A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[CG Didymus]

Exactly, God is unreliable, and ultimately anything in life comes from what humans do. God is the emotional crutch to help a believer cope and process reality. Not all folks need this model of thought and belief.

Yes, they are told... "Hang in there and keep believing and, of course, keep giving to the cause, and you will be rewarded in heaven. Things aren't working out all that well? Keep trusting. Keep believing. You are just being tested." Maybe true... but then which version and interpretation of which religion?

 

[setarcos]

If you mean disproving gods to believers, I have no interest in doing that even if it weren't nearly impossible.

If you mean that its nearly impossible to change a persons world view then I agree with you. That is, as long as you agree that atheism is a world view which involves consideration of gods/god which is equally nearly impossible to change.

If it were the case and in my power to force you to see that the universe was godless, unless you're a young man like I was when I rejected faith, theism, and religion, there's nothing in it for you but disorientation and unhappiness.

Agreed. But I'd rather go through that process if it meant furthering an approach to what is true than being content to retain a false opinion about reality. I can't imagine how uncomfortable it would be for you to change again the opinions you've established over the years upon further reflection. It seems to me the longer we retain a view of reality the exponentially harder it would be to change that view. I suppose the only saving grace in that situation might be the wisdom gained throughout the years from which one might be able to draw strength enough to do that.

"I don't mind what you or any other theist believes about gods... Why would I care?"

I suppose you wouldn't care If you thought you held the absolute truth of the matter already or your thought the absolute truth of the matter didn't effect you or you don't care if you have a true opinion concerning the absolute truth of the matter. I suspect you think you already have a true opinion on the matter and am content to let fools be fools where fools want to be as long as it doesn't effect you.
Unfortunately we live in a closed system where the foolish actions of others and the relativistic attitudes towards what is true can insidiously sneak up on us with detrimental effects before we realize it.

the issue is resolved for me pending new relevant evidence.

I'd say that if your open to new relevant evidence being possible then the issue isn't resolved for you. I guess we often have to act as if we've reached the finish line at some point though since we are not immortal. We should keep in mind though that its just an act.

another valuable contribution of critical thought to be able to recognize when a question is undecidable and redirect attention elsewhere when it is.

As long as one is true to the self what else can you do. I too have long ago determined that some questions are interminably indeterminate given human limitations. The only difference is I've decided - for various reasons - to err on the side of an existent Christian God pending further inexplicable evidence against. Error or not, that is where being true to myself has led me as difficult a path as it is.
Besides, I find debating against the all too often arrogant and hypocritical arguments against such a being existing from people who lazily parrot other's opinions often from an emotional standpoint rather than reasonable -although exhausting at times - an intellectually stimulating challenge.

I don't consider the unfalsifiable claims of theists or anybody else to be answers.

A common misunderstanding, I think, is that most theists are trying to "prove" God exists. I think this is a mistake. I think most theists are trying to "prove" that its reasonable that God may exist given certain evidences.
Most of what I've seen in these threads has atheists equating evidence for proof. Where evidence is interpretable theists and atheists will diverge in their interpretations. However many atheists seem to think that because the theists evidence isn't proof their interpretation is necessarily in error.
Some atheists even go so far as to say that because the evidence exists in a natural setting that's proof of one interpretation over the other therefore they continue to tout that no evidence is ever given by theists even in the face of extraordinarily large improbabilities against a natural occurrence. It baffles me to see that many people use science to show a preference of presuming the case in light of probabilities for except when it comes to these cases.

To be able to say "I don't know, I can't know, that has to be OK, and it is" is a great liberation

That is OK. As it should be. We must be able to accept that some mysteries will stand the test of time. It is not for man to know all. We'd be Gods then now wouldn't we. I can see how that would be liberating if one can accept the fact that we can't know all.
Many can't though, like when it comes to God, what the good is, and evil, all existing together. A mystery to some, a proof to others, a challenge to others - born by hope for future wisdom.

the dithering and looping the mind can get caught up in - you know, the "eternal search for truth," the search for which is considered a virtue by many and described as a spiritual journey revealing great truths, but for me is closer to somebody looking for his keys by wandering around a lamppost in circles for forty years. Not really a journey, and no truths (keys) will forthcoming.

