Questions for atheists

[Sotiria]

This isn't really intended to be a leading question...I can already see how it could be taken this way, but I really am just curious.

I saw TheDude's thread in the Diablo forum about how he finally accepted the logic of atheism, and the main thing I was thinking was, "Now what?".

So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what? and why does this really matter if true?

Why is seeking truth so important to you? So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else? Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God? Isn't your life meaningless now? If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive? Why does life deny the apparent truth that there is no reason for it to exist? Furthermore, if there is no "reason" then why are things like reason and meaning so important to people?

I don't get it. Help me out here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't really intended to be a leading question...I can already see how it could be taken this way, but I really am just curious.

I saw TheDude's thread in the Diablo forum about how he finally accepted the logic of atheism, and the main thing I was thinking was, "Now what?".

So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what? and why does this really matter if true?

Why is seeking truth so important to you? So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else? Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God? Isn't your life meaningless now? If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive? Why does life deny the apparent truth that there is no reason for it to exist? Furthermore, if there is no "reason" then why are things like reason and meaning so important to people?

I don't get it. Help me out here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly, I can't help it. I can understand people who could care less what is actually true and are interested more in what makes them comfortable, I honestly can. But I can't live that way. To me, truth matters far more than comfort. I won't say it matters more than happiness, because it is the pursuit of truth that makes me happy. But I am absolutely willing to risk any discomfort, temporary pain and hopelessness in the pursuit of truth.

I am fortunate in that my search for truth hasn't caused me any harm so far. I am an atheist, and I am, as far as I can tell, just as happy, content and hopeful as anyone else I know.

The correct answer to your question is: You don't gain anything, and that is entirely beside the point.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't really intended to be a leading question...I can already see how it could be taken this way, but I really am just curious.

I saw TheDude's thread in the Diablo forum about how he finally accepted the logic of atheism, and the main thing I was thinking was, "Now what?".

So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what? and why does this really matter if true?

Why is seeking truth so important to you? So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else?

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I find it satisfying to know how things work. It doesnt "matter" in a cosmic sense. But I dont think me being made by god matters either in the big scheme of things - I'm still fairly insignificant.

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God? Isn't your life meaningless now? If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

[/ QUOTE ]
My life has had just as much meaning throughout my life whether I have been christian or atheist. I never derived any "extra" meaning by thinking "God made the world" it's just a different belief as to where things came from. Admittedly there is now one more sentient being that there is in an atheist worldview (and even a more important one), but this is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive? Why does life deny the apparent truth that there is no reason for it to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
This isnt apparent to me. The atheism I adhere to says there is an unknown reason, not no reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if there is no "reason" then why are things like reason and meaning so important to people?

[/ QUOTE ]
See above.

[Woolygimp]

Vhawk, It's almost as if you repeated one of Dawkin's responses verbatim.

Also, I wanted to ask you something and it's a point Dawkins conceded. The point is that teaching religion to children does have a positive reinforcement, basically showing them that there life has meaning which creates a foundation for positive thought.

So what are your views on religion being taught to children?

[bunny]

He'll be flattered by that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
... it's a point Dawkins conceded. The point is that teaching religion to children does have a positive reinforcement, basically showing them that there life has meaning which creates a foundation for positive thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although I could imagine Dawkins conceding that there is a point in teaching religion to children. I'm sure it wasnt because "it showed them that their life has meaning". Where did you read this?

[Woolygimp]

In the Bishop of Oxford interview.

"For a child to be brought up in an environment that is infused with an ultimate meaning and purpose that our sense of human worth and dignity is grounded in something beyond itself. I think this gives sort of another dimension, and a sort of richness"

"I'm all for that kind of richness, and I take that as a challenge if I were to run that kind of school. I definitely agree with you that the richness and the meaning is important"

Definitely worth watching, I'll concede that Dawkins is a very intelligent and articulate man but it's not often that you get to see him have a rational conversation with someone of opposing views but equal intelligence.

I have a lot of the same views as the Bishop such as tolerance especially to homosexuals, evolution, not taking the bible literally but extracting an overall spiritual and moral meaning from it etc.

[bunny]

Thanks. I wonder how he'd respond to seeing himself cited in defence of theism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk, It's almost as if you repeated one of Dawkin's responses verbatim.

Also, I wanted to ask you a something and it's a point Dawkins conceded. The point is that teaching religion to children does have a positive reinforcement, basically showing them that there life has meaning which creates a foundation for positive thought.

So what are your views on religion being taught to children?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm big on Santa. All you really have to give a kid is the idea that magic really is in the world, and they'll be fine. With Santa, you run no risk of them trying to carry that belief into adulthood where it would damage their ability to reason clearly about certain topics.

[Woolygimp]

Well to be honest, he was definitely out of character in the interview. He definitely wasn't out to get religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2TFVe9LDc

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what? and why does this really matter if true?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand the "why does this really matter if true" question. why does anything matter?

[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? why is it important to you?

[ QUOTE ]
So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure it's probably "something else." figuring things out isn't necessary impressive or fulfilling i don't think.

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

this question doesn't make sense to me. is "truth" something that can matter or not matter? i can see the truth of one statement or the other mattering.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't your life meaningless now? If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know what you mean by "meaningless." if you mean "will your existence eventually become irrelevant," then i'd have to guess "yes." but i still "value" my life, it still "means" something to me.

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

because life that "wants" to survive survives better than life that doesn't, i guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does life deny the apparent truth that there is no reason for it to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

depending on what you mean by "reason," i would argue either that things simply don't need a "reason to exist" or that everything that does exist does so for a reason, even if god doesn't.

when i was a theist i used to ask similar questions. i didn't understand "why do anything if you believe you're just a corpse?" the answer is, "because my corpse still wants to do things."

[Sotiria]

[ QUOTE ]
In the Bishop of Oxford interview.

"For a child to be brought up in an environment that is infused with an ultimate meaning and purpose that our sense of human worth and dignity is grounded in something beyond itself. I think this gives sort of another dimension, and a sort of richness"

"I'm all for that kind of richness, and I take that as a challenge if I were to run that kind of school. I definitely agree with you that the richness and the meaning is important"


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you kind of elaborated on this quote with the rest of your post but I still don't get it, but perhaps it's because of my lack of understanding.

Proponents of atheism have a goal of find ultimate truth in regards to existence. So Dawkins is proposing that lies about our origins are OK if they're taught to children since it gives them an ultimate meaning, yet at the same time, rallying against these teachings since they don't represent truth.

If truth is so vitally important, and the truth of the matter is that a belief in a creator is foolish as it is logically impossible, then why sugar coat things for the kids.

[David Sklansky]

Stop with this high falootiness already. If there is no God there is no "meaning". But so what? Doesn't seem to bother otters does it? Our brains simply mean we can find more things to enjoy than they do. Including possibly being charitable and nice.

As for discussing whether religion does more harm than good, as long as it is debatable, its more important to discuss whether it is ACCURATE. Is believing in a specific religion as silly as believing in astrology and/or rushes or not? Period.

[Sephus]

i didn't watch the interview but from the quote "I'm all for that kind of richness, and I take that as a challenge if I were to run that kind of school. I definitely agree with you that the richness and the meaning is important" it looks like dawkins is saying he would favor fostering the "richness" and "meaning" but it doesn't look like he's supporting the religious means for acheiving it.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the Bishop of Oxford interview.

"For a child to be brought up in an environment that is infused with an ultimate meaning and purpose that our sense of human worth and dignity is grounded in something beyond itself. I think this gives sort of another dimension, and a sort of richness"

"I'm all for that kind of richness, and I take that as a challenge if I were to run that kind of school. I definitely agree with you that the richness and the meaning is important"


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you kind of elaborated on this quote with the rest of your post but I still don't get it, but perhaps it's because of my lack of understanding.

Proponents of atheism have a goal of find ultimate truth in regards to existence. So Dawkins is proposing that lies about our origins are OK if they're taught to children since it gives them an ultimate meaning, yet at the same time, rallying against these teachings since they don't represent truth.

If truth is so vitally important, and the truth of the matter is that a belief in a creator is foolish as it is logically impossible, then why sugar coat things for the kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is obviously a context here that I don't feel like typing up, but I did offer a link to the interview and it's only 40min. Worth watching anyway.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop with this high falootiness already. If there is no God there is no "meaning". But so what?

[/ QUOTE ]
I for one disagree with you. (Is that what high falootin means?)

[ QUOTE ]
As for discussing whether religion does more harm than good, as long as it is debatable, its more important to discuss whether it is ACCURATE. Is believing in a specific religion as silly as believing in astrology and/or rushes or not? Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also find it more important to discuss whether it is accurate. Probably others will disagree though. Hard to see how this is a statement of fact not opinion.

[Sotiria]

[ QUOTE ]
this question doesn't make sense to me. is "truth" something that can matter or not matter? i can see the truth of one statement or the other mattering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this...can you explain further or reword the question.


[ QUOTE ]
i don't know what you mean by "meaningless." if you mean "will your existence eventually become irrelevant," then i'd have to guess "yes." but i still "value" my life, it still "means" something to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, I don't think there's necessarily any argument between us, thus, while the best way to describe my response to this is "meh", I suppose that's not really a response : )

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

because life that "wants" to survive survives better than life that doesn't, i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this either. Isn't the pursuit of truth important to you? Isn't finding out why life wants to survive important, or at least an interesting question. Why the "meh" attitude?

[ QUOTE ]
when i was a theist i used to ask similar questions. i didn't understand "why do anything if you believe you're just a corpse?" the answer is, "because my corpse still wants to do things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your corpse wants you to do things....that's it, huh?

Perhaps I am the one blind to the truth as a theist, but I don't "get it". I am assuming that your position is basically that the cold hard truth of life is that there is no meaning, no point, and no such thing as hope. I at least try to accept that if it were true...I can admit I probably would not be strong enough to do so and would rather live in denial. I find your position to be fascinating. What is the drive to live? Temporary pleasure? Good feelings, which are just chemicals being released into your body, etc. etc...

[Sotiria]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop with this high falootiness already. If there is no God there is no "meaning". But so what? Doesn't seem to bother otters does it? Our brains simply mean we can find more things to enjoy than they do. Including possibly being charitable and nice.

