A question for atheists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

There have been billions upon billions of people born in the world who due to genetic or despotic circumstances have no hope for anything beyond the dungeon (literal or figurative) of their miserable existence. No hope for any kind of fulfillment, just live and die in misery. For them, being the subject of human sacrifice would be the gracious highlight of their lives.

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope. But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

 

[Shad]

There have been billions upon billions of people born in the world who due to genetic or despotic circumstances have no hope for anything beyond the dungeon (literal or figurative) of their miserable existence. No hope for any kind of fulfillment, just live and die in misery. For them, being the subject of human sacrifice would be the gracious highlight of their lives.

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist?

Nope, that is the difference between one saying it outright and one not. The uncertainty of agnostic atheist is still great enough not to merit theism thus belief in an afterlife.

At least the latter leaves some room for hope.

That room for "hope" is still lesser than the room of no belief. It is a stance that they could be wrong not that specific afterlife does exist. They could be wrong about "God" but still be correct about no afterlife. You are mixing religious baggage into a view an atheist may not hold or consider.

But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist?

Since the person in question does not belief in a "God" or accept the concept. Why believe in something which by their very thinking they do not believe in? "I do not believe in God but I believe in God" Nothing but a contradiction.

From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Said baggage. You are also making claims as if deism has a unified belief system when it does not. "Our" view is really your view.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

The damage to society/individual religion and the religious can cause just as any person opposed to a view point they oppose does such as politics.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What motivates me? Atoms and energy.

Not so bleak nor unrealistically joyous either. Seeing how life springs up all over the place as much as death and decay. Far from hopeless, its comforting and terryifing at the same time knowing that since it happened once, it can certainly happen. ........

 

[Deathbydefault]

I don't really care what people believe.
The only time I'd bring it up is in debate or if my own beliefs were questioned.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist?

If I'm understanding you right, I'd never say to anyone who has a hope for God that there is no God. If it were not a debate or exchanging converation, I wouldn't impune on their belief because I disbelieve.

I don't know what an agnostic=atheist is? someone who doesn't believe in Gods even though he believes they may exist?

I think it's the difference between maturity and immaturity. If someone blunts out and says there is no God to someone who wants hope, I find that inappropriate. Many older atheist I know got over that point and are more like "it is what it is. I got better things to do."

nally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

What do you mean?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Nope, that is the difference between one saying it outright and one not. The uncertainty of agnostic atheist is still great enough not to merit theism thus belief in an afterlife.

That's a contradiction, if you're not certain, therefore there is a possibility, therefore hope--unless you want to live a life of misery, or at least an unfulfilled one, and then just die, which is entirely up to you.

Since the person in question does not belief in a "God" or accept the concept. Why believe in something which by their very thinking they do not believe in? "I do not believe in God but I believe in God" Nothing but a contradiction.

The correct statement is "I do not believe in God, but I do not know that God doesn't exist." What you're really saying is that you don't know, but you hope there isn't, and/or you don't care.

You are also making claims as if deism has a unified belief system when it does not. "Our" view is really your view.

Deism is founded on one core tenet, that God may exist, but if It does, it does not interact in the universe. Any other deistic position must follow from that or it is something other than deism trying to glom on to the good name deists have, or at least had in the past, for being reasonable. There are many modern hyphenated forms of deism which are nothing more than demagogues looking for a niche they can suckle their egos from. Almost all are contradictory, and the few that aren't, like pandeism, are irrelevant flourishes, if an omnipotent, universe creating God is assumed.

The damage to society/individual religion and the religious can cause just as any person opposed to a view point they oppose does such as politics.

Not sure what you're saying there, but many new political positions are essentially identical to religion--especially in the primary reliance on blind faith. Socialism exploits crisis just like they used to do in the Stone Age. Sacrifices (determined not unsurprisingly by our dear trusted leaders) must be made.

What motivates me? Atoms and energy.

