowhere than for it to simply fade into nothingness.

And anyway, how do you know that YOU will die? You could be the one thing on this earth to live forever.

Simple simple question... how the hell can complete consciousness (soul if you wish) cease to exist? It easier to believe that consciousness can arrive from nowhere than for it to simply fade into nothingness.

And anyway, how do you know that YOU will die? You could be the one thing on this earth to live forever.

Conciousness is 'built' by your Mother's body.

And every tower that is built will eventually crumble.

Simple simple question... how the hell can complete consciousness (soul if you wish) cease to exist? It easier to believe that consciousness can arrive from nowhere than for it to simply fade into nothingness.

And anyway, how do you know that YOU will die? You could be the one thing on this earth to live forever.

I wonder who this was directed to?

How can complete consciousness cease to exist? Is it any more difficult to imagine, than that it could begin to exist?

The one, seems as likely as the other, as I see it.

I don't see why 'consciousness' should be any more eternal and immutable than any other concept. We know our world wasn't always here, and will not always be here... and we can observe, day by day, the gradual transition of order into chaos. Kind of suggests that consciousness, like everything else, has a starting point... and so, most likely, has an ending point, also.

I'm not sure how it is 'easier' to believe, one way or the other... I guess some might find it more COMFORTABLE, to imagine they might never cease to exist?

Glad it's not just me failing to see the point...

I feel like a contestant on the 'cryptic' version of "Name That Fruit".

Presenter: "So what type of fruit is this?"

Me: "It's an apple".

Presenter: "But WHY?"

Me: "Errr... because it is green, and apple-ish, and tastes like apples..."

Presenter: "Yes, But WHY?"

Me: "Errr... because it's parents were apples, and it came from an apple tree...?"

Presenter: "Yes, but WHY?"

Me: "I don't think I understand the question"....

(This is what it is like inside my head. Welcome).


Actually, it's a unique piece of life. No apple ever was exactly the same and no apple ever will be exactly the same.

But to make communication between humans possible, all English-speakers at one point agree to refer to the round, red or yellow or green fruit of the apple trees as "apples". Other languages refer to it as "pomme" or "apfel".
In order to be able to have a grasp of the outside world, we generalise and create abstracts. It's tall, it's got leaves and branches, therefore it's a tree. We don't really care just how tall it is or how many branches it has. If it fits a handfull of criteria, we can file it to the right category in our brains. That's how language works, that's how our perception of the world on the whole works.

If we weren't able to do that, we would not only be incapable of communication, our brain functions would shut down with the overload of information, we wouldn't be able to identify others as humans, animals, etc, we couldn't find food, we couldn't survive.

Now, have I confused you a little more? ;)

-snip-
Plato would've said we already know what a tree is before we ever see one...

Let's not forget that atheist thinkers have established Humanism and the Brights - hardly nihilists, hmm?

Dostoyevsky was cited earlier; I heartily recommend reading The Brothers Karamazov, specifically the chapter concerning Ivan's 'Grand Inquisitor'. Dostoyevsky was virulently anti-atheist but nonetheless articulated a remarkable vision of atheist principles.

What do I, an agnostic, live for? I'm not sure. Perhaps the beauty I see in the people I love and the world around me, the innate sense that what I feel is true, joy, imagination, a thousand other small yet vital things.

Yeah. I don't need faith - I have raspberries.

Simple simple question... how the hell can complete consciousness (soul if you wish) cease to exist? It easier to believe that consciousness can arrive from nowhere than for it to simply fade into nothingness.


Why would it not? consciousness or soul is such a nebulous concept. It may be easier for you to believe that consciousness can arrive from nowhere than for it to simply fade into nothingness, but why should that hold true for anyone else.

As far as I see it, and in my opinion, you are born, you live, you die. That's it. Game over. And yet I don't steal, kill people or push over old grandmas on the street.

Is this because I believe I will be punished in the afterlife?
No.

Is this because the police will arrest me and take away my freedom?
Maybe for some things like kicking my boss in the shins when he is a pain :) , but for stealing and killing and pushing grannies?
No.