As for discussing whether religion does more harm than good, as long as it is debatable, its more important to discuss whether it is ACCURATE. Is believing in a specific religion as silly as believing in astrology and/or rushes or not? Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hostility?

I don't know what high falootiness means, but I'm really just asking because I don't understand. This is a forum to ask questions, is it not? I am obviously asking these things because I am questioning my own beliefs to a certain extent.

I do not yet comprehend the atheist mindset. The question of meaning might not bother otters (how the heck do you know this anyway?) but it bothers me, and it bothers a lot of humans.

"Our brains simply mean we can find more things to enjoy than they can"....what does that even mean?

[Woolygimp]

These are the same things I tried to ask earlier, albeit I didn't get my point across as gracefully, or as well.

All of your points are very valid, at least to me.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I don't get it. Help me out here.
</font>

If you ever do get it, bottle it up so the rest of the theists of this world can also understand it. This seems to be the biggest contention point for theists. I'm starting to think there is a theistic gene. Just as it now seems that some are born gay, I think some are just born with the need to think there is a god. Life without a supreme alpha male and eternal life is too excrutiating to contemplate for those born with this gene.

The thing is, it doesn't matter that you want so much for this god to exist. I'd like a few million extra in cash. Fantasizing it's under my bed won't help me pay for a Lamborghini. You have to deal with what most likely is, not what you'd like there to be.

The "life has no meaning without a god" is the weakest argument there is. If there IS the god you're wishing for, and he DOES exist, what's the point in living another day? Why not die right now and wish the same for all your family and loved ones? Why spend another mediocre day here on earth when you could be at your final eternal resting place? How can you possibly get joy from earthly pleasures when they must pale in comparison to what's in store for you over the next gazillion bajillion years!!

It's nice to be grounded in reality. You can wish all you want for your god to be there, but it's overwhelmingly unlikely he isn't. No matter how hard you try and believe the scribblings of men who didn't know the shape of the planet they were standing on 2000 years ago.

Yep, it's good to be grounded in logic and reality. Life is short. Go enjoy a sunrise, time with your family, the sounds and smells of nature. Why does life have meaning to an atheist? Because it's so ever much more precious! You're here for a short while and then you're gone. There's nothing more. No magic castle in the sky. Make the most of it.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this question doesn't make sense to me. is "truth" something that can matter or not matter? i can see the truth of one statement or the other mattering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this...can you explain further or reword the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, well i didn't understand your question in the first place. i wasn't comfortable with the level of abstractness.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't know what you mean by "meaningless." if you mean "will your existence eventually become irrelevant," then i'd have to guess "yes." but i still "value" my life, it still "means" something to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, I don't think there's necessarily any argument between us, thus, while the best way to describe my response to this is "meh", I suppose that's not really a response : )

[/ QUOTE ]

ok.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

because life that "wants" to survive survives better than life that doesn't, i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this either. Isn't the pursuit of truth important to you? Isn't finding out why life wants to survive important, or at least an interesting question. Why the "meh" attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

i suppose the most revealing answer i can give is that i don't pursue the truth "for its own sake," but the more knowledge i have the better i can manipulate the world around me to give me more pleasure.

i thought i gave a good answer for why life appears to "want" to survive. life that "tries" to survive does so. life that "looks like it isn't trying" would be expected to be replaced by life that does in short order.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i was a theist i used to ask similar questions. i didn't understand "why do anything if you believe you're just a corpse?" the answer is, "because my corpse still wants to do things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your corpse wants you to do things....that's it, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

if i'm an atheist, what else could it be? it seems plenty sufficient.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am the one blind to the truth as a theist, but I don't "get it". I am assuming that your position is basically that the cold hard truth of life is that there is no meaning, no point, and no such thing as hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, there's still such a thing as hope.

[ QUOTE ]
I at least try to accept that if it were true...I can admit I probably would not be strong enough to do so and would rather live in denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would too.

[ QUOTE ]
I find your position to be fascinating. What is the drive to live? Temporary pleasure? Good feelings, which are just chemicals being released into your body, etc. etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i live for "feeling good" because it beats feeling bad or feeling nothing. you can't really ask "why," because that's like asking why "good" is better than "bad."

[Sotiria]

Good post lestat.

However, you're stereotyping and assuming a lot of things about me...just like I stereotype a lot and assume a lot about atheists.

I actually used to be at the very least agnostic, if not atheist. I'm not claiming that me "wanting" God to exists makes a lick of difference, so your points on that are irrelevant.

I do not get much joy from earthly pleasures...what makes you think that I do? And why am I not grounded in reality, yet you are?

Your last paragraph is actually very beautiful. However, I do enjoy the things you speak of...why would whether I am a theist or an atheist have any impact on that?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]


i suppose the most revealing answer i can give is that i don't pursue the truth "for its own sake," but the more knowledge i have the better i can manipulate the world around me to give me more pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sephus, don't take this the wrong way but assume one of the things that gave you 'pleasure' was child pornography.

Knowing that when you die and everything you did was irrelevant, how do you know when and where to draw the line of moral relativity and refrain from acts that our society holds at the moment as heinous and uncouth.

I know you're gonna use that quote regarding that if punishment by God is the only reason keeping you from commiting a certain act then...

Understand that certain people probably do feel temptation (I'm most certainly not one of them), but for those that do being held accountable is one of the things preventing them abusing others for their own personal pleasure. I'll admit that doesn't always work, so you really don't need to bring up the molestation scandals within the Catholic Church.

This is just a question and I'm not trying to be inflammatory. The foundation is basically how do you guys resist not living life to the fullest AT THE EXPENSE of other individuals, if you think it's all irrelevant in the long term

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i suppose the most revealing answer i can give is that i don't pursue the truth "for its own sake," but the more knowledge i have the better i can manipulate the world around me to give me more pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sephus, don't take this the wrong way but assume one of the things that gave you 'pleasure' was child pornography.

[/ QUOTE ]

if the pleasure it gave me were greater than any guilt i'd feel and if the chances of getting caught were low enough, i'd do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing that when you die and everything you did was irrelevant, how do you know when and where to draw the line of moral relativity and refrain from acts that our society holds at the moment as heinous and uncouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't do things that society holds as heinous because in large part, i share society's views. if i thought something "like that" would be pleasurable and that i could get away with it, i would do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Understand that certain people probably do feel temptation (I'm most certainly not one of them), but for those that do being held accountable is one of the things preventing them abusing others for their own personal pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

in my experience, accountability to other people is a much stronger motivator that accountability to god. from observing the behavior of christians (including myself), people will commit all manner of sins if nobody is watching except god.

[Woolygimp]

You'd have to admit that there are things that would cause you pleasure that would as a consequence cause harm to another human being.

The reason I'm caught up on issue is because by nature I'm a very compassionate person, but I could see how if I thought life was temporary and that guilt was only an byproduct of evolution then I could 'imagine' (I don't know for sure) that I could lose some of that compassion and do things that I normally wouldn't do.

It's not because God is the only thing keeping me from stealing, etc. but moreover that guilt/consequence/compassion and kindness would generally have less of a meaning to me, and I'd be more concerned with having as much fun as I could get away with in my short life. By less meaning I'm just saying that I'd 'see through them' and learn to ignore them, because after all they are betraying the objective to have an overall pleasurable life, right?

Working for a living would be another thing, and this is mainly conjecture but if my existence were temporary I just would have a lot less motivation to do it. I'd much rather steal, sell drugs, and attempt to get away with more exciting/dangerous/profitable occupations to the extent that I was comfortable I wouldn't be caught by the authorities.

My point being that assuming there really is no God, and I definitely believe there is, then would it really benefit the human race at this time? I think they possibly need the reinforcement regardless of whether it's true or not.

Basically, what would happened tonight if everyone was suddenly told that God didn't exist? I'd guess there'd be some forms of rioting, panic, and social upheaval.

I'm just guessing though, and I'd like to hear your input.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
The foundation is basically how do you guys resist not living life to the fullest AT THE EXPENSE of other individuals, if you think it's all irrelevant in the long term

[/ QUOTE ]

because happiness isn't a zero-sum game. in general, making others happy makes me the same, as does making others unhappy.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd have to admit that there are things that would cause you pleasure that would as a consequence cause harm to another human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

like winning at poker?

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm caught up on issue is because by nature I'm a very compassionate person, but I could see how if I thought life was temporary and that guilt was only an byproduct of evolution then I could 'imagine' (I don't know for sure) that I could lose some of that compassion and do things that I normally wouldn't do.

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought the same thing when i was a christian. i am still just as "nice" as ever, i think.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not because God is the only thing keeping me from stealing, etc. but moreover that guilt/consequence/compassion and kindness would generally have less of a meaning to me, and I'd be more concerned with having as much fun as I could get away with in my short life.

[/ QUOTE ]

but you might find that the reason you're kind and compassionate is that they make you feel good, and feeling good is fun.

[ QUOTE ]
By less meaning I'm just saying that I'd 'see through them' and learn to ignore them, because after all they are betraying the objective to have an overall pleasurable life, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, they're part of the context of having a pleasurable life. you can't decide that you don't want to feel guilty because it's hurting your quest for pleasure, it doesn't work (afaik). instead you have to avoid doing things that make you feel guilty.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The foundation is basically how do you guys resist not living life to the fullest AT THE EXPENSE of other individuals, if you think it's all irrelevant in the long term

[/ QUOTE ]

because happiness isn't a zero-sum game. in general, making others happy makes me the same, as does making others unhappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but what would make you happier?

Winning the lottery, or someone else winning the lottery?

Edit: You snuck in a post on me, very sneaky...

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post lestat.

However, you're stereotyping and assuming a lot of things about me...just like I stereotype a lot and assume a lot about atheists.

I actually used to be at the very least agnostic, if not atheist. I'm not claiming that me "wanting" God to exists makes a lick of difference, so your points on that are irrelevant.

I do not get much joy from earthly pleasures...what makes you think that I do? And why am I not grounded in reality, yet you are?

Your last paragraph is actually very beautiful. However, I do enjoy the things you speak of...why would whether I am a theist or an atheist have any impact on that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for stereotyping, but I always assume the "want" for a god to exist on the part of the theist, because there isn't a single of shred of legitimate evidence to suggest otherwise. So are you saying that you went from agnositic to theist, because you found compelling evidence to suggest otherwise?!! Then perhaps, this is the place to start. Outline this evidence for us.