Not so bleak nor unrealistically joyous either. Seeing how life springs up all over the place as much as death and decay. Far from hopeless, its comforting and terryifing at the same time knowing that since it happened once, it can certainly happen. ........

I'm big on science too, and a lot of modern science is finally debunking revealed religion, which is very gratifying.
And science is making great strides in cosmology: like the fact that until recently, we didn't know the expansion of space itself (which is not limited by relativity to the speed of light) is accelerating, and that the edge of the visible universe is going superluminal and disappearing from view. Like the smallest divisible units of time and space are known quantities, but there's nothing to say some things might be able to "shrink" and fit through those limits of space and time. That the new leading model (after 30 years) in the interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Transactional Interpretation), explains all quantum weirdness by theorizing that quantum transactions take place outside of this physical universe in the timeless ether, or nothingness, or whatever is beyond/through/"underneath" it.

I don't really care what people believe.
The only time I'd bring it up is in debate or if my own beliefs were questioned.

So, you stopped by to say what, nothing? Thanks a pantload.

If I'm understanding you right, I'd never say to anyone who has a hope for God that there is no God. If it were not a debate or exchanging converation, I wouldn't impune on their belief because I disbelieve.

Even if you were touring a dungeon and were asked by one of them?

I don't know what an agnostic=atheist is? someone who doesn't believe in Gods even though he believes they may exist?

Yes. IOW, we can't claim certainty that there is no God. In my opinion, agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God, and the only practical difference between them is hope.

I think it's the difference between maturity and immaturity. If someone blunts out and says there is no God to someone who wants hope, I find that inappropriate. Many older atheist I know got over that point and are more like "it is what it is. I got better things to do."

And if they haven't even the slightest curiosity now or at the end, that's up to them--though I find it curious that they aren't curious, and dismiss hope out-of-hand. But I think that really who you're talking about are simple materialists or humanists. They just to busy or aloof to care, for now.

What do you mean?

What motivates a hard atheist to claim certainty that there is no God in the absence of any evidence for or against the universe being created. We know absolutely nothing before time zero.

 

[Jumi]

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

I don't see how that motivates people to anything else than slowly killing themselves or sometimes martyring themselves to get to paradise faster instead of trying harder or accepting reality. Not that I would go to a suffering person to take away their illusions.

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope.

I don't see anything special in hope for an illusory paradise. People have lived well before such were invented and animals know to struggle without such. Are they not better off than humans with jealousy?

But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Well I'm both agnostic and atheist.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

Reality.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So, you stopped by to say what, nothing? Thanks a pantload.

I basically said, "There's no point in purposely dismantling the world view of someone who is living a good life off of it".
But in my own way.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't see how that motivates people to anything else than slowly killing themselves or sometimes martyring themselves to get to paradise faster instead of trying harder or accepting reality. Not that I would go to a suffering person to take away their illusions.

How would you, if you could? What do you know that they don't? And they aren't there for martyrdom, they're only there at the despots pleasure.

I don't see anything special in hope for an illusory paradise. People have lived well before such were invented and animals know to struggle without such. Are they not better off than humans with jealousy?

Well surviving death would be pretty special. But I'm focusing on people who have nothing but their suffering and their mind. They don't know anymore than the rest of us what comes next, and that's the point.

Well I'm both agnostic and atheist. Reality.

Well I'm both agnostic and deist. Reality is the same for us both. The only difference appears to be whether we are stupid or unreasonable to hope for something on that great gettin' up morning, if I may be so bold as to borrow the phrase. And it isn't just those in dungeons. What about someone who risks his life to save an innocent victim? Is he stupid or irrational to risk his life in that way. Self defense is always a risk. Should we just surrender? Why? Why not?

 

[Father Heathen]

There have been billions upon billions of people born in the world who due to genetic or despotic circumstances have no hope for anything beyond the dungeon (literal or figurative) of their miserable existence. No hope for any kind of fulfillment, just live and die in misery. For them, being the subject of human sacrifice would be the gracious highlight of their lives.