Is this because I can understand what it would be like for somebody to do these things to me and/or those people I hold dear?
Yes.


There is no absolute requirement for religion, or belief in soul, or afterlife to have opinions on what is acceptable behaviour for circumstances. After all, that is all morals are, a certain persons opinion on the matter.


I think we can all agree that having an opinion on whether a film is good or bad doesn't require religious belief, so why should having an opinion on whether homosexuality, or adultery, or theft is right or wrong be any different?

There are three major flaws that I can think of with Pascal's argument, and they're gaping ones.

First, it relies on the idea that people are, and should be, religious purely for selfish reasons. If that's what religion is according to him, I want no part of it.

Second, you can't force yourself to believe. You either do, or you don't. Mimicking religious rituals without faith would be absurd. I've thought the matter of God's existence through long and hard, and come to the conclusion that the idea of a god makes no sense.

Third, if there were a God, then he would be a truly mean-spirited bastard for casting people into eternal suffering simply for not worshipping him or not believing in him. Again, that kind of religion is something I would want no part of. And if I wake up after death and find myself in Hell, I'll at least have the ever-lasting satisfaction of knowing that I'm a far better person than God is.

God is perfect; you can't be better than God. There is the City of God and the City of Man... we make our own little rules here on earth, moral relativism more and more involved in them, but God has His rules and His are non-negotiable. And from what's been said of hell, it isn't a place anyone wants to be caught dead in (hehe... pun intended).

And yes, my name is Thomas. hehe. (but not Saint... and not Aquinas.)

God is perfect; you can't be better than God. There is the City of God and the City of Man... we make our own little rules here on earth, moral relativism more and more involved in them, but God has His rules and His are non-negotiable. And from what's been said of hell, it isn't a place anyone wants to be caught dead in (hehe... pun intended).

And yes, my name is Thomas. hehe. (but not Saint... and not Aquinas.)
And I am not capable in worshiping a god that does not understand us individually and make the decision based on his personal knowledge of us rather then our faith in him

On the other hand:

Religion is scary in someways due to the moral corruption it spreads in its ideas of a God (or gods)..... Ultimately, Religion is a threat because ut spreads a belief that is against reality....

Perhaps, no?

hmmm

God = moral corruption

interesting. imo, people are responsible for moral corruption. God gave us a choice to do as we wished, and we've strayed pretty far from his ideal.

all that said, it's good that God gave us free will.... can you imagine how boring life would be if we were all the same, made the same choices in every different circumstance?

hmmm

God = moral corruption

interesting. imo, people are responsible for moral corruption. God gave us a choice to do as we wished, and we've strayed pretty far from his ideal.
And where did he ever say that god = moral corruption?

He said religion has the potential for expediting the spread of moral corruption

And where did he ever say that god = moral corruption?

He said religion has the potential for expediting the spread of moral corruption

he didn't. i'm trying to give him the Sinuhue Misconception Preoccupation

It's where a person becomes hypersensitive to others misconstruing his posts. hehe

Atheism, don't like thinking that my life is worth nothing, but, when you think of it, they do have a point. If you die believing in eternal life beyond, and there's nothing, you'll be horribly disappointed, but if you die believing in eternal nothingness beyond death, and there's a fantastic afterlife, then you'll be nicely surprised, but even if there is nothing, at least you have the satisfaction of being able to say 'I told you so'.

Me, I prefer to think of death as a long tunnel, too long for me to see right down to the other end. I don't know how long it is, or even if there's an end, but there's no other way to the other side, so I'll follow to wherever it leads, regardless, and hold no preconcieved ideas as to what lies beyond. But I do believe that there is something more to death than just ceasing to exist - an end to that tunnel, I just don't know what........

Atheism, don't like thinking that my life is worth nothing, but, when you think of it, they do have a point. If you die believing in eternal life beyond, and there's nothing, you'll be horribly disappointed, but if you die believing in eternal nothingness beyond death, and there's a fantastic afterlife, then you'll be nicely surprised, but even if there is nothing, at least you have the satisfaction of being able to say 'I told you so'.