<font color="blue"> And why am I not grounded in reality, yet you are? </font>

For the reasons I stated above. Belief in the invisible without sufficient evidence is irrational.

<font color="blue"> Your last paragraph is actually very beautiful. However, I do enjoy the things you speak of...why would whether I am a theist or an atheist have any impact on that? </font>

Perhaps you can explain to me how you can derive maximum enjoyment from earthly beauty and pleasures... Imagine a kid finding a plain old stick of gum on his way to the biggest, best, most fantastic magical candy land in existence! Do you think he'll stop and truly savor every every last taste of that gum knowing that in a while, he'll have an unlimited choice of infinite sorts of candy to choose from?

What I'm getting at is that this question of life's meaning is more easily handed back to you, the theist. What's so great about this place when you fancy yourself spending an eternity in a place of indescribable bliss?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
If you ever do get it, bottle it up so the rest of the theists of this world can also understand it. This seems to be the biggest contention point for theists. I'm starting to think there is a theistic gene. Just as it now seems that some are born gay, I think some are just born with the need to think there is a god. Life without a supreme alpha male and eternal life is too excrutiating to contemplate for those born with this gene.



[/ QUOTE ]

A most profound and eloquent paragraph. A theistic gene. I very much agree with your hypothesis here. I got shot down left and right by popular atheistic posters here when I postulated that religion is evolutionarily driven. But by God, I swear, based on my observations, there is indeed a gene that evolved that causes people to be theists. Lol at myself, this isn't scientific as was pointed out to me before, but I find it interesting that Lestat brings up the same thing, whether he is being serious or not.

[Woolygimp]

Even if God doesn't exist, I don't think the human race is ready to deal with it. We aren't that far along, and most people NEED that comfort, they need that assurance.

If it was 100% proven that God did not exist, I think there would be profound effects on society that nobody could really comprehend.

It'd be a lot like if a UFO landed on the lawn of the White House, there would be widespread social consequences and to think otherwise is ignorance.

People don't like it when their brick houses come crashing down [i.e. Neo's denial in the Matrix].

[Sotiria]

Your last question isn't complex at all, and you should be able to answer it yourself. I cannot even fathom what the "fantastic magical candy land" will be like...it's not something I can really comprehend, so I'll take what I've got here on earth. A sunrise *is* beautiful, my children *are* amazing, the feeling of a warm summer night with the top down in my car can, at times, be a euphoric experience...I don't see how or even why an explanation is needed. From a theists world view, God did create all the beauty here, even if it is only a glimmer of what is to come in what is assumed to be an eternal union with the creator.

[ QUOTE ]
Belief in the invisible without sufficient evidence is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, yes.

[m_the0ry]

As an atheist,

I find beauty in nature and the the facts of nature as it exists.

I seek truth because it exposes nature and its beauty.

I am fulfilled by the fact that I exist in nature, a tangible and awe-inspiring reality.

I am proud of the fact I do not rely on the metaphysical to be satisfied.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you? So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else? Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God? Isn't your life meaningless now? If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my goals while alive is to learn and understand and I could hardly do that if I didn't seek the truth. As to why that goal matters to me, it's partly because I enjoy it and partly because I am just built that way.

Life is ultimately meaningless in a cosmic sense, yes. So what? I can't grasp the horror you see in that. Is it that you're having such an awful time on Earth that you need it all to be justified by some Deeper Meaning?

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection?

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming that your position is basically that the cold hard truth of life is that there is no meaning, no point, and no such thing as hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so (assuming you mean "hope" as in "hope of overcoming death"). I just don't find it as "cold" or "hard" as you. One day I will die, but right now I am alive.

[ QUOTE ]
I find your position to be fascinating. What is the drive to live? Temporary pleasure? Good feelings, which are just chemicals being released into your body, etc. etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

The better question is, what's the rush to kill myself?

Non-rhetorical question: What is it about life here on Earth that creates the drive in you to need some Ultimate Meaning beyond it? Is it that life isn't perfect? That it isn't eternal? That your life is too insignificant in the scheme of things?

Edit: I thought of an analogy which may or may not help. I am drinking some red wine at the moment. I am enjoying it very much. What I am not doing is thinking: "Yes, but what's wine drinking all about, when you get right down to it? What am I drinking this wine for? It tastes good, but what is the deeper meaning of this taste?"

I assume you're the same when doing something you enjoy. But somehow, when you zoom right out and look at your entire life, this isn't good enough anymore. Why not? Why this anxiety and refusal to simply enjoy your life?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing that when you die and everything you did was irrelevant, how do you know when and where to draw the line of moral relativity and refrain from acts that our society holds at the moment as heinous and uncouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right back at you. How do you know right from wrong?

The answer can't be "The Scriptures", because for instance the Bible never has anything to say about whether slavery is right or wrong (I'm being charitable here, there are several passages which appear to condone slavery). I assume you agree that slavery is a moral wrong. Back in the days of the Civil War, most of the hugely Christian South considered slavery perfectly acceptable. So where does your idea that slavery is wrong come from? If you can answer that, you'll have answered your own question.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm caught up on issue is because by nature I'm a very compassionate person, but I could see how if I thought life was temporary and that guilt was only an byproduct of evolution then I could 'imagine' (I don't know for sure) that I could lose some of that compassion and do things that I normally wouldn't do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is contradictory. "Compassion" isn't something you do just because somebody is watching.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not because God is the only thing keeping me from stealing, etc. but moreover that guilt/consequence/compassion and kindness would generally have less of a meaning to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Surely the only possible answer is "Because God isn't watching"?

[ QUOTE ]
By less meaning I'm just saying that I'd 'see through them' and learn to ignore them, because after all they are betraying the objective to have an overall pleasurable life, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

A pleasurable life involves acting in harmony with your emotional makeup. The only people for whom a pleasurable life involves not giving a toss about anyone else are psychopaths.

Here's a quick analogy. Suppose you're someone knowledgable in psychology and engineering, lining up for a roller coaster. A friend expresses amazement that you're bothering to line up for the thing. He thinks that as a psychologist, you should be intimately familiar with the fact that excitement is just the first stage of a fear response. Also, your engineering background should assure you that the roller coaster is perfectly safe. Therefore you should feel no excitement at all and it's pointless going on the thing.

The only response is that that just isn't the way it works. Rationalism doesn't have the ability to change the way we feel like that. Similarly, I am not able to, say, steal from my friends and then not experience any guilt on the grounds that life is meaningless. I would feel guilty anyway. It's the way people are wired and any amount of rationalisation will not change it.

[ QUOTE ]
Working for a living would be another thing, and this is mainly conjecture but if my existence were temporary I just would have a lot less motivation to do it. I'd much rather steal, sell drugs, and attempt to get away with more exciting/dangerous/profitable occupations to the extent that I was comfortable I wouldn't be caught by the authorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play poker for a living, does that count?

[ QUOTE ]
My point being that assuming there really is no God, and I definitely believe there is, then would it really benefit the human race at this time?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you suddenly implanted the certain knowledge in everyone's brain that there is no God, it would be a disaster, total chaos. If atheism spread over the course of several generations, the positive of removing dangerous ideologies from the world would far outweigh any negatives. People disposed to seek meaning in life would probably turn to various forms of mysticism.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
Mostly, I can't help it. I can understand people who could care less what is actually true and are interested more in what makes them comfortable, I honestly can. But I can't live that way. To me, truth matters far more than comfort. I won't say it matters more than happiness, because it is the pursuit of truth that makes me happy. But I am absolutely willing to risk any discomfort, temporary pain and hopelessness in the pursuit of truth.

I am fortunate in that my search for truth hasn't caused me any harm so far. I am an atheist, and I am, as far as I can tell, just as happy, content and hopeful as anyone else I know.

The correct answer to your question is: You don't gain anything, and that is entirely beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

have u ever considered that a beleif in no god makes u more comfortable, and is untrue?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I wonder how he'd respond to seeing himself cited in defence of theism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

He'd sigh at the predictable misapplication. Its not like its a rare tactic...look what they did to Einstein.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i didn't watch the interview but from the quote "I'm all for that kind of richness, and I take that as a challenge if I were to run that kind of school. I definitely agree with you that the richness and the meaning is important" it looks like dawkins is saying he would favor fostering the "richness" and "meaning" but it doesn't look like he's supporting the religious means for acheiving it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the obvious interpretation. Dawkins, like Harris although to a lesser extent, seems to realize that there is some component to religion that secular humanism seems to be lacking at the moment, and seems at least somewhat interested in developing it in order to provide a full, complete alternative to religion.

For my part, I think they are both a little overly conciliatory on this point, but thats up to them. I find my worldview to be fairly satisfying, while at the same time realizing it isn't going to be satisfying for everyone. This doesn't worry me. If people are more interested in comfort and consolance, thats fine. They can have their faux answers, I'll live with the indecision and doubt.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stop with this high falootiness already. If there is no God there is no "meaning". But so what? Doesn't seem to bother otters does it? Our brains simply mean we can find more things to enjoy than they do. Including possibly being charitable and nice.

As for discussing whether religion does more harm than good, as long as it is debatable, its more important to discuss whether it is ACCURATE. Is believing in a specific religion as silly as believing in astrology and/or rushes or not? Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hostility?

I don't know what high falootiness means, but I'm really just asking because I don't understand. This is a forum to ask questions, is it not? I am obviously asking these things because I am questioning my own beliefs to a certain extent.

I do not yet comprehend the atheist mindset. The question of meaning might not bother otters (how the heck do you know this anyway?) but it bothers me, and it bothers a lot of humans.

"Our brains simply mean we can find more things to enjoy than they can"....what does that even mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you conflate 'meaning' with 'absolute, eternal meaning.' Of course my life has meaning, by any reasonable definition of the term. I don't happen to think it has much ultimate, absolute meaning, but so what? It might, I don't know, but I don't see how it could make much difference to me to pretend like it does. It either will or it won't, and neither of those outcomes impact my daily life.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd have to admit that there are things that would cause you pleasure that would as a consequence cause harm to another human being.