You should realize that we liberate ourselves by recognizing our limitations not by ending the journey. I guarantee that merely turning ones back on the so called journey will only cause that much more surprise when you wake up to the fact that the journey had still swept you up and carried you along.

I take an agnostic position.

I don't think its prudent for people to be so equivocal with their terms, it just causes confusion. You previously mentioned you were an atheists.
I know there's different flavors of atheism, just like theism, including atheistic agnosticism but seems to me agnostics have distinct assumptions about reality that atheists do not.

It isn't possible or necessary for me to say that there was no intelligent universe designer with a purpose in mind.

It isn't possible to prove that but is that really the argument here? Once one says its more "reasonable" than not based upon evidences for not proofs for, then we have a debate that isn't a waste of time or effort in my opinion.
At the risk of invoking a kind of pascals wager - not endorsing since it doesn't logically work - in a case such as that I think it would behoove us to consider the future possibilities which might concern us.

Purpose is a manifestation of consciousness, and only conscious agents act with purpose.

setarcos said:
"Seems to me from the quotes I've read of prominent scientists that you've got it backwards. The universe HAS "apparent" purpose, though it may not have designed/deliberate purpose."

What I meant here is that according to what scientists have discovered about our universe it appears as if it was intentionally created with purpose by a conscious agent. Of course many if not most scientists refuse to allow for that interpretation, even though they can't help but point out the obvious in those terms, but the probabilities for and against certain events happening without directed purpose have a lot to do with how one interprets the evidences. That's not a proof that's how the events happened but its evidence that its more likely probabilistically.
A scientist might say "That looks like somebody made that but here's how nature did it." It may be less probable that nature did it given various considerations and calculations etc. but that seems to be irrelevant to evidential interpretations in many cases for some reason. I can only conclude personal or collective bias with perhaps a smattering of hypocrisy.

That doesn't change the fact that if the microorganism were sentient creatures with intent and volition, their purpose would not be mine

There is a difference between individual purpose and collective purpose. Each organism may have individual purpose created in order to achieve a collective purpose.

they might answer "Don't know, can't know, don't need to know, and probably couldn't benefit by an answer anyway because whatever it is isn't my purpose, which is to swim over to that bubble and absorb it." That's also my position when asked what the purpose of the universe or me being in it is.

Ignorance of any purpose beyond immediate knowledge or proof does not mean one doesn't have one. Nor does it mean that one assuredly cannot discover that purpose. Of course one can deliberately choose to assume discovery of ones purpose, whether one is fulfilling that purpose, or can even deliberately not fulfill that purpose is completely inconsequential to any effort one cares to expend but one should also realize that you've already expended effort on that journey by identifying the answers you've given in the first sentence above here. As I've said....the journey inevitable sweeps you along even if you ignore that fact.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sorry this is so long, but I couldn't break it up with the graphics in it.

That is, as long as you agree that atheism is a world view which involves consideration of gods/god which is equally nearly impossible to change.

No, I don't agree that atheism is a world view any more than theism is. Your worldview sounds like Christianity to me (supernaturalism, faith, received wisdom and morals). Mine is humanism (reason, skepticism, empiricism, tolerance). Atheism makes room for that by not allowing for a theistic worldview in its place, but it is not that worldview.

I'd rather go through that process if it meant furthering an approach to what is true than being content to retain a false opinion about reality.

Then you are in a minority. I did that forty years ago, and it was difficult. Could I still do it today? The cost-benefit ratio is much worse now on both equation. Then, I had half of my life ahead of me, and made decisions that have helped me arrive where I am now, which is a comfortable and pleasant life for as long as luck holds out. As a Christian, things would have been much different, and not nearly as good. I just summarized much of that here in the fourth section of that post.

But what would be the reward today for making that same change? Nothing, just disorientation for a few years (it was only a year when I did it in the eighties) and possibly unpleasant social ramifications.

I suspect you think you already have a true opinion on the matter and am content to let fools be fools where fools want to be as long as it doesn't affect you.

Yes, that's close enough. I'm a humanist, and that's a good statement of tolerance. That's not to say that I wouldn't help if asked, but I don't offer unsolicited life advice.