Me, I prefer to think of death as a long tunnel, too long for me to see right down to the other end. I don't know how long it is, or even if there's an end, but there's no other way to the other side, so I'll follow to wherever it leads, regardless, and hold no preconcieved ideas as to what lies beyond. But I do believe that there is something more to death than just ceasing to exist - an end to that tunnel, I just don't know what........
Why must there be a god for your life to have meaning? or give it worth?

Why must there be a god for your life to have meaning? or give it worth?


Actually, it's more necessary for there to be a god in order for you to have any life at all, fulfilling or otherwise. After all, without a creator there is no creation.

Actually, it's more necessary for there to be a god in order for you to have any life at all, fulfilling or otherwise. After all, without a creator there is no creation.
So you say … but yet for some reason the universe has to have a creator while god doesn’t
That is no more or less logical saying the universe always was

(at least we have observed the universe’s existence objectively unlike gods)

If the creator isn't eternal, he must have been created and there must have been a creator creator out there. If the creator is eternal, there was never really a creation in the beginning. It must have happened in the middle of eternity.

Well, either that, or the beginning of the universe can't be explained simply and logically with one or two sentences.

Actually, it's more necessary for there to be a god in order for you to have any life at all, fulfilling or otherwise. After all, without a creator there is no creation.
We're just here, god or no god. Isn't that a blessing?

Life's a bitch and then you die. Thats all there is.

Thats the only thing my father ever taught me.

God refuses to prove he exists, for he says proof denies faith and without faith he is nothing.

God created man and therefore man is proof.

Therefore God/s cannot exist. :headbang:

Actually, it's more necessary for there to be a god in order for you to have any life at all, fulfilling or otherwise. After all, without a creator there is no creation.
But we are all creators. I created breakfast just this morning.

So you say … but yet for some reason the universe has to have a creator while god doesn’t
That is no more or less logical saying the universe always was

(at least we have observed the universe’s existence objectively unlike gods)

That's because the universe is actually temporal, it has a beginning and an end. All scientists, regardless of their religious leanings, believe this. Did all of this complex universe come into existence accidentally? That, to me, seems the most far-fetched of all theories.

By the way, God doesn't exist simply because anyone wants him to, nor because anyone dreamed him up. If he is real, then no amount of argument can end his existence. If he is not real, no amount of argument or belief can conjure him up. He either is or he isn't, regardless of what we want. And if he has certain qualities, he has those qualities whether we want him to or not. So, in the end, all of this arguing of God's existence is rather pointless, as he is going to exist, or not, regardless.

But we are all creators. I created breakfast just this morning.


Exactly! Without you, no breakfast would have been created, at least not the specific one you created. And without whoever created you, you wouldn't be here. (Yes, I know, your parents created you, but I mean ultimately.)

Life's a bitch and then you die. Thats all there is.

Thats the only thing my father ever taught me.

Sound like a great man. :rolleyes:

That's because the universe is actually temporal, it has a beginning and an end. All scientists, regardless of their religious leanings, believe this. Did all of this complex universe come into existence accidentally? That, to me, seems the most far-fetched of all theories.

By the way, God doesn't exist simply because anyone wants him to, nor because anyone dreamed him up. If he is real, then no amount of argument can end his existence. If he is not real, no amount of argument or belief can conjure him up. He either is or he isn't, regardless of what we want. And if he has certain qualities, he has those qualities whether we want him to or not. So, in the end, all of this arguing of God's existence is rather pointless, as he is going to exist, or not, regardless.
For now … there are all kinds of interesting new theories

Yes but arguing god existence leads to understandings of the specific beliefs about what “god” is … to me learning is worth the effort.

Life's a bitch and then you die. Thats all there is.

Thats the only thing my father ever taught me.

Sounds like a great man. :rolleyes:

I still know god doesn't exist. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

That's because the universe is actually temporal, it has a beginning and an end. All scientists, regardless of their religious leanings, believe this. Did all of this complex universe come into existence accidentally? That, to me, seems the most far-fetched of all theories.
And to me it seems the most plausable --isn't that strange? That two people can (accidentally) be so different.