The reason I'm caught up on issue is because by nature I'm a very compassionate person, but I could see how if I thought life was temporary and that guilt was only an byproduct of evolution then I could 'imagine' (I don't know for sure) that I could lose some of that compassion and do things that I normally wouldn't do.

It's not because God is the only thing keeping me from stealing, etc. but moreover that guilt/consequence/compassion and kindness would generally have less of a meaning to me, and I'd be more concerned with having as much fun as I could get away with in my short life. By less meaning I'm just saying that I'd 'see through them' and learn to ignore them, because after all they are betraying the objective to have an overall pleasurable life, right?

Working for a living would be another thing, and this is mainly conjecture but if my existence were temporary I just would have a lot less motivation to do it. I'd much rather steal, sell drugs, and attempt to get away with more exciting/dangerous/profitable occupations to the extent that I was comfortable I wouldn't be caught by the authorities.

My point being that assuming there really is no God, and I definitely believe there is, then would it really benefit the human race at this time? I think they possibly need the reinforcement regardless of whether it's true or not.

Basically, what would happened tonight if everyone was suddenly told that God didn't exist? I'd guess there'd be some forms of rioting, panic, and social upheaval.

I'm just guessing though, and I'd like to hear your input.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right. Because I am an atheist, I feel that I am more likely to do the things that make me happy and bring me the most joy and pleasure. However, being an atheist doesn't change what those things are at all. So, the things that bring me joy are the same things that bring most people joy, and caring and compassion are high on the list.

To counter your child pornography hypothetical: What if God is real, but he wants you to look at child pornography? Clearly you don't WANT to do this, but you aren't a slave to your biological desires. You would have to look at the child porn, wouldn't you? God requires it, and God is ultimate meaning. I guess you could just choose to not believe in that God, but for the purposes of the hypothetical, this God (which is just as likely as your God, btw) is real. Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if God doesn't exist, I don't think the human race is ready to deal with it. We aren't that far along, and most people NEED that comfort, they need that assurance.

If it was 100% proven that God did not exist, I think there would be profound effects on society that nobody could really comprehend.

It'd be a lot like if a UFO landed on the lawn of the White House, there would be widespread social consequences and to think otherwise is ignorance.

People don't like it when their brick houses come crashing down [i.e. Neo's denial in the Matrix].

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an incredibly shallow, pessimistic and disturbing view of humanity, and one that has no support. That may very well be your opinion, but I, for one, disagree. Why do you think the world would fall apart if everyone stopped believing in God? People might be more stressed out, specifically the contingent of people who are extremely uncomfortable and miserable with not knowing answers to difficult questions. But the actual day-to-day workings of society wouldn't change much, IMO. People would still be driven by the same motivations that drive people today, and would interact in the same way. The reason we don't cheat and kill isn't because God says its bad or we are afraid of Hell, its because cheating and killing are, in general, bad strategies for accumulating happiness. This wouldn't change if we all found out God was imaginary.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mostly, I can't help it. I can understand people who could care less what is actually true and are interested more in what makes them comfortable, I honestly can. But I can't live that way. To me, truth matters far more than comfort. I won't say it matters more than happiness, because it is the pursuit of truth that makes me happy. But I am absolutely willing to risk any discomfort, temporary pain and hopelessness in the pursuit of truth.

I am fortunate in that my search for truth hasn't caused me any harm so far. I am an atheist, and I am, as far as I can tell, just as happy, content and hopeful as anyone else I know.

The correct answer to your question is: You don't gain anything, and that is entirely beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

have u ever considered that a beleif in no god makes u more comfortable, and is untrue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I'm entirely open to your evidence and support for your unique version of God, but I can't believe in them all!

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't really intended to be a leading question...I can already see how it could be taken this way, but I really am just curious.

I saw TheDude's thread in the Diablo forum about how he finally accepted the logic of atheism, and the main thing I was thinking was, "Now what?".

So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what? and why does this really matter if true?

Why is seeking truth so important to you? So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else? Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God? Isn't your life meaningless now? If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive? Why does life deny the apparent truth that there is no reason for it to exist? Furthermore, if there is no "reason" then why are things like reason and meaning so important to people?

I don't get it. Help me out here.

[/ QUOTE ]

After each 'now what?' try relaxing and realising that it hasn't affected your life very much at all. MrsDude is realising she still wants to be with TheDude even though he no longer shares her beliefs about god because she's realising that his belief is not what defines him as the person she loves. It's was a part certainly but time will, hopefully, show it's not vital to the relationship and it was a small part.

So, the universe came about by natural means and doesn't involve a supreme being. I'm going to work once I finish this. It matters to know if god exists because thousands of people in the world, people you regularly interact with, think that you should do x or y, because god exists. You wouldn't walk across a busy motorway because I said you'd be safe, you'd check it out for yourself. So why would you allow a Rabbi to suck the forskin off your baby boy? Surely you'd want to check his authority to perform such a gross action?

Having a better idea about truth allows me to make better decisions in my life. Making good decisions is important to me because my actions have effects on other people which in turn reflect back on me. I haven't figured out the universe, merely added another small iota of truth to the store that I possess. There are no absolute truths. My life has exactly the same amount of meaning as it did prior to conversion. I assume you acknowledge gravity? Does gravity require an ultimate weight in the universe? Apply the same reason to truth. You no more require an absolute truth to seek truth than you require an absolute weight (mass obv) to experience gravity.

Life's desire for survival seems to be a function of surviving. A desire to survive improves survival chances and selection does it's thing. Life doesn't deny there's no reason for it's existence. I exist because my parents had a shag. There's the reason for my life in one simple statement. I could follow that train of actions back through time my grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on to the beginning of the universe but obv I'd be speculating. There is no more an ultimate reason than there is an ultimate truth or ultimate weight.

Hope this helps.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'd have to admit that there are things that would cause you pleasure that would as a consequence cause harm to another human being.

The reason I'm caught up on issue is because by nature I'm a very compassionate person, but I could see how if I thought life was temporary and that guilt was only an byproduct of evolution then I could 'imagine' (I don't know for sure) that I could lose some of that compassion and do things that I normally wouldn't do.

It's not because God is the only thing keeping me from stealing, etc. but moreover that guilt/consequence/compassion and kindness would generally have less of a meaning to me, and I'd be more concerned with having as much fun as I could get away with in my short life. By less meaning I'm just saying that I'd 'see through them' and learn to ignore them, because after all they are betraying the objective to have an overall pleasurable life, right?

Working for a living would be another thing, and this is mainly conjecture but if my existence were temporary I just would have a lot less motivation to do it. I'd much rather steal, sell drugs, and attempt to get away with more exciting/dangerous/profitable occupations to the extent that I was comfortable I wouldn't be caught by the authorities.

My point being that assuming there really is no God, and I definitely believe there is, then would it really benefit the human race at this time? I think they possibly need the reinforcement regardless of whether it's true or not.

Basically, what would happened tonight if everyone was suddenly told that God didn't exist? I'd guess there'd be some forms of rioting, panic, and social upheaval.

I'm just guessing though, and I'd like to hear your input.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right. Because I am an atheist, I feel that I am more likely to do the things that make me happy and bring me the most joy and pleasure. However, being an atheist doesn't change what those things are at all. So, the things that bring me joy are the same things that bring most people joy, and caring and compassion are high on the list.

To counter your child pornography hypothetical: What if God is real, but he wants you to look at child pornography? Clearly you don't WANT to do this, but you aren't a slave to your biological desires. You would have to look at the child porn, wouldn't you? God requires it, and God is ultimate meaning. I guess you could just choose to not believe in that God, but for the purposes of the hypothetical, this God (which is just as likely as your God, btw) is real. Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. God doesn't require people to look at child porn, and Christianity has been at the forefront of the issue. One merely has to look at the map, it's around here somewhere, of the age of consent laws regarding statutory rape. The more liberal states/nations have more relaxed laws, but as you get into the more conservative regions they become stricter.

I think if there was a religion based on child pornography as sort of a 'rite of passage' as you are implying, it would immediately fizzle out. One of the reasons Christianity is so successful is because it's based on one of the greatest books ever written, and even as an atheist you have to appreciate the value of it.

As far as society breaking down? If I was an atheist I wouldn't work for a living. I've got one life, and there's no [censored] way that I'm going to spend it in a cubicle, or building someone else's house. I'd be anything but a productive human being, because it's all about living life to the fullest?

...and the fullest just so may happen to be drug-use, constant partying, mass orgies, etc. [Not that I find these particularly pleasing, but some might]

But I honestly wouldn't have a job, I wouldn't help but feel that my life is being wasted. And that may be why some of you are poker players, and not working the 9-5 at subway.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I cannot even fathom what the "fantastic magical candy land" will be like...it's not something I can really comprehend, </font>

So how can you be so sure that this something you cannot begin to fathom or comprehend can actually exist?

I think what it comes down to (although few theists will admit it), is the desire to live forever. It's hard to accept that there will come a day when you will be no more. You can accept this fate for an opossum, or a rosebush, but not for yourself! Hence, the insatiable desire for there to be something MORE than this life. It is my hypothosis that this single reason is what sustains religion and continues to make it as powerful and popular as it is to this day.

*I use the word "you" as in everyone who believes in an after-life.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]

But I honestly wouldn't have a job, I wouldn't help but feel that my life is being wasted. And that may be why some of you are poker players, and not working the 9-5 at subway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really haven't thought this through have you? how exactly would you maximise your enjoyment over the remaining 50/60 years of your life if you did not have a job to provide income?

How is maximum pleasure to become drug addicted, spending your time between fixes stealing to pay for the next fix?

There's far more pleasure in having a job occupying a few hours a day and then having the money to spend.

You reckon you're a good poker player but this is a really simple EV question. Think about it a bit.

Oh and his point about god wanting you to look at child porn was a hypothetical about god wanting you to behave in ways you felt were unnatural.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'd have to admit that there are things that would cause you pleasure that would as a consequence cause harm to another human being.

The reason I'm caught up on issue is because by nature I'm a very compassionate person, but I could see how if I thought life was temporary and that guilt was only an byproduct of evolution then I could 'imagine' (I don't know for sure) that I could lose some of that compassion and do things that I normally wouldn't do.

It's not because God is the only thing keeping me from stealing, etc. but moreover that guilt/consequence/compassion and kindness would generally have less of a meaning to me, and I'd be more concerned with having as much fun as I could get away with in my short life. By less meaning I'm just saying that I'd 'see through them' and learn to ignore them, because after all they are betraying the objective to have an overall pleasurable life, right?