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope. But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

You question is based on the false premise that gods and afterlives are prerequisite for purpose or fulfillment, or that existence is miserable and meaningless without them. Whether or not there is or isn't a god, what we make of this life and how we live would still be important in either case. How we navigate life's challenges and choices, and what we achieve and experience, is what shapes us and defines us. And awe and splendor can still be found in nature and the universe even if there is no divine being behind the curtain.

 

[Jumi]

How would you, if you could? What do you know that they don't? And they aren't there for martyrdom, they're only there at the despots pleasure.

Well these people you are talking about are imaginary. Often people in desperate situations are used by others by means of promising that their lives will improve if they join this or that religion. And the people using them, we are supposed to leave alone, because it's for the best.

Well surviving death would be pretty special. But I'm focusing on people who have nothing but their suffering and their mind. They don't know anymore than the rest of us what comes next, and that's the point.

How could we measure how comforting a belief is? And if it was only the comfort then there would never be a problem and no victims.

Well I'm both agnostic and deist. Reality is the same for us both. The only difference appears to be whether we are stupid or unreasonable to hope for something on that great gettin' up morning, if I may be so bold as to borrow the phrase.

Reality is the same, but not our perception of it. If I knew there would be a better life after this, I probably would have lived more dangerously, cared less for people and may even have killed myself when I was depressed. But I knew this would probably be my last life so I decided to make the most of what I could or find a way to enjoy it. So the comfort of afterlife that was promised by some seeking to profit from my depression was in fact like offering a poison chalice.

And it isn't just those in dungeons. What about someone who risks his life to save an innocent victim? Is he stupid or irrational to risk his life in that way. Self defense is always a risk. Should we just surrender? Why? Why not?

Theism has nothing to do with risking your life to save someone or surrendering now does it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Even if you were touring a dungeon and were asked by one of them?

Asked if there was a God while we are touring the dungeon? Depends on thr conversation. If it will harm their self esteem (thinking of a friend) and make her doubt her faith, I wouldnt hint that there is no God or even a concept to think in an atheists shoes.

Other than that, please rephrase. The dungeun is throwing me off.

Yes. IOW, we can't claim certainty that there is no God. In my opinion, agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God, and the only practical difference between them is hope.

I can see that if the atheist, agnostic, and/or deist believed God was more than a claim. I guess if they make Him real enough to say we cant prove He exists, then I guess I agree.

"God exists" is a claim. Is it factual? Based on human wants, needs, psyche, etc, it could be from the perspective of the person who needs to believe in him. Is it fact as in real? I dont believe the claim is real. Someone can debate I am a male, disbelief it, believe its possible but not believe it is fact, have faith that Im a male, but in this case it doesnt have to remain a claim (somthing hanging in the air). Ask me my gender, and the claim yall playin with is substatiated. Until then, its like playing with an invisible ball as if it is real.

And if they haven't even the slightest curiosity now or at the end, that's up to them--though I find it curious that they aren't curious, and dismiss hope out-of-hand. But I think that really who you're talking about are simple materialists or humanists. They just to busy or aloof to care, for now.

Probably humanist. I never ws curious until I discovered the internet.

What motivates a hard atheist to claim certainty that there is no God in the absence of any evidence for or against the universe being created. We know absolutely nothing before time zero.

For me, I dont see the universe "created" from nothing. Something cant come from nothing. The laws of nature disprove the enternal presense of a creator unless the creator somehow defies nature and is nothing that creates something.

Then you have the human need to find purpose and foundation. So, I see evidence that it comes from us, the belief in God, not separate. Everything comes from us. Hemlnce why we call them beliefs and not facts.

Since we knew nothing befor time zero, why assume there would be a creator all of the sudden since we are here? Hope?

 

[McBell]

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

Do you believe there is one umbrella reason for all hard atheists?