Beginnings and endings are arbitrary, to create segments of time, a piece segmented off by us, for us to look at. We can look out through our telescopes and see things millions of light-years away, a million years' hence. If the universe encompasses all time, it can only be eternal.

By the way, God doesn't exist simply because anyone wants him to, nor because anyone dreamed him up. If he is real, then no amount of argument can end his existence. If he is not real, no amount of argument or belief can conjure him up. He either is or he isn't, regardless of what we want. And if he has certain qualities, he has those qualities whether we want him to or not. So, in the end, all of this arguing of God's existence is rather pointless, as he is going to exist, or not, regardless.
But it's fun.

Exactly! Without you, no breakfast would have been created, at least not the specific one you created. And without whoever created you, you wouldn't be here. (Yes, I know, your parents created you, but I mean ultimately.)
My mom and dad created me. Ultimately. ;)

For now … there are all kinds of interesting new theories

Yes but arguing god existence leads to understandings of the specific beliefs about what “god” is … to me learning is worth the effort.

God isn't a specific belief, he's a reality. Letting Jesus into your life isn't simply a metaphore for something else, it can, and frequently does, literally happen everyday to millions of people. Those who have not experienced Jesus think that Christians have a screw loose, and from an outside perspective that seems to be a logical conclusion. Yet, for those to whom it has happened, all doubts disappear, and further arguments of God's existence seem quite pointless.

That's because the universe is actually temporal, it has a beginning and an end. All scientists, regardless of their religious leanings, believe this. Did all of this complex universe come into existence accidentally? That, to me, seems the most far-fetched of all theories.

Not if it's one of an infinite series. That particular theory even holds out the sure and certain promise of life everlasting, too, since in an infinite series all possible universes, including this exact one right here, will be infinitely repeated. See you next time around...

My mom and dad created me. Ultimately. ;)

Ah, but who created them? And who created them? And who ... eventually you get back to who created mankind in the first place.

Not if it's one of an infinite series. That particular theory even holds out the sure and certain promise of life everlasting, too, since in an infinite series all possible universes, including this exact one right here, will be infinitely repeated. See you next time around...

If there is a next time. Frankly, I thought this site would be more interesting than it's proven to be. My 'nation' may be disappearing soon.

God isn't a specific belief, he's a reality. Letting Jesus into your life isn't simply a metaphore for something else, it can, and frequently does, literally happen everyday to millions of people. Those who have not experienced Jesus think that Christians have a screw loose, and from an outside perspective that seems to be a logical conclusion. Yet, for those to whom it has happened, all doubts disappear, and further arguments of God's existence seem quite pointless.

I say this at the risk of being offensive -- although please believe me, this is not my intention -- but faith, no matter how deep, is not a convincing argument. The members of the Heaven's Gate cult in San Diego had a deep, abiding and sincerely-held faith that they were all going to ascend to the mothership hiding behind the Halle-Bopp comet. They believed that with all their heart. They died for their beliefs. They had the faith of martyrdom. I still think -- and I doubt I'm alone in this -- that they were utterly deluded.

God isn't a specific belief, he's a reality. Letting Jesus into your life isn't simply a metaphore for something else, it can, and frequently does, literally happen everyday to millions of people. Those who have not experienced Jesus think that Christians have a screw loose, and from an outside perspective that seems to be a logical conclusion. Yet, for those to whom it has happened, all doubts disappear, and further arguments of God's existence seem quite pointless.
You think I was born atheist … first 12 years in the organization (roughly) RC and I lost my faith in the god rather then the organization later on.

It had happened but I grew up and it no longer made sense to me (I will NEVER go back to an organized religion … but faith in a god in general … possible)

And your description of god is just that YOUR description of god

Daily millions of people let Allah into their hearts and to them Jesus was just a profit … but they feel it just as deeply as you do … what makes your religion better then theirs?

Ah, but who created them? And who created them? And who ... eventually you get back to who created mankind in the first place.
The way you've worded it, with each new being someone outside of us creates us. But that's not reality. The reality is that a species propagates itself; life propagates itself. From the inside, not the outside. That's why life itself was the first deity, the Mother of all Gods. Life is self-creating, it comes from its own womb.*


*This is a metaphor; using an image to communicate an idea. The virgin's womb is a metaphor for the self-propagation of life.

im atheist, i belive there is a god, you fear me?

im atheist, i belive there is a god, you fear me?
I met someone like you, once.