Working for a living would be another thing, and this is mainly conjecture but if my existence were temporary I just would have a lot less motivation to do it. I'd much rather steal, sell drugs, and attempt to get away with more exciting/dangerous/profitable occupations to the extent that I was comfortable I wouldn't be caught by the authorities.

My point being that assuming there really is no God, and I definitely believe there is, then would it really benefit the human race at this time? I think they possibly need the reinforcement regardless of whether it's true or not.

Basically, what would happened tonight if everyone was suddenly told that God didn't exist? I'd guess there'd be some forms of rioting, panic, and social upheaval.

I'm just guessing though, and I'd like to hear your input.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right. Because I am an atheist, I feel that I am more likely to do the things that make me happy and bring me the most joy and pleasure. However, being an atheist doesn't change what those things are at all. So, the things that bring me joy are the same things that bring most people joy, and caring and compassion are high on the list.

To counter your child pornography hypothetical: What if God is real, but he wants you to look at child pornography? Clearly you don't WANT to do this, but you aren't a slave to your biological desires. You would have to look at the child porn, wouldn't you? God requires it, and God is ultimate meaning. I guess you could just choose to not believe in that God, but for the purposes of the hypothetical, this God (which is just as likely as your God, btw) is real. Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. God doesn't require people to look at child porn, and Christianity has been at the forefront of the issue. One merely has to look at the map, it's around here somewhere, of the age of consent laws regarding statutory rape. The more liberal states/nations have more relaxed laws, but as you get into the more conservative regions they become stricter.

I think if there was a religion based on child pornography as sort of a 'rite of passage' as you are implying, it would immediately fizzle out. One of the reasons Christianity is so successful is because it's based on one of the greatest books ever written, and even as an atheist you have to appreciate the value of it.

As far as society breaking down? If I was an atheist I wouldn't work for a living. I've got one life, and there's no [censored] way that I'm going to spend it in a cubicle, or building someone else's house. I'd be anything but a productive human being, because it's all about living life to the fullest?

...and the fullest just so may happen to be drug-use, constant partying, mass orgies, etc. [Not that I find these particularly pleasing, but some might]

But I honestly wouldn't have a job, I wouldn't help but feel that my life is being wasted. And that may be why some of you are poker players, and not working the 9-5 at subway.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were an atheist, you wouldn't work for a living? So why DO you work for a living? Where does it say in the Bible you must have a miserable job? You sure seem to be short-sighted. The reason I plan on working for a living is because I enjoy it and, importantly, it provides the means to do things that I enjoy even more. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As to the earlier point about God not requiring child porn: Well, thats lucky for you, I guess. But don't ignore the hypothetical. There is no reason God CAN'T require it, so what if he did? Would you do it? Would you suck it up and do something that you find detestable? Or do you just do the things you personally find tasteful, irrespective of the wishes or commands of God?

Your point has been that you can't understand why people would act normally if there was no God, not if there was no 'the specific version of the Christian God that you and only you believe in." All Gods are thus fair game.

[Ben K]

Lestat, your posts in this thread have been awesome.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the other option is to remain ignorant? Maybe that's good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.

[Sotiria]

[ QUOTE ]

The better question is, what's the rush to kill myself?

Non-rhetorical question: What is it about life here on Earth that creates the drive in you to need some Ultimate Meaning beyond it? Is it that life isn't perfect? That it isn't eternal? That your life is too insignificant in the scheme of things?

Edit: I thought of an analogy which may or may not help. I am drinking some red wine at the moment. I am enjoying it very much. What I am not doing is thinking: "Yes, but what's wine drinking all about, when you get right down to it? What am I drinking this wine for? It tastes good, but what is the deeper meaning of this taste?"

I assume you're the same when doing something you enjoy. But somehow, when you zoom right out and look at your entire life, this isn't good enough anymore. Why not? Why this anxiety and refusal to simply enjoy your life?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has turned out to be a great thread from my perspective, especially this post from ChrisV.

Chris,

I'm elated that you were able to ask questions that I knew were there, but couldn't really ask myself in such a concrete way (I hope that makes sense). I sincerely need to ponder the above before I can make a full response, but I have an idea of how to respond.

I suppose it is not good enough that *my* life is satisfying. I am happily married to my wife, who is also my best friend, I have a healthy view of work, and plenty of hobbies that I enjoy. I enjoy my life.

When I zoom out, as you described, I see the aches and pains of the world and it bothers me to my core. For example, on the way to work today, I saw several homeless people huddling together for warmth. That is just one example, but it is the ugliness that can sometimes occur in this world that would drive me to say that the world "isn't good enough". An earlier poster commented that he searches for truth because it's who he is (to paraphrase). In the same way, empathy is a quality that is just a part of me.


Lestat,

Your posts, as usual, are very eloquently put (are you a writer by trade?), but to simply boil all of the hope of every theist in the world to "I have the egotistical desire to live forever" is foolish.

Really, living forever is a somewhat frightening concept if you really think of it. I suppose, personally, the desire for the existence of a loving God is a reflection what I posted above. I empathize for the hurting, the lost, the broken, and therefore...well you get the picture.

[Sotiria]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the other option is to remain ignorant? Maybe that's good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly post. You took my quote out of context, and you also fail to see that I, myself, am seeking truth, regardless of how painful that truth may be.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
But so what? Doesn't seem to bother otters does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, otters can't talk, but having watched some otters in my time, I think they suffer from a profound existential malaise.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the other option is to remain ignorant? Maybe that's good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly post. You took my quote out of context, and you also fail to see that I, myself, am seeking truth, regardless of how painful that truth may be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I had just finished ready WoolyGimp's "Atheists' lives have no meaning" thread and assumed your thread was more of the same.

If you are honestly re-evaluating your faith, I wish you the best of luck.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Lestat,

Your posts, as usual, are very eloquently put (are you a writer by trade?), but to simply boil all of the hope of every theist in the world to "I have the egotistical desire to live forever" is foolish.

Really, living forever is a somewhat frightening concept if you really think of it. I suppose, personally, the desire for the existence of a loving God is a reflection what I posted above. I empathize for the hurting, the lost, the broken, and therefore...well you get the picture. </font>

I wouldn't call the desire to live forever "egotistical". Selfish? Maybe, but a perfectly natural emotion. The prospect of losing one's consciousness forever, is not a pleasing one. Not for atheists nor theists alike. Were I to have a choice in the matter, I would most certainly opt to retain my conscious state of being forever and never lose it.

I think Chris' post has some excellent content. The need for meaning beyond our own existence is a question we all must ponder and come to grips with. In the grand scheme of things we pop in and out of existence like blinkers on a Christmas tree. It's tough to contemplate what our brief moment on this universal stage means. Or even if it means anything given the fact there will come a day when we cease to be. But I think Chris is right. We are here now and that might be all that need matter.

[Woolygimp]

Vhawk, you should read Alister McGrath if you want the answer to your question on whether or not we should follow immoral laws if they present themselves from scripture.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk, you should read Alister McGrath if you want the answer to your question on whether or not we should follow immoral laws if they present themselves from scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not from scripture. From God. Its a simple answer.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, people who beleive in God disobey him every day, multiple times a day. we sin. we're human.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, people who beleive in God disobey him every day, multiple times a day. we sin. we're human.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of having a vast array of contradictory laws that are never enforced (since they're too ridiculous to enforce). This creates an environment where people are always disobeying laws, so the authorities can use any excuse they wish to incarcerate them.

That's apparently what the framers of religions wanted, too. At any time, you will somehow be in violation of a rule no matter what you do. This gives them the power to do to you as they see fit, and it apparently gives god the ability to do whatever he wants with you when you die.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, people who beleive in God disobey him every day, multiple times a day. we sin. we're human.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking if, over the course of your life, you slip up from time to time. I am asking if you simply, blatantly disregard that specific command. And if so, why? Presumably you would refuse to do it every single time. Would you feel bad about it each time, but do it anyway?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, people who beleive in God disobey him every day, multiple times a day. we sin. we're human.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of having a vast array of contradictory laws that are never enforced (since they're too ridiculous to enforce). This creates an environment where people are always disobeying laws, so the authorities can use any excuse they wish to incarcerate them.

That's apparently what the framers of religions wanted, too. At any time, you will somehow be in violation of a rule no matter what you do. This gives them the power to do to you as they see fit, and it apparently gives god the ability to do whatever he wants with you when you die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good point, and probably has some truth, but isn't it kind of unnecessary? We're born sinful, even if we lived a perfect life, it would make no difference.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you refuse to do what God says is right simply based on your materialistic, biological desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, people who beleive in God disobey him every day, multiple times a day. we sin. we're human.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of having a vast array of contradictory laws that are never enforced (since they're too ridiculous to enforce). This creates an environment where people are always disobeying laws, so the authorities can use any excuse they wish to incarcerate them.

That's apparently what the framers of religions wanted, too. At any time, you will somehow be in violation of a rule no matter what you do. This gives them the power to do to you as they see fit, and it apparently gives god the ability to do whatever he wants with you when you die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good point, and probably has some truth, but isn't it kind of unnecessary? We're born sinful, even if we lived a perfect life, it would make no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but if people thought like that then they would have no reason at all to follow the bible.

I was under the impression that only certain sects believed in original sin. I thought that many flavors of Christianity ignored that little detail.

[andyfox]

"Isn't your life meaningless now?"

Why does one need god to give one's life meaning. I have family and love and purpose and joy and sadness and it doesn't matter one iota to me if god exists or not.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
At any time, you will somehow be in violation of a rule no matter what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm maybe. but God forgives you for your sins (from a Christian point of view). Jesus died so we can all go to heaven, no matter if we lived like monks, or if we murdered more people than Hitler. acceptance to heaven is a FREE GIFT. even you, an atheist (i assume), will go to heaven. Jesus died for you too. we're humans, we know right and wrong, but it's just in our nature to do wrong sometimes.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking if, over the course of your life, you slip up from time to time. I am asking if you simply, blatantly disregard that specific command. And if so, why? Presumably you would refuse to do it every single time. Would you feel bad about it each time, but do it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah it's pretty common with the "no sex before marriage" thing. most people do anyway, some feel bad about it, but put their own pleasure above the command and do it anyways.