I'd say that if your open to new relevant evidence being possible then the issue isn't resolved for you.

Resolved means that my opinions won't change absent new evidence. Here's a quote from a recent post: "the issue is resolved for me pending new relevant evidence." That post also expresses my indifference to converting others.

I guess we often have to act as if we've reached the finish line at some point though since we are not immortal.

Act?

Here's a reworking of the so-called serenity prayer: Reason, give me answers where answers are forthcoming, let me be content with no answers where no answers are possible, and the wisdom to know the difference so that I can direct my energy to the former and not spin in circles with the latter. I do not consider the latter a virtue as so many others seem to, the one's who report being on a spiritual journey in search of spiritual forever, with no progress to show or insights to share for their efforts.

They remind me of a dog whose master has died, and they search for him out the window forever, or the someone I described earlier whose keys were stolen and he's still looking for them around a lamppost years later as if he misplaced them and can find them if he just keeps the faith. The virtue is recognizing when you're dithering and breaking out of the cycle, not in continuing the fruitless search.

I've decided - for various reasons - to err on the side of an existent Christian God pending further inexplicable evidence against. Error or not, that is where being true to myself has led me as difficult a path as it is.

OK. How is that being true to yourself? Believing in the absence of sufficient empirical support seems like an arbitrary choice, and can be a costly one as I just outlined above in a link. How did you choose your god?

I find debating against the all too often arrogant and hypocritical arguments against such a being existing from people who lazily parrot other's opinions often from an emotional standpoint rather than reasonable -although exhausting at times - an intellectually stimulating challenge.

I would say the same about theists, especially creationist apologists, but I suspect that we mean different things by arrogant and hypocritical.

Most of what I've seen in these threads has atheists equating evidence for proof.

Really? I've almost never seen that. Can you produce a few examples? Do you know how to search on RF?

That gets you this:

Go ahead and search a few atheists whose screen names you can recall against the word proof and you should get what you're looking for if it exists.

many atheists seem to think that because the theists evidence isn't proof their interpretation is necessarily in error.

I've also not seen that except from the gnostic atheists, a minority of atheists.

they continue to tout that no evidence is ever given by theists even in the face of extraordinarily large improbabilities against a natural occurrence.

Are you offering an improbability argument that reality is improbable, therefore God? Is that your position, or something like it? Reality is here, a given. The odds are 1 - 100%. What are the probabilities that there is ALSO a god responsible for it? Less. Much less.

What do you suppose the odds of a conscious god existing are? Somebody was explaining to me how unlikely consciousness' existence would be without a god to create it, and why consciousness is therefore evidence of "God" - what he calls his god. I asked him if his god was conscious or unconscious when it allegedly invented consciousness.

I guarantee that merely turning ones back on the so called journey will only cause that much more surprise when you wake up to the fact that the journey had still swept you up and carried you along.

You guarantee? On what authority or expertise? Why do you assume that you are more qualified to give me advice than I am to give it to you? Remember, I'm happy, and I'm happy without gods or religions. Been there, done that. How do you propose to improve on that, and why should I think that you could? My "journey" these days is mentoring bridge, not looking for "lost keys"

I don't think its prudent for people to be so equivocal with their terms, it just causes confusion. You previously mentioned you were an atheists.
I know there's different flavors of atheism, just like theism, including atheistic agnosticism but seems to me agnostics have distinct assumptions about reality that atheists do not.

Equivocal?

Atheist - one with no god belief
Agnostic - one with no claim that gods do or do not exist.
Agnostic atheist - one with no god belief who doesn't claim gods do or do not exist.

Many theists seem to have trouble assimilating these definitions:

At the risk of invoking a kind of pascals wager - not endorsing since it doesn't logically work - in a case such as that I think it would behoove us to consider the future possibilities which might concern us.