Now, anything is possble. ;)

Are you joking?
well no, willamena, i dont even see how atheism would scare anyone

does the verse

imagine there's no heaven
its easy if you try
no hell below us
above us only sky

give you the heebeejeebees?

Ah, but who created them? And who created them? And who ... eventually you get back to who created mankind in the first place.

In programming terms, this would be an "infinite loop". You are suggesting that eventually you get back to "god created man" as such:

god -> Man -> another man -> ... -> the poster's father -> the poster -> breakfast

However, you are then saying that god has no creator. If that were true, and things can only exist if they had a creator, then god can not exist, and your chain is broken.

Note: I am not saying god doesn't exist. I'm simply pointing out the "logical error" in your arguement. Of course, using logic in a metaphysics debate is rather pointless. :p


As to the original post, I can't disagree more.

I am not a christian, I am also not an athiest. I'm responding 10 pages after the fact, so I hope you'll forgive me going point by point, and understand if I've missed something.

I do not fear death itself. As an animist, I firmly believe in reincarnation. In simple terms, death is simply another step in my "soul"'s existance. (I use the term "soul" for lack of an easier term.) What I do fear, however, is dying before my life's purpose is served. I believe we all, each of us, is born with a purpose. Some are great, some are small, and the purpose changes with each new life, but we each have our own purpose, our own thing to learn/experience/something else while we are alive. Whatever it is, is added to the sum of our "soul", and our soul is eventually able to break the death/rebirth cycle if it so chooses (simliar to the ascension principle of ... Buddhism? I think... I forget which one :( ) Death itself is simply a natural step, just like being born. That's not to say I don't mourn those I've lost, which is certainly a fair few, but I don't mourn their death. I mourn the loss of them in my life. A subtle difference to some, but massive to me.

Morals: I do not believe in divinly ordained morals. There is no absolute truth as to what is right, and what is wrong. Any action, removed from situation and circumstance, and reduced to its most basic form, is neither good nor evil. It simply is. It is how the action is performed that determines whether the action is good or evil.

I am also amazed at the "without god there is no reason to be moral" arguement. My jaw simply drops every time I hear/read this one from a christian especially, because it shows that they have missed the point of their entire religion. It should not require an obvious reward or fear of retaliation for a person to do good deeds.

I take the train to work every morning (5:30am). 50 miles, takes about an hour. This particular train is always packed, and sometimes, finding a seat is difficult. This morning was a shining example of this. People had to be told to sit up and stop taking 2 seats, but eventually everyone was able to find a seat. That lasted until the first stop, which is an airport. A family got on, a mother and father, and their 2 small children, the oldest being maybe 10. Maybe. There were, of course, no seats left, and certainly not 4. When the family passed by my seat, I closed my book, packed it back in my bag, and got up so that the children could sit down, even though it meant standing up for just under an hour. Did I do it because I wanted brownie points with some spirit? Did I do it because I was scared of breaking some spiritual ban?

Of course not. I did it because it was polite, because I didn't want a young child to have to stand, and because it was the right thing to do.


I once had an arguement with a friend of mine. I stated that I didn't believe in "sin", that no action was "evil" in and of itself. She told me that was taking the easy way out. I laughed at her (which, let me tell you, didn't go over well ;P ) and said "No, it's not. It means that any time I have a decision to make, I'm making that decision myself. There are no divine commandments, no hard rules that I can point to. I have to decide, for myself, what is the right and wrong thing. I have to decide, if I find that both choices are "wrong" whether it's worse to do nothing at all. I have to make all those decisions, without having anyone telling me "YOU SHALL NOT xxxx". It's not an "easy way" at all."

...

uh... yeah. work distracted me, and now I've lost the rest of my post so... uh ...