[jgca]

[ QUOTE ]
If there IS the god you're wishing for, and he DOES exist, what's the point in living another day? Why not die right now and wish the same for all your family and loved ones? Why spend another mediocre day here on earth when you could be at your final eternal resting place? How can you possibly get joy from earthly pleasures when they must pale in comparison to what's in store for you over the next gazillion bajillion years!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The really critical point here, I think, is that belief cannot be adequately modeled on a single dimension (like a probability between 0 and 1). Belief is extremely complex, and neccessarily interacts with desires, social roles, subconscious game-theoretical strategies, and the biology of perception, plus a gazillion other things.

So to answer Lestat's quote there: most "believers" simply don't believe in God or Heaven in the same way we all believe in the FBI and Disneyland. If they did, then yes, it would be revealed in their earthly behavior. Rather, it seems to be a strategy for things that earthy knowledge cannot currently provide. Believe in medicine while your child is merely sick; pray after he's pronounced incurable. Believe in natural causality when fixing your car; believe in spirit infusing the natural world when dealing with something as complex as the origin of life. And so on.

I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

John Keats wrote about what he called "negative capability", basically a rare capacity to function in a general state of doubt, mystery, and openmindedness. I'm not as much of an elitist as Keats, but it certainly seems that it's not for everybody.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking if, over the course of your life, you slip up from time to time. I am asking if you simply, blatantly disregard that specific command. And if so, why? Presumably you would refuse to do it every single time. Would you feel bad about it each time, but do it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah it's pretty common with the "no sex before marriage" thing. most people do anyway, some feel bad about it, but put their own pleasure above the command and do it anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we can see how this easily defeats the "Why would atheists ever do anything, if I was an atheist I would just kill or steal or do whatever I want" argument, right? I'm not saying you made this argument, and you responded to a question that was posed to the person who DID make this argument, but you are certainly free to comment.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But so what? Doesn't seem to bother otters does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, otters can't talk, but having watched some otters in my time, I think they suffer from a profound existential malaise.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. I remember seeing footage of a Jean-Paul Sartre book signing once. Nothing but bloody otters, as far as the eye could see, waving their copies of La Nausée in the air. I heard he used to have to get someone to throw fish into the crowd to distract them long enough to make his escape.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it is not good enough that *my* life is satisfying. I am happily married to my wife, who is also my best friend, I have a healthy view of work, and plenty of hobbies that I enjoy. I enjoy my life.

When I zoom out, as you described, I see the aches and pains of the world and it bothers me to my core. For example, on the way to work today, I saw several homeless people huddling together for warmth. That is just one example, but it is the ugliness that can sometimes occur in this world that would drive me to say that the world "isn't good enough". An earlier poster commented that he searches for truth because it's who he is (to paraphrase). In the same way, empathy is a quality that is just a part of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this falls under the category of "Life is not perfect". This is fair enough, but the question is what you would propose to do about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Really, living forever is a somewhat frightening concept if you really think of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of living forever, in a kind of changeless perfect world, fills me with a horror that is difficult to express. Such a world would rob us of humanity. For instance, you say that empathy is a big part of who you are. What would it mean to empathise with someone who felt nothing but perfect happiness? Would such a thing even be possible? Or, take your wife, who you say is your best friend. If you never felt the slightest negative emotion towards anyone else, what would there be to distinguish that friendship from any other?

I know the argument that suffering must be possible in order for true happiness to be possible would be unlikely to impress those homeless people you mentioned earlier, but there is nonetheless a good deal of truth in it. The world is certainly far from perfect, but personally I never get tired of the central miracle - that we're here, alive free-willed sentient beings, and that love, happiness and hope are all possible if we seek for them.

I'm a fan of the philosophy of Taoism. To me, the approach of reconciling oneself with the world as it is is more likely to lead to inner quietude and happiness than the monotheistic approach of (at any rate, what appears to me to be) a frantic pretence that it all makes some kind of ineffable cosmic sense.

[ChrisV]

Also Sotiria,

I'd like to say that appreciate the tone of your posts. This thread has been a pleasure to participate in so far. We need more of this in SMP. I'm guilty of adopting an aggressive tone myself sometimes. It helps that in this instance I can tell I'm discussing this with someone who is arguing in good faith.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
That's apparently what the framers of religions wanted, too. At any time, you will somehow be in violation of a rule no matter what you do. This gives them the power to do to you as they see fit, and it apparently gives god the ability to do whatever he wants with you when you die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. It's important not to forget when Christianity was imposed upon the populous, the feudal era. The church had control over everything. The bible was the vehicle for fearmongering, which served two purposes for their social structure; the layman serf was terribly afraid of disobeying the church because of the description of hell, and he was also motivated to continue in his mundane and likely abused life at the prospect of being rewarded by an eternity in heaven.

Religion was the social glue for one of the darkest periods of mankind.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there IS the god you're wishing for, and he DOES exist, what's the point in living another day? Why not die right now and wish the same for all your family and loved ones? Why spend another mediocre day here on earth when you could be at your final eternal resting place? How can you possibly get joy from earthly pleasures when they must pale in comparison to what's in store for you over the next gazillion bajillion years!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The really critical point here, I think, is that belief cannot be adequately modeled on a single dimension (like a probability between 0 and 1). Belief is extremely complex, and neccessarily interacts with desires, social roles, subconscious game-theoretical strategies, and the biology of perception, plus a gazillion other things.

So to answer Lestat's quote there: most "believers" simply don't believe in God or Heaven in the same way we all believe in the FBI and Disneyland. If they did, then yes, it would be revealed in their earthly behavior. Rather, it seems to be a strategy for things that earthy knowledge cannot currently provide. Believe in medicine while your child is merely sick; pray after he's pronounced incurable. Believe in natural causality when fixing your car; believe in spirit infusing the natural world when dealing with something as complex as the origin of life. And so on.

I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

John Keats wrote about what he called "negative capability", basically a rare capacity to function in a general state of doubt, mystery, and openmindedness. I'm not as much of an elitist as Keats, but it certainly seems that it's not for everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post.

[Alex-db]

But doesn't this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

...lead straight to the conclusion that you will eventually not need a God?

Wasn't thunder as mysterious in those times as morality is now?

Surely then, God is either a placeholder you at somepoint do intend to remove, or else a symbol that in humanity's continuing search for knowledge you personally resign and accept it as a failure.

(An insight into the mindset of an atheist: I would consider it a failure to accept God to explain anything unless God was an intelligent explanation for it. All through schooling I haven't failed to understand anything I have had time to learn so far, and I project that mindset (correctly or not) onto the whole of humanity. Therefore, rather than [things I understand] and [things I may as well just say God did], I have [things I understand] and [things I/we haven't learnt yet]. I think this gives life far more meaning and enthusiasm than looking forward to death and some perceived chance of the beginning of an eternity in heaven.)

[Woolygimp]

M Theory, you may be intelligent but history is most certainly not your forte. Your theory about religion being conceived to subdue populaces is nonsense, to be blunt; If you are going to theory craft please research at least the basics so that the theory can have a solid foundation that doesn't rely on ignorance or semantics.

Any historian will tell you that the Dark Ages were not as dark as most people believe, as the general population would probably describe the Dark Ages as a time in which society and scientific advancement were dealt a mortal blow after the fall of the Roman Empire.

This is not true. The Dark Ages are inappropriately named, and it should be considered the Early Middle Ages. Sure there were things that could be considered 'dark' by modern society standards, but you can't name on century in contemporary history that can not be labeled the same.

Example? You go back to the Roman Republic and you'll find examples similar to when the Romans conquered Carthage in the Punic Wars and burned it to the ground killing every single inhabitant in the city, then sowing salt into the ground. Fast forward to modern times, and you have two dozen separate mass-genocides in the 20th century alone.

It's true that the Vatican has been one of the most influential institutions in the past two thousand years, but a leader doesn't need religion to assert his power. This has never been the case. Those 'serfs' were 'serfs' because they believed in noble bloodlines, they believed in class placement from birth.

Was religion needed in the 18th-19th century to keep the black slaves in line? No.

I also finished the Root of Evil by Dawkins and his arguments are weak and fallacious. There are bad apples in every single institution on the face of this Earth, and you can NOT name one otherwise.

If religion is bad because of the Crusades, then Atheism is worse because of the massacres of Pol Pot. Stereotyping the worst that a particular group has to offer in order to prove your point is great isn't it? Dawkins thinks so.

People yearn to be a part of a group, and religion weren't there it'd be something else. These groups by nature will sometimes cause conflict, but you guys sit here on your arrogant asses and think you aren't part of one of these social groups? Well...you can always be a part of the Richard Dawkins foundation, and you can talk about how dumb the other 98% of the world's population is but you are doing the very thing, the very reason that is used by Richard to call religion evil.

And Richard is wrong on another point. These groups don't cause the conflict, our human nature is responsible; jealousy, greed, pride, arrogance, and a false belief in self superiority cause conflict.

You think if religion dies out wars will stop? I don't think anyone is that naive, or at least I'd hope not because then you aren't a fraction as intelligent as you think you are. Again, the American Indians didn't need religion to kill each other. Wanna go further back? The early H. Sapiens didn't need religion to send Neanderthals into realm of extinction.


<u>Hate is just as much a part of us as love.</u> War is in our nature.

If Dawkins were interested in stopping conflict, he'd be researching the gene responsible for violence, and hate and not some theoretical gene or "meme" which causes people to predominately turn towards God.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If religion is bad because of the Crusades, then Atheism is worse because of the massacres of Pol Pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? The crusades were in the name of the "cross", hence the term crusades. Pol pot did nothing in the name of atheism!? I can't think of anything done in the name of atheism as bloodthirsty as what has been done in the name of religion, whatever fantasist orientation.

[Alex-db]

Wollygimp,

I think you may need to look at Dawkins arguments again.

If I said that being a British football fan leads to violence, then you say we are violent people anyway and afootballsupportists get into fights too, that has nothing to do with, or at least certainly doesn't contradict, my suggestion that football leads to crowd violence.

Does that make sense?