 

[Willamena]

There have been billions upon billions of people born in the world who due to genetic or despotic circumstances have no hope for anything beyond the dungeon (literal or figurative) of their miserable existence. No hope for any kind of fulfillment, just live and die in misery. For them, being the subject of human sacrifice would be the gracious highlight of their lives.

So one of their fellows imagines that perhaps when they die there's something more, a place where spiritual courage and maintenance of personal integrity in spite of the enormous odds against them will be rewarded. No promises, just hope. Does the atheist then come along and say, "To bad, so sad, luck of the draw. Forget your pipe dreams. There is no God and there is no better afterlife".?

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope. But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

Buddism teaches that we all have hope for something beyond the dungeon of our meager existence: unmeager existence.

Go us!

I still don't want to be sacrificed, though, unless it's for a good cause.

Hope is the killer, you know. It's chasing after promise.

 

[psychoslice]

I think knowing we are going t die and nothing at all is going to happen seems more better than believing in , well what I personally call, fairy-tales. At least if you are dead and there is no worries about if there is an after life or not, while alive, then again it would be much better, after all when we are dead nothing more can happen to us.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You question is based on the false premise that gods and afterlives are prerequisite for purpose or fulfillment, or that existence is miserable and meaningless without them.

You jump (knowingly I think) to conclusions. The pursuit of Truth (knowledge, justice, love & beauty), not gods, provide fulfillment. The only question God or an afterlife raises is if that pursuit continues after death. And if one's life is menial or torment beyond your control, the only hope in this life, is in the next. You can let the demigods continue their exploitation, or we can allow for the possibility of something else

Whether or not there is or isn't a god, what we make of this life and how we live would still be important in either case.

Yes it, it would be nice, but for many, life is being trapped in a sewer from birth.

How we navigate life's challenges and choices, and what we achieve and experience, is what shapes us and defines us. And awe and splendor can still be found in nature and the universe even if there is no divine being behind the curtain.

Spoken like one who, like myself, has not had to spend his life in the sewer.

Well these people you are talking about are imaginary.

You've gotta me kidding me.

Reality is the same, but not our perception of it.

Liberal government funded Philosophy 101. If there were 6 billion version of reality, there'd be chaos X 6 bilion.

Theism has nothing to do with risking your life to save someone or surrendering now does it?

Who said anything about theism? Please take your red herring elsewhere.

Asked if there was a God while we are touring the dungeon? Depends on thr conversation. If it will harm their self esteem (thinking of a friend) and make her doubt her faith, I wouldnt hint that there is no God or even a concept to think in an atheists shoes.

Who said anything about faith. Truth is the objective, something unfamiliar among the revealed religions and a lot of atheism.

I can see that if the atheist, agnostic, and/or deist believed God was more than a claim.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes, it only matters what makes sense, what is reasonable. We can believe anything we want, it only matter how well we tie that to reason.

I guess if they make Him real enough to say we cant prove He exists, then I guess I agree.

???

"God exists" is a claim. Is it factual?

No, God's existence is a possibility, based on the existence of the universe.

Probably humanist. I never ws curious until I discovered the internet.

Then if you are curious, the the number one question has gotta be, is there a WHY?
Then you have the human need to find purpose and foundation. So, I see evidence that it comes from us, the belief in God, not separate. Everything comes from us. Hemlnce why we call them beliefs and not facts.

Since we knew nothing befor time zero, why assume there would be a creator all of the sudden since we are here? Hope?

I don't assume it, that's the atheist's assumption. The question is how did this all come to be, and there's absolutely nothing, no evidence, either way.

Do you believe there is one umbrella reason for all hard atheists?

A good majority yes. So many atheists are angry and disillusioned (righteously) former revealed religionists. They go on and on shooting those revealed fish in a barrel with the singular purpose of revenge, instead of the pursuit of Truth which those revealed religions so thoroughly buried.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Buddism teaches that we all have hope for something beyond the dungeon of our meager existence: unmeager existence.

Buddhism is a quasi-revealed religion. It doesn't claim divine revelation, but less than divine "revelation" from Buddha. Ame song, different verse.