*runs away*

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
its never bothered ME. why does it bother YOU?
Originally Posted by Willamena
Are you joking?
well no, willamena, i dont even see how atheism would scare anyone

does the verse

imagine there's no heaven
its easy if you try
no hell below us
above us only sky

give you the heebeejeebees?
Atheism wasn't the subject of the question; it was, how can you assume that just because it doesn't bother you, it would not bother someone else? Must everyone be like you?

Sorry to go off-topic.

What created the first man? Biologically, there was no "first man", as changes with each generation are gradually incremental. The change from a prior life-form, if such was the case (and science accepts that it is), would not have a "first" man except arbitrarily. What created the first life? Biologically, in my opinion, the first life was the one who had enough of a brain to store memory, and so gained consciousness, so although it came from a prior biological state, it was self-aware and self-propelled. What created the first biological being? A natural mixing of chemicals and minerals, coming together.

The philosophical answer is that god mixed the earth and water to come together, then put life in it, then it was named man (Adam). Go figure.

well no, willamena, i dont even see how atheism would scare anyone

does the verse

imagine there's no heaven
its easy if you try
no hell below us
above us only sky

give you the heebeejeebees?
thats hawt

Of course not. I did it because it was polite, because I didn't want a young child to have to stand, and because it was the right thing to do.
Ah, but some would say that the "right" feeling you have is a universal; that everyone would find that a "right" thing to do; that it is somehow inherent in mankind. And if it is inherent, then it is absolute. That is the absolutism of morality they associate with god (I think).

I once had an arguement with a friend of mine. I stated that I didn't believe in "sin", that no action was "evil" in and of itself. She told me that was taking the easy way out. I laughed at her (which, let me tell you, didn't go over well ;P ) and said "No, it's not. It means that any time I have a decision to make, I'm making that decision myself. There are no divine commandments, no hard rules that I can point to. I have to decide, for myself, what is the right and wrong thing. I have to decide, if I find that both choices are "wrong" whether it's worse to do nothing at all. I have to make all those decisions, without having anyone telling me "YOU SHALL NOT xxxx". It's not an "easy way" at all."
Go on you! *polite applause* I think the same way on this issue of "evil" actions.

Atheism wasn't the subject of the question; it was, how can you assume that just because it doesn't bother you, it would not bother someone else? Must everyone be like you?
its a way of speaking?

im pretty sure that it emphasizes that i dont assume it doesnt bother him. why else would i ask?

its a way of speaking?
In other words, you were joking. Okay, then. :)

I do not fear death. It is without truth.

Nor do I fear athiesm or any religion, they are all flawed/untrue and I pity all of their adherents.

There can be no question that there is a God, as I am a God, and I am without truth.

There can be no question that any of the Gods defined by sheer human arrogance actually exist. The very premise is flawed and without truth.

In other words, you were joking. Okay, then. :)
no i wasnt joking. i read the thread through and by that point i still had no idea why he found atheism so scary. i was sort of hoping he would clarify what he meant by fearing it. there are so many possiblities.

I say this at the risk of being offensive -- although please believe me, this is not my intention -- but faith, no matter how deep, is not a convincing argument. The members of the Heaven's Gate cult in San Diego had a deep, abiding and sincerely-held faith that they were all going to ascend to the mothership hiding behind the Halle-Bopp comet. They believed that with all their heart. They died for their beliefs. They had the faith of martyrdom. I still think -- and I doubt I'm alone in this -- that they were utterly deluded.


I wasn't talking about faith. I was talking about knowing beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt.

I do not fear death. It is without truth.

Nor do I fear athiesm or any religion, they are all flawed/untrue and I pity all of their adherents.

There can be no question that there is a God, as I am a God, and I am without truth.

There can be no question that any of the Gods defined by sheer human arrogance actually exist. The very premise is flawed and without truth.

Pretty much what I'd expect a nihilist to say. :p

Pretty much what I'd expect a nihilist to say. :p

I didnt

no i wasnt joking. i read the thread through and by that point i still had no idea why he found atheism so scary. i was sort of hoping he would clarify what he meant by fearing it. there are so many possiblities.
My bad, then. I too would like to know why he fears atheism, but I suspect those who said he equated atheism with nihilism were correct.

im atheist, i belive there is a god, you fear me?