And I'm not so hot on the history aspects, but my understanding was that the Roman Empire (particularly Constantine) deliberately encouraged the spread of the cult of Christianity around 300AD in order to help control their populations. Is that disputed?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If religion is bad because of the Crusades, then Atheism is worse because of the massacres of Pol Pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? The crusades were in the name of the "cross", hence the term crusades. Pol pot did nothing in the name of atheism!? I can't think of anything done in the name of atheism as bloodthirsty as what has been done in the name of religion, whatever fantasist orientation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanna comment on the entire post instead of taking one little snippet and using it out of context.

My point was that there are people that which society would regard as evil, and these people are in all walks of life...in all institutions.

Pol Pot didn't kill in the name of Atheism, you're right. However the point was made that in the absence of religion something has to take it's place. That something was Communism, and the belief in the absolute power of the state.

My take on the football analogy is that football is NOT responsible for the crowd violence that follows. The violent people are responsible for the crowd violence that follows.

And as long as violence is in our nature, then removing football isn't going to solve anything.

I don't think you guys realize that people like to fight for no reason other than to fight. A kind of assert the alpha male dominance thing.

When I was 14-18 I had a lot of friends who'd walk around, and if someone looked at them wrong they'd fight them, basically looking for any excuse to hit someone;
fighting completely random people. Religion certainly has nothing to do with that...right?

I think you guys just need to get out in the real world, there's a LOT of violence and most of it isn't caused by religion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
However the point was made that in the absence of religion something has to take it's place. That something was Communism, and the belief in the absolute power of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing has to take the place of religion. It is religion that usurps the place of rationality.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However the point was made that in the absence of religion something has to take it's place. That something was Communism, and the belief in the absolute power of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing has to take the place of religion. It is religion that usurps the place of rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, please comment on the rest of my above threads. Are you arguing that human beings are by nature complacent and kind and that removing religion would immediately rid the world of violence?

Secondly, every single Atheistic state in history has had something usurp the place of religion. I can back up that information, but I'd like you to show me otherwise.

If you want to truly get rid of wars then find ways of getting rid of the parts of the brain responsible for various catalysts for conflict, or hope that the next step of evolution throws them by the wayside.

[Sephus]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Woolygimp]

I was hoping you'd add more than a sad face. Maybe something at least like, "wooly, you're wrong stfu."

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
... removing religion would immediately rid the world of violence?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, it would simply get rid of one rationalization for violence and therefore diminish the amount of violence.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, every single Atheistic state in history has had something usurp the place of religion. I can back up that information

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, LOL. You are making the claim, do back it up! /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
hope that the next step of evolution throws them by the wayside.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that the next step of evolution fails for all sentient beings, thereby eliminating the needless suffering, which by definition need be attributed to a creator, if you so believe.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
...to simply boil all of the hope of every theist in the world to "I have the egotistical desire to live forever" is foolish.

Really, living forever is a somewhat frightening concept if you really think of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if you really think about it, the frightening concept is dying.

I don't think we should pretend that it takes great courage for someone to believe they will live forever. From a theist's standpoint, the belief in eternal life (with whatever add-ons he likes: perfect justice/vengeance against his enemies/77 virgins/etc) is a source of enormous comfort.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
No, if you really think about it, the frightening concept is dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dying is what makes a life acceptable, imo.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So what are your views on religion being taught to children?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, would a Christian like it if their kid was kidnapped as an infant by radical Muslims and indoctrinated into Islam? Kidnapped or not, the kid has zero free choice in his religious beliefs.

See Jesus Camp.

[m_the0ry]

Wooly-

Let me preface by saying my comment about the feudal era being the 'darkest' in mankind's history is pretty baseless; That I admit. It was something I tacked on to the end of my post to help make my point and it ended up weakening the message I was really trying to convey.

It is however undeniable that the church held the most power of any body during the feudal era. They were the government. The bible was the constitution. The church also ran loan, slavery, and warfare rackets; Discussing the crusades only considers the last of those. These are historical facts.

Religion was what held that social structure together. It exists today because it is an artifact from the social progression of humanity. Relating this to the Marxist social model, the feudal era should be something of the past entirely as it is something we have evolved out of. This includes religion, because religion was a construct for the medieval epoch specifically.

[Ben K]

Do we really need to go through slavery/crusades/pol pot/etc every coupla threads??

There are plenty of religious inspired evils in the world today without dredging up history. I'll start off the list:
Rabbi's sucking foreskins off circumcised boys.
Imam's slicing the foreheads of babies and toddlers with razors.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't your life meaningless now?

[/ QUOTE ]
No more meaningless than it is if one founds its meaning on a non-existant being, supreme or otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]
Life, as an abstraction, is not capable of wanting. Individual living beings may or may not want to survive and/or procreate. Based on my knowledge of our species, most reproduction would appear to happen as a side effect of satisfying something other than a wish to survive, namely, pleasure. Who starts chasing tail because of the biblical imperative to "go forth and multiply?"

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if there is no "reason" then why are things like reason and meaning so important to people?


[/ QUOTE ]
Reason is at best a limited tool. I agree with you that it is currently rather overvalued.

Here's a brain-teaser for you. I think my life, human life and all of its dependents (culture, etc.) is utterly and completely contingent, without purpose or meaning and having no intrinsic value. This is a perspective that gives me nothing but joy; honest, generous and vital joy.

If you feel that without the promise that our joy and suffering, all of it, is part of the plan of a supernatural being who created the world in order to fulfill this plan; well, that would drive me nuts! What is the damn plan, already? Give me a meaningless void in which to play any day instead of being part of some mysterious grand plan that makes everything "meaningful".

[oe39]

why is god necessary or sufficient for meaning?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

...lead straight to the conclusion that you will eventually not need a God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The more we learn about anything, the more we realize we don't know. There will always be things we don't know. This is especially true if you ask questions like, "what happens after we die?"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

...lead straight to the conclusion that you will eventually not need a God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The more we learn about anything, the more we realize we don't know. There will always be things we don't know. This is especially true if you ask questions like, "what happens after we die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an oft-repeated and seldom-considered cliche, and I don't really know if it actually has any truth. If there is a finite amount of things that need explanations or knowledge out there, then everything we learn brings us closer to the end. If there is an infinite amount, then nothing we learn brings us closer, but it also doesn't increase the amount we don't know. We might realize or illuminate more of the unknown with each new explanation, but this is not necessarily a process that must go on forever.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

...lead straight to the conclusion that you will eventually not need a God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The more we learn about anything, the more we realize we don't know. There will always be things we don't know. This is especially true if you ask questions like, "what happens after we die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an oft-repeated and seldom-considered cliche, and I don't really know if it actually has any truth. If there is a finite amount of things that need explanations or knowledge out there, then everything we learn brings us closer to the end. If there is an infinite amount, then nothing we learn brings us closer, but it also doesn't increase the amount we don't know. We might realize or illuminate more of the unknown with each new explanation, but this is not necessarily a process that must go on forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this because although I don't know much about quantum physics I've heard many scientists say that we may <u>never</u> know certain things because such things will be outside of the testable realm.

I remember watching a video about an experiment, and I'm going to try and find it because it's been a while. In the video charged particles were fired, and I'm pretty sure they were electrons however I'm not sure. They were fired through a small hole, and then then patterns were recorded on film behind the hole.

When fired the electrons took on both the properties of typical matter, and wavelengths as it passed through the hole.

So they observed by measuring the matter as it passed through the slits, but when that happened the particles only took on the property of matter and formed two bands, and the pattern of wavelengths were not recorded on the film.

The scientists commented, "It's almost like it can tell when we are observing, so we can't tell why or how it behaves like this but only that it does."

I really need to find it, it was very interesting.

[Woolygimp]

Here the double slit experiment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&amp;q=double+slit

Definitely worth watching...

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
why is god necessary or sufficient for meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Cuz the universe has to have a story arch, I guess. Or it's the difference between living in a creation vs. living in a chaos.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
When fired, the film behind the hole filled up in a way to specify that the particles were taking on properties of both typical matter AND wavelengths.


[/ QUOTE ]

no wai!

[Woolygimp]

Watch the film instead of being a douchebag.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch the film instead of being a douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]

(more or less) everybody here is already aware of this stuff.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Watch the film instead of being a douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]

(more or less) everybody here is already aware of this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in that case I apologize for not reading the sticky at the top of the forum that states that everyone within Science, Math, Philosophy knows about the Quantum DSE.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

...lead straight to the conclusion that you will eventually not need a God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The more we learn about anything, the more we realize we don't know. There will always be things we don't know. This is especially true if you ask questions like, "what happens after we die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an oft-repeated and seldom-considered cliche, and I don't really know if it actually has any truth. If there is a finite amount of things that need explanations or knowledge out there, then everything we learn brings us closer to the end. If there is an infinite amount, then nothing we learn brings us closer, but it also doesn't increase the amount we don't know. We might realize or illuminate more of the unknown with each new explanation, but this is not necessarily a process that must go on forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is what I mean. I don't mean to say that the amount we don't know increases, just that we don't know that we don't know it.

When make this claim, I'm just going the scientific route and going on what is observable. In almost every single field that we have studied, there are more questions now than at any other point in that field's history. There doesn't seem to be an end in sight, so why posit one? And the "why" questions never go away, they are fundamentally unanswerable from a scientific point of view.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel that without the promise that our joy and suffering, all of it, is part of the plan of a supernatural being who created the world in order to fulfill this plan; well, that would drive me nuts! What is the damn plan, already? Give me a meaningless void in which to play any day instead of being part of some mysterious grand plan that makes everything "meaningful".

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe finding meaning in a meainingless void is the meaning of God's meaningful meaningless plan.

Juat thought I'd throw a brain teaser back atcha.

PairTheBoard

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe finding meaning in a meainingless void is the meaning of God's meaningful meaningless plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lisa: If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around, does it make a sound?
Bart: Absolutely! [makes sound of a tree falling]
Lisa: But Bart, how can sound exist if there’s no one there to hear it.
Bart: Wooooooo…

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you want.

[ QUOTE ]
and why does this really matter if true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably doesn’t matter much.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the mental stimulation I get from understanding new patterns.

[ QUOTE ]
So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? What? More like decided that the universe cannot be figured out. It’s more the religious type that have a need to ‘figure out the universe’, so invent a meaning for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think absolute truth is obtainable for us, so whether it matters or not seems irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
if there is no God? Isn't your life meaningless now?