Done. Decades ago. I often try to help Christians do that now on RF, as I did here:

"But you have no idea if gods exist or what they're like if they do - just beliefs supported by nothing more substantial than your willingness to believe them uncritically. You also have no idea if there is an afterlife or not, and if there is, what it is like. Nobody does, and that's the point. You're guessing and assuming that you have guessed correctly. And you have no guarantee that you won't be punished for that. I don't believe that you will, but I also don't believe the Christian god, heaven, or hell exist, either. But you were talking probability, and there is a non-zero possibility that you have the wrong god and subject to its judgments, which might be just as harsh as those of the god you have guessed exists and will send you to paradise, but uses a different standard to judge than the one you presume."​

What I meant here is that according to what scientists have discovered about our universe it appears as if it was intentionally created with purpose by a conscious agent.

Not to me or any other atheist. It looks exactly like what I would expect a godless universe to look like. It assembled itself as it expanded and cooled, and operates without intelligent oversight day-to-day.

one can deliberately choose to assume discovery of ones purpose

I don't discover my purpose. I define it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As a Christian, things would have been much different, and not nearly as good. I just summarized much of that here in the fourth section of that post..

What you are in effect saying, is that you think you are better off without so many children, and having more money to spend in retirement.

This life is but a temporary illusion .. it must end.
If you think that your life is more valuable than other people's, and
being richer than others is something of benefit, then so be it.

However, bank accounts and property do not count for anything in the long run.
We are born with nothing, and die with nothing.
The only thing that we keep, are our good deeds. They will never be lost,
unless you throw them away. That is precisely what you appear to be doing.
You say that this life is all there is ..when you have no knowledge of that.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Sorry this is so long, but I couldn't break it up with the graphics in it.

No, I don't agree that atheism is a world view any more than theism is. Your worldview sounds like Christianity to me (supernaturalism, faith, received wisdom and morals). Mine is humanism (reason, skepticism, empiricism, tolerance). Atheism makes room for that by not allowing for a theistic worldview in its place, but it is not that worldview.

Then you are in a minority. I did that forty years ago, and it was difficult. Could I still do it today? The cost-benefit ratio is much worse now on both equation. Then, I had half of my life ahead of me, and made decisions that have helped me arrive where I am now, which is a comfortable and pleasant life for as long as luck holds out. As a Christian, things would have been much different, and not nearly as good. I just summarized much of that here in the fourth section of that post.

But what would be the reward today for making that same change? Nothing, just disorientation for a few years (it was only a year when I did it in the eighties) and possibly unpleasant social ramifications.

Yes, that's close enough. I'm a humanist, and that's a good statement of tolerance. That's not to say that I wouldn't help if asked, but I don't offer unsolicited life advice.

Resolved means that my opinions won't change absent new evidence. Here's a quote from a recent post: "the issue is resolved for me pending new relevant evidence." That post also expresses my indifference to converting others.

Act?

Here's a reworking of the so-called serenity prayer: Reason, give me answers where answers are forthcoming, let me be content with no answers where no answers are possible, and the wisdom to know the difference so that I can direct my energy to the former and not spin in circles with the latter. I do not consider the latter a virtue as so many others seem to, the one's who report being on a spiritual journey in search of spiritual forever, with no progress to show or insights to share for their efforts.

They remind me of a dog whose master has died, and they search for him out the window forever, or the someone I described earlier whose keys were stolen and he's still looking for them around a lamppost years later as if he misplaced them and can find them if he just keeps the faith. The virtue is recognizing when you're dithering and breaking out of the cycle, not in continuing the fruitless search.

OK. How is that being true to yourself? Believing in the absence of sufficient empirical support seems like an arbitrary choice, and can be a costly one as I just outlined above in a link. How did you choose your god?

I would say the same about theists, especially creationist apologists, but I suspect that we mean different things by arrogant and hypocritical.

Really? I've almost never seen that. Can you produce a few examples? Do you know how to search on RF?

View attachment 77401

That gets you this:

View attachment 77402

Go ahead and search a few atheists whose screen names you can recall against the word proof and you should get what you're looking for if it exists.

I've also not seen that except from the gnostic atheists, a minority of atheists.

Are you offering an improbability argument that reality is improbable, therefore God? Is that your position, or something like it? Reality is here, a given. The odds are 1 - 100%. What are the probabilities that there is ALSO a god responsible for it? Less. Much less.