I fear you might be schizophrenic. :p

People keep bring this Pascals Wager crap up over and over again. Now Seriously people ... to believe in god 'just cause its a safer bet' I reckon you should all go to hell, and infactg I think you all will. Sure Believe in what ever you want, but do it for your own good reasons .. not sure cause your scared of a little cosmic arse kicking if your wrong. Grow some balls.

I wasn't talking about faith. I was talking about knowing beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt.
Your “knowledge” is based on faith but not objective facts
So in the end it is your faith that proves it to you … and his statement still stands at that point

I fear you might be schizophrenic. :p
How so? Maybe disassociateive or MPD but does not seem to be a trait of schizophrenia ?

The philosopher, Socrates, once remarked that we do not know with certainty what comes after death. So, to fear it would be foolish. And, even if you assume, based on empirical evidence for a blissful afterlife, refusing to rely upon rhetorical evidence alone: Accepting that "life" is merely the culmination matter and energy coming together in a certain way, that time and space are infinite (all of which are indisputable or generally-accepted theory), then even if one dies, the matter and energy will divide, but one day possibly forming a new life, billions of years in the future. It would possibly also be in a new universe if the universe collapses on itself before that point, forming a "new" universe, according to the "breathing in and out of the Gods" in Hindu theology.

So, the evidence for the afterlife is greater than or equal to the evidence that there is none. Even if it's equal, the oldest and most-commonly accepted theory is that there is, so the burden of proof lies upon atheists. Furthermore, unless you are the type of obscure, unusual, idiosyncratic person who is the rare minority, atheism leads merely to disillusionment and despair, so even with equal evidence, believing in the afterlife and God is superior to atheism. Although there is no proof that specific religions are stronger than others, Pascal's wager states that belief in religion as a whole is a logically safer bet than skepticism.


I call bullshit on this. For a start, it is not either a general accepted theory or indisputable that time and space are infinite. It is quite the opposite, the generally accepted theory is that time and space are finite.

Secondly, you have shown absolutely no evidence for the afterlife.

If you want to walk around believing the superstitions of primitive peoples that's your look out, don't try to rationalise it with specious arguments and lies.

I fear not death, but an unfinished life.

Actually, it's a unique piece of life. No apple ever was exactly the same and no apple ever will be exactly the same.

But to make communication between humans possible, all English-speakers at one point agree to refer to the round, red or yellow or green fruit of the apple trees as "apples". Other languages refer to it as "pomme" or "apfel".
In order to be able to have a grasp of the outside world, we generalise and create abstracts. It's tall, it's got leaves and branches, therefore it's a tree. We don't really care just how tall it is or how many branches it has. If it fits a handfull of criteria, we can file it to the right category in our brains. That's how language works, that's how our perception of the world on the whole works.

If we weren't able to do that, we would not only be incapable of communication, our brain functions would shut down with the overload of information, we wouldn't be able to identify others as humans, animals, etc, we couldn't find food, we couldn't survive.

Now, have I confused you a little more? ;)

Not confused by this, at all... I appreciate the meager science we call communication, and it's subjective attempts to link our mental symbolisms...

What I DON'T understand, is how I and the original poster have effectively agreed on the terms, and yet still don't seem to be able to communicate the symbols...

hmmm

God = moral corruption

interesting. imo, people are responsible for moral corruption. God gave us a choice to do as we wished, and we've strayed pretty far from his ideal.

all that said, it's good that God gave us free will.... can you imagine how boring life would be if we were all the same, made the same choices in every different circumstance?

As my distinguished associate, UpwardThrust, pointed out... I didn't make any connection between 'god' and moral corruption... only the 'idea' of 'god'.

It's just a revisiting of the previous poster's assertions about the way Atheism corrupts, exploring the same thoughts from the other side.

I'm not sure I see the significance of the free-will part.. or how it has anything to do with any 'gods'.

Wow, the general forum is still clogged with religious threads, even more than when I left a year ago.

We should motion for a debate forum or something to be started.