I still don't want to be sacrificed, though, unless it's for a good cause.

I do not sanctify sacrifice, only risk and reward.

Hope is the killer, you know. It's chasing after promise.

What promise? True hope is the only thing left when the relevant Truth cannot be found.

I think knowing we are going t die and nothing at all is going to happen seems more better than believing in , well what I personally call, fairy-tales. At least if you are dead and there is no worries about if there is an after life or not, while alive, then again it would be much better, after all when we are dead nothing more can happen to us.

In this world, yes.

 

[Valjean]

So the issue is, promote a lovely fantasy to make people feel happy and secure, or state the truth and let people deal with it as they will.

 

[picnic]

Isn't that the biggest difference between the hard and the agnostic-atheist? At least the latter leaves some room for hope.

I suppose if you are a gnostic atheist you can keep your belief private, but you can't change what you believe. This is a like adults keeping the truth Santa to themselves so the children can enjoy Christmas more.

But then one may ask them, why then not be an agnostic-deist? From our viewpoint in this life, there isn't the slightest bit of difference between the two.

Again, you can't change what you believe. To be an agnostic deist, you need some evidence to make you believe in an AWOL creator god.

Finally then, what motivates the hard atheist?

You can only be a hard atheist with respect to a clear definition of gods. You might be an agnostic atheist with respect to Buddhism and a gnostic atheist with respect to Christianity. The motivation is evidence and reasoning I suppose.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@ThePainefulTruth

1. What did you mean about the dungeon?

If I were touring the dungeon with a believer, would I tell him there is no God?

Who said anything about faith. Truth is the objective, something unfamiliar among the revealed religions and a lot of atheism.

I don't see how this relates to my question. I would not tell someone their God does not exist if their faith/religion/their truth will cause them to doubt it. That's, to me, disrespectful.

How does the dungeon relate to this?

Yes. IOW, we can't claim certainty that there is no God. In my opinion, agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God, and the only practical difference between them is hope.

I don't know anything about agnostic-atheism. My view is that to say "God exists" is a claim and belief not a fact. As such, I can make the claim Santa exists and he does not: that is a fact. Same thing with God.

And any other belief/claim that is depended on the subjective belief of the believer rather than the objective evidence that is fact for everyone, regardless if we believe it or not. Fact isn't subjective.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes, it only matters what makes sense, what is reasonable. We can believe anything we want, it only matter how well we tie that to reason.

I know. I don't see how that relates or rebutes what I said in my past post.

No, God's existence is a possibility, based on the existence of the universe.

Why take the claim into consideration of being true. If someone said "oh, there's a dinasour outside" I'd dismiss the fact once I look outside (if I do). If someone said "you are wearing blue" and I am wearing orange, I will dismiss that. I wouldn't take it into consideration just because the statement is made. If it doesn't make sense, why make a big deal about it?

Unless one is still trying to find their faith, seeking, and so forth and as a result labeling themselves agnostic, atheist, deist, agnostic-deist, and so forth, I see no reason for anyone to look into belief in God as a fact. People are serious about it, too.

If God existed, then I would not put my belief in Him: but His existence would be a fact for all people. There would be no atheist.

Until that happens, it's like we are debating that an invisible ball could exist just because someone made the claim it does.

Does making a claim require that we give consideration of something being true or can someone make a claim and it would flat out be wrong, regardless?

Then if you are curious, the the number one question has gotta be, is there a WHY?

Then you have the human need to find purpose and foundation. So, I see evidence that it comes from us, the belief in God, not separate. Everything comes from us. Hence why we call them beliefs and not facts.

Why the whys over a claim? The claim must mean something important to atheist to theist and all the above. It must be so serious that some are struggling spiritually over it. That's not bad. If anything, as long as we accept what we believe are beliefs then we are in good standing. As long as we say they are facts (like God existing), it makes no sense and I dont see how believers can interpret their belieif in God as a fact that He exists (fact meaning universal)