What do you suppose the odds of a conscious god existing are? Somebody was explaining to me how unlikely consciousness' existence would be without a god to create it, and why consciousness is therefore evidence of "God" - what he calls his god. I asked him if his god was conscious or unconscious when it allegedly invented consciousness.

You guarantee? On what authority or expertise? Why do you assume that you are more qualified to give me advice than I am to give it to you? Remember, I'm happy, and I'm happy without gods or religions. Been there, done that. How do you propose to improve on that, and why should I think that you could? My "journey" these days is mentoring bridge, not looking for "lost keys"

Equivocal?

Atheist - one with no god belief
Agnostic - one with no claim that gods do or do not exist.
Agnostic atheist - one with no god belief who doesn't claim gods do or do not exist.

Many theists seem to have trouble assimilating these definitions:

View attachment 77406

Done. Decades ago. I often try to help Christians do that now on RF, as I did here:

"But you have no idea if gods exist or what they're like if they do - just beliefs supported by nothing more substantial than your willingness to believe them uncritically. You also have no idea if there is an afterlife or not, and if there is, what it is like. Nobody does, and that's the point. You're guessing and assuming that you have guessed correctly. And you have no guarantee that you won't be punished for that. I don't believe that you will, but I also don't believe the Christian god, heaven, or hell exist, either. But you were talking probability, and there is a non-zero possibility that you have the wrong god and subject to its judgments, which might be just as harsh as those of the god you have guessed exists and will send you to paradise, but uses a different standard to judge than the one you presume."​

Not to me or any other atheist. It looks exactly like what I would expect a godless universe to look like. It assembled itself as it expanded and cooled, and operates without intelligent oversight day-to-day.

I don't discover my purpose. I define it.

Winner frubal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you think that your life is more valuable than other people's

Where did you get that from? Because I preferred to not raise children?

and being richer than others is something of benefit, then so be it.

Once again, where did you get that from? I just wanted enough money to be free from want and to be able to taste what life has to offer. That's why I retired early - because I had enough. I live modestly and spend very little. You probably spend more a year than I do. I drive a 20+-year old vehicle.

Our secret is carrying no debt and living in an inexpensive economy. We own our home without a mortgage, make no car payment, have no credit card debt, pay for relatively little insurance, and have no power bill (solar panels). Eating out is about $30 USD for two with drinks and tip, although I did get up to almost $50 USD last week when I had clam chowder and lobster for lunch. The wife chose a burger, we split an order of fried calamari (lots of leftovers - would it surprise you that we bring our own to-go containers to restaurants?), and we each had a margarita, although mine was terrible. I ordered an orange one for the first time. Note to self: if you want orange juice with tequila ,order a sunrise, not a margarita.

So, we easily live on $25,000 USD a year.

Since you seem to arbor many cliche assumptions about me and an imagined love of money, I'll elaborate further. I won't do anything for money any more. Really. That's literally true. I won't clip a coupon or shop for a better price if I see something I want. All of our chores at governmental offices like smogging the car or renewing the visa or paying our annual water bill or property taxes ($100 USD/yr. each if you're wondering) are done by facilitators who do those things for you for a fee.

And we sell nothing. When we bought new furniture last year, we gave the old, still in excellent condition, to the neighbors. I don't care about money any more. We're actually accumulating it in retirement, since Social Security covers that low cost of living, and we earn interest on savings that just gets added to principal.

You say that this life is all there is ..when you have no knowledge of that.

You keep putting words into my mouth. What I say is that for all we know, consciousness ends with death.

bank accounts and property do not count for anything in the long run.

Yes, I know, but as far as I know, I won't exist for any run longer than a lifetime. The "grand scheme of things" is of no interest or importance to me, since I don't live at that scale, and have no religion to nettle me about it.

In the meantime, having enough is very important. This is a Facebook post from a local acquaintance we've known for over a decade:

She's not exaggerating. She's may be facing homelessness without help. Her Social Security is $1000/mo USD, about half going to rent. Inflation has been a threat to her, and now this. We feel grateful to be free of that kind of anxiety.

So I agree that money doesn't guarantee happiness, but it does make life a little more secure and can be used to find much happiness for self and others. We'll be paying her rent if the American government defaults until she's flush again. That's us buying happiness with money - hers and ours - and not a lot, either. We bring happiness to our neighbors with furniture they can't afford. We bring happiness to our waiters with 30-50% tips that cost us about $10 USD.