Your “knowledge” is based on faith but not objective facts
So in the end it is your faith that proves it to you … and his statement still stands at that point


I have more knowledge of God than I do of you, yet I believe that you exist as well. Or is that just faith? ;)

I call bullshit on this. For a start, it is not either a general accepted theory or indisputable that time and space are infinite. It is quite the opposite, the generally accepted theory is that time and space are finite.

Secondly, you have shown absolutely no evidence for the afterlife.

If you want to walk around believing the superstitions of primitive peoples that's your look out, don't try to rationalise it with specious arguments and lies.


Getting a little heated there, aren't we? Causes me to believe that perhaps you fear you may be wrong, and so must shout down anything or anyone that contradicts you. Otherwise it's hard to understand the nastiness of your tone.

Wow, the general forum is still clogged with religious threads, even more than when I left a year ago.

We should motion for a debate forum or something to be started.


Hey, I didn't start it! I'm a newcomer here, and may be a short timer if I can't figure out how to make this nation-state thing interesting to me. I'm only posting on the forums because I'm bored with the game, and now I'm becoming bored with the forums as well.

I have more knowledge of God than I do of you, yet I believe that you exist as well. Or is that just faith? ;)

An interesting perspective.

We have fairly clear proof of the existence of UpwardThrust... in the fact that we constantly see literal manifestations of his existence... plus, some of us have communicated with him outside of the Nationstates arena, and many of us have seen what UpwardThrust looks like.

On the contrary, the only 'knowledge' you can have of 'god', is that you glean from the writings of those who went before you, and the unexplained 'feelings' that you choose to attribute to divine inspiration. None of which, of course, is concrete 'evidence'.

You may know more of the 'stories' told about 'god', but you have ONLY seen physical proof provided for UpwardThrust.... thus your initial assertion is flawed, as well as doomed by an inbuilt prejudice before you start.

An interesting perspective.

We have fairly clear proof of the existence of UpwardThrust... in the fact that we constantly see literal manifestations of his existence... plus, some of us have communicated with him outside of the Nationstates arena, and many of us have seen what UpwardThrust looks like.

On the contrary, the only 'knowledge' you can have of 'god', is that you glean from the writings of those who went before you, and the unexplained 'feelings' that you choose to attribute to divine inspiration. None of which, of course, is concrete 'evidence'.

You may know more of the 'stories' told about 'god', but you have ONLY seen physical proof provided for UpwardThrust.... thus your initial assertion is flawed, as well as doomed by an inbuilt prejudice before you start.

You can also know Jesus Christ personally, just as you do Upward Thrust or anyone else. In fact, knowing Jesus is at the crux of Christianity. All other doctrines, writings, etc., are peripheral. These things may help you to know Christ, but ultimately they aren't necessary.

Believing in "afterlife" is also a way of fearing death. :rolleyes:

You can also know Jesus Christ personally, just as you do Upward Thrust or anyone else. In fact, knowing Jesus is at the crux of Christianity. All other doctrines, writings, etc., are peripheral. These things may help you to know Christ, but ultimately they aren't necessary.

No - you cannot 'know' Jesus personally... not in any verifiable or quantifiable fashion.

Oh, sure, you can feel all close to 'him'... but that could just be in your head, couldn't it? Where is your evidence?

Now, in the case of UpwardThrust, if you actually 'know' the fellow, you can verify that fact, with real, demonstrable results.

By the way... 'knowing Jesus' is arguable... I would say that the 'crux' of Christianity was the belief that Jesus was Messiah... not some ephemeral and intangible sense of acquaintance.

Sorry, my friend, but the best you can ever do, is prove knowledge OF Jesus... you can't prove you 'know' him... because you have no evidence of what it would be to truly know the real Jesus. What is his favourite colour? Does he like his fries crispy? Does he drink his coffee black, or milk-and-sugar?

You are trying to claim a degree of fellowship which is unrealistic... when what you probably 'mean', is that you can know the INFLUENCE of Jesus... you can feel his guiding hand. Not the same thing, at all...

I am an atheist, I don't fear death. Fearing death hinders your ability to make the most of your time. That is pretty much all there is to it. If you beleive in the afterlife and god and all that fairytale jibberish, more power to you, that is your right as a human being if it helps you sleep at night.