[/ QUOTE ]

We construct our own meanings for our lives; some people find this easier with a fantasized god figure.

[ QUOTE ]
If it is meaningless, does that matter, or not really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing your life is meaningless is sign of mental ill health.

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s an evolved trait. Life forms that want to survive tend to find it easier to survive.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does life deny the apparent truth that there is no reason for it to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s an evolved trait. Life forms that believe they have a purpose or reason to exist, find it easier to work towards that purpose, which typically results in increasing the chance the life forms genes will be passed on.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if there is no "reason" then why are things like reason and meaning so important to people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Purpose and meaning are artificial human concepts that our mind uses to understand our environment. Just because they are tools that only exist within our minds does not make them less important to us.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might well be best if you didn’t.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? What? More like decided that the universe cannot be figured out. It’s more the religious type that have a need to ‘figure out the universe’, so invent a meaning for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't figure out anything, it's his belief that there is no God and that does not make it fact. One cannot say, "the Universe can not be figured out" and then assert that there is no God.

Believing our lives are meaningless, as an Atheist, is not a sign of ill mental health but only recognition of that which you hold true. Literally speaking your life has about as much meaning as the mosquito I just swatted off my wall, because you are by nature insignificant. Your imprint upon the universe will be corroded by the infinity of time, fading out into oblivion.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? What? More like decided that the universe cannot be figured out. It’s more the religious type that have a need to ‘figure out the universe’, so invent a meaning for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't figure out anything, it's his belief that there is no God and that does not make it fact. One cannot say, "the Universe can not be figured out" and then assert that there is no God.

Believing our lives are meaningless, as an Atheist, is not a sign of ill mental health but only recognition of that which you hold true. Literally speaking your life has about as much meaning as the mosquito I just swatted off my wall, because you are by nature insignificant. Your imprint upon the universe will be corroded by the infinity of time, fading out into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening wooly. They say it's NOW that matters. In fact you could be a Theist and say the same thing. You just disagree. Continuing to reasert your rant is not an argument.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? What? More like decided that the universe cannot be figured out. It’s more the religious type that have a need to ‘figure out the universe’, so invent a meaning for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't figure out anything, it's his belief that there is no God and that does not make it fact. One cannot say, "the Universe can not be figured out" and then assert that there is no God.

Believing our lives are meaningless, as an Atheist, is not a sign of ill mental health but only recognition of that which you hold true. Literally speaking your life has about as much meaning as the mosquito I just swatted off my wall, because you are by nature insignificant. Your imprint upon the universe will be corroded by the infinity of time, fading out into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that the most intelligent analysis of our current knowledge about the universe is that this describes your life just as well as anyone elses.

If we are right, are you arguing that denial makes it more meaningful?

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Purpose and meaning are artificial human concepts that our mind uses to understand our environment or, in the case of theists, to misunderstand our environment.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP


[ QUOTE ]
It might well be best if you didn’t.

[/ QUOTE ]
NH

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Literally speaking your life has about as much meaning as the mosquito I just swatted off my wall, because you are by nature insignificant. Your imprint upon the universe will be corroded by the infinity of time, fading out into oblivion.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is logically false.

If you are right and the atheists are wrong, then our lives have as much meaning as yours.

If we are right and you are wrong, then your life is as "meaningless" as ours.

You can't argue that your life has more meaning than an atheists, as you do not *really* know what happens after we die. The fact that you believe that you know the answer doesn't mean that you'll end up somewhere different than the rest of us. However, regardless of the outcome, we're all going to the same place -- either to some form of afterlife or into oblivion. I just happen to think that it'll be into oblivion. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing most of you have heard the expression "god of the gaps". The reason we don't have gods of thunder and the harvest and fertility anymore is the same reason we still have a God who's all about concretizing morality and reassuring us in the face of permanent loss. We have God for what we still can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

...lead straight to the conclusion that you will eventually not need a God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The more we learn about anything, the more we realize we don't know. There will always be things we don't know. This is especially true if you ask questions like, "what happens after we die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an oft-repeated and seldom-considered cliche, and I don't really know if it actually has any truth. If there is a finite amount of things that need explanations or knowledge out there, then everything we learn brings us closer to the end. If there is an infinite amount, then nothing we learn brings us closer, but it also doesn't increase the amount we don't know. We might realize or illuminate more of the unknown with each new explanation, but this is not necessarily a process that must go on forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this because although I don't know much about quantum physics I've heard many scientists say that we may <u>never</u> know certain things because such things will be outside of the testable realm.

I remember watching a video about an experiment, and I'm going to try and find it because it's been a while. In the video charged particles were fired, and I'm pretty sure they were electrons however I'm not sure. They were fired through a small hole, and then then patterns were recorded on film behind the hole.

When fired the electrons took on both the properties of typical matter, and wavelengths as it passed through the hole.

So they observed by measuring the matter as it passed through the slits, but when that happened the particles only took on the property of matter and formed two bands, and the pattern of wavelengths were not recorded on the film.

The scientists commented, "It's almost like it can tell when we are observing, so we can't tell why or how it behaves like this but only that it does."

I really need to find it, it was very interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't disagreeing with me. I never claimed it was possible to know everything, I just took issue with the "Everything we learn just creates more that we DON'T know!" cliche. We're either constantly moving closer to some finite 'end of knowledge' or there is no such end, but that end isn't getting farther away.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
One merely has to look at the map, it's around here somewhere, of the age of consent laws regarding statutory rape. The more liberal states/nations have more relaxed laws, but as you get into the more conservative regions they become stricter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically wrong. North Carolina recently (within the last 10 years) RAISED their age of consent from 14 to 16. Surely you are not suggesting that they are more liberal than NY State which has an age of consent of 17.

I've never really looked at the age of consent map/charts and done a comparison of red state vs. blue state, but I would guess that there is likely no correlation. And IF there is, it would probably be the opposite of what you suggest.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One merely has to look at the map, it's around here somewhere, of the age of consent laws regarding statutory rape. The more liberal states/nations have more relaxed laws, but as you get into the more conservative regions they become stricter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically wrong. North Carolina recently (within the last 10 years) RAISED their age of consent from 14 to 16. Surely you are not suggesting that they are more liberal than NY State which has an age of consent of 17.

I've never really looked at the age of consent map/charts and done a comparison of red state vs. blue state, but I would guess that there is likely no correlation. And IF there is, it would probably be the opposite of what you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I have no idea what he was thinking, but he is ludicrously incorrect. There is a ton of variation in global ages of consent, and most in the US vary from only 16-18, so there probably isn't any strong correlation for either sets. But California, for example, has an age of consent of 18, and New York is 17, wheras Kentucky, Georgia, Iowa, and North Carolina are all 16.

Globally, many nations have ages of consent as low as 13 (although none of these are secular nations) but there is wide variance. Australia is one of the more secular countries, and its age of consent is 18. Canada is also 'liberal' and it has confusing (IMO) age of consent laws that put it at 12, 14 or 16 depending on circumstances.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
So you decided that the only logical explaination for the existence of the universe is that it came about by natural means, or some other method that doesn't involve a supreme being...now what? and why does this really matter if true?

[/ QUOTE ]
Stop right there. You are already giving the existence of a 'supreme being' an inherent importance as a question. It isn't so.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is seeking truth so important to you? So you "figured out" the universe....is this impressive/fulfilling/something else? Further more, does absolute truth even matter if there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]
Having an accurate mental model of reality is important because it is a key part of making any decisions. Does red or green mean go at an intersection ? Having a correct belief on the matter is useful in deciding what to do.

All of the 'even if there is no God' questions seem silly to people who have never believed in God. Try it out, see what I mean:

Do numbers mean anything if there is no Great Keno Machine ? Why do you care about the amount of your paycheck or how much your bills are ?

Why would you still be fair and honest if you believe Superman is a fictional character ? Without Superman, there is no Truth, Justice, or American Way.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't your life meaningless now?

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of a God has no bearing on one's life being meaningless or not. None whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, why do you think life wants to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because life that wants to survive is generally better at survival and reproduction, probably.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Literally speaking your life has about as much meaning as the mosquito I just swatted off my wall, because you are by nature insignificant. Your imprint upon the universe will be corroded by the infinity of time, fading out into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always considered life’s primary effect on the universe was to control atmospheric carbon dioxide, oxygen equilibriums. (And I pump out considerably more CO2 than an average mosquito.) I suspect however that Metric might disagree.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Australia is one of the more secular countries, and its age of consent is 18.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. In my state (South Australia) it's 16 if the partner is a 16-18 year old and 17 otherwise. It's 17 in Victoria and Tasmania and 16 in the other (four) states and territories.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Australia is one of the more secular countries, and its age of consent is 18.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. In my state (South Australia) it's 16 if the partner is a 16-18 year old and 17 otherwise. It's 17 in Victoria and Tasmania and 16 in the other (four) states and territories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird. I typed that as I was looking at a website that listed the age of consent for nearly every country (ageofconsent.com) and I looked back at the website after you said this, just to make sure I at least read the source correctly. It says exactly what you said, 16/17 depending on criteria and state. I must have read it wrong, I apologize.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Literally speaking your life has about as much meaning as the mosquito I just swatted off my wall, because you are by nature insignificant. Your imprint upon the universe will be corroded by the infinity of time, fading out into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol if you found out for certain there was no god, would you kill yourself? Would you stop trying to enjoy your brief life and just wallow in the misery of your pathetic insignificant existence?

If god didn't exist would you no longer be able to feel love for your family and friends?

Seems kinda lame if you think some spirit in the sky is all that can give a life significance. Doesn't say much for the people in your life who care about you.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Australia is one of the more secular countries, and its age of consent is 18.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. In my state (South Australia) it's 16 if the partner is a 16-18 year old and 17 otherwise. It's 17 in Victoria and Tasmania and 16 in the other (four) states and territories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird. I typed that as I was looking at a website that listed the age of consent for nearly every country (ageofconsent.com) and I looked back at the website after you said this, just to make sure I at least read the source correctly. It says exactly what you said, 16/17 depending on criteria and state. I must have read it wrong, I apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

next time consult a local expert ftw /images/graemlins/smile.gif