Since we have no heirs, we're thinking of leaving the house to our Mexican neighbors, but if we do, we won't tell them before a Mexican probate attorney does.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where did you get that from?

From your link about why you were "better off" than if you had stayed a Christian..

What I say is that for all we know, consciousness ends with death.

Exactly .. you assume that when you die, you will be oblivious .. and so
you live your life accordingly.

You claim that believing in God would make your life a misery. Why?

 

[Mock Turtle]

A believer has faith, and believes that what might happen to them in this life, is not
the b all and end all.
Believers put their trust in G-d, and hope for a more fulfilling life after death.

Atheists do not have hope in life after death, and desire everything right now.

The first might be true, but hope should be replaced by belief really, and the second is hardly so, given that most atheists will see life as it is to them and live such - desire being a part of it or not - just as the religious might. As to who is wearing the rosy spectacles, well you are gambling as much as any others, even if you fervently believe your particular religious beliefs are true and all others are false. Not see so many of the religious having pained lives and perhaps because of their beliefs - here on RF?

I get the impression that you have the Wicked Witch of The West syndrome - so often promoted by Muslims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You well know that people in many Muslim countries are so impoverished, that
they seek citizenship in the West.

And is that the fault of the west, or is it rather the fault of the theocratic brutal dictators who live in golden palaces while their people starve to death?

Remember the bad joke that was the Qatar world cup?
Remember how those all those stadiums were build and by whom? Under which conditions?
All the fault of the west?

The west didn't draft those "contracts".
The west didn't determine those "working conditions".

Workers were exploited and literally worked to their death while the contracters were counting their oil billions.

To blame the conditions that those citizens have to live and work in on the "west" is a severe case of head-in-sand.
The west isn't imposing those brutal regimes to whipe their behinds with human rights.
The west isn't imposing the Taliban to forbid women to get an education and make a living.

Those people are impoverished and live in misery primarily because their brutal leaders don't give them the opportunity to do anything else.
Not "the west". If anything, the "west" constantly voices its disgust at such practices.

..so suggesting that I would be better off living as an immigrant is ridiculous.

Hey, those are your own words.... YOU are the one who constantly keeps telling us how "immoral" western society is and how it is doomed and how much better an islamic society would be.

But your words don't seem to match reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sure you feel comfort, thinking that God does NOT exist.

"comfort" is not a factor when it comes to determining my beliefs.
I do my best to base my beliefs on rational justification. Regardless if it "comforts" me or not.

The truth is harsh sometimes and I don't consider "harsh" being a good reason to not accept it.
I will go where the evidence leads me, even when it is to a place that isn't comfortable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. the question is why you are against people believing in G-d.

I can't speak for @F1fan

But as for me, I am not "against" people.

I'm "against" faith-based ideas that have impact on behavior and decision making.
Because the impact thereof reaches beyond those individuals and affect other people also.

I'm against religious faith just like I am against homeopathy, for much the same reasons.

The beliefs of my fellow citizens affect myself as well as society.
So I prefer my fellow citizens to hold rational beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly .. you assume that when you die, you will be oblivious .. and so
you live your life accordingly.

There is no other choice.
There is no reason to think anything else will happen, so it's the default assumption. And for all practical intents and purposes, you then live your life as if the assumption is correct.

You live your life in the exact same way.
For example: can you prove that there is no undetectable dragon about to eat you against which you can protect yourself by covering in tin foil?
No, you can not. You assume that such dragon doesn't exist. You don't KNOW it doesn't exist.

So you life your life accordingly: assuming there is no such dragon and thus NOT covering yourself in tinfoil "just in case".

You do this regarding literally EVERY unfalsifiable claim one can make.
You ASSUME such claims are wrong because you have NO REASON to think otherwise.
So you live your life accordingly. Out of practical necessity.

Consider the thousands of gods you don't believe in yet can't prove they aren't real.
Do you sacrifice young virgin girls to mayan gods "just in case"? Or do you assume those aren't real and thus live your life accordingly?

Again: you do this for EVERY unfalsifiable claim that you don't believe to be true.

So why is it so strange for you to understand we treat your unfalsifiable god in the exact same way?

 

[joelr]

What you are in effect saying, is that you think you are better off without so many children, and having more money to spend in retirement.

This life is but a temporary illusion .. it must end.
If you think that your life is more valuable than other people's, and
being richer than others is something of benefit, then so be it.

However, bank accounts and property do not count for anything in the long run.
We are born with nothing, and die with nothing.
The only thing that we keep, are our good deeds. They will never be lost,
unless you throw them away. That is precisely what you appear to be doing.
You say that this life is all there is ..when you have no knowledge of that.

Heaven is a story people came up with around 200 BC. No reason to believe it is true. Where were you before you were born?
Probably the same place after you die.

 

[F1fan]

Religious believers don't have facts to offer, so the assumptions are irrelevant.

Religion itself is a fact...unexplained by science to date.

It's a fact that religions exist. It isn't a fact that religions reveal any truthful statements about reality. And there is a division in psychology called the psychology of religion, and this area does examine religious behavior, including the physical brain states and activity using equipment.

It’s not so readily apparent how natural evolution gave rise to religions in the first place for instance.

Yes it is. It was an early form of social contract.

The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

Scientists believe that human belief in the supernatural and their tendency to become religious may be a byproduct of evolution.

www.livescience.com

It’s pretty much been shown now that our ancient ancestors weren't retards. There's not much evidence that shows that they just looked at unknowns and created gods as explanations. Early humans would have been practical humans concerned with survival rather than creating fantastical explanations for phenomenon they've experienced. Why would they see lightning and think the gods must be angry? Why would they have a good hunt and think the gods must be happy with them? Why would they think to pray to gods or make sacrifices to them to get healthy if they were sick? Why would they think to create the concept of a god as an explanation to anything? Fertility, creation, prosperity, famine, health, disease, none of these things would have been apparently correlated to supernatural beings. Unless....perhaps something happened in prehistory we are missing. What we do know is that early humans started keeping track of what was correlated to their activity...the movement of stars, the seasons, food that helped heal, the best places to find game. But the early discoveries show nothing to do with god/gods favor or disfavor.

Ancient people developed gods to explain nature, and as answers to questions they had, but lacked knowledge that we take for granted today. Oddly many religious folks have access to knowledge but refuse to seek real answers since they have adopted religious answers.

The big bang is a fact, predicted by genesis thousands of years before humans thought to question the infinite existence of the universe - that it actually has a beginning.

That isn't a prediction of anything. It doesn't describe the Big Bang, and doesn't describe the formation of the universe and life on this planet accurately.

It’s a fact that millions of people around the globe have experiences that science cannot explain. There are anomalous facts throughout the sciences that science simply ignores or shelves for later consideration.

Like what? Like why you had a crush on your third grade teacher? Why would science care?

It’s a fact that this universe has been unimaginably fine-tuned to be suitable to human existence.

No it isn't.

It’s a fact that throughout nature we find evidences of design.

We find order which is confused as design by creationists trying to find any basis for their belief in a creator. What is designed in genetic defects and childhood cancer? Answer that.

It’s a fact that science hasn't explained how the specific information contained within DNA got there without design.

DNA are protein chains. They are the instructions for any living organism, including flesh eating bacteria that kills humans, and mosquitos that ruin your summer picnic. Explain the purpose of these designs if humans are special.

Facts, facts, facts, data, and evidence, what will you accept, what will you dismiss and why?

I accept science. I reject religious disinformation like the kind you spread without facts.

Facts have been offered. You just see facts tainted by religious belief and bias but you fail to acknowledge your own bias in how you view those facts.

You ofer no facts, you are bluffing your way through these posts. Claims and accusations i all you present, no facts, not coherent explanation of facts. This is a typical creationist tactic, just bombard opponents with a long list of claims and let others stay busy explaining why it's all bogus.

Facts may be evidence for, but they're not proof of and that's enough for atheists to deny God.

Atheists deny the claims of theists that their many diferent versions of god exists. What God is there to deny?

If God popped in tomorrow and said here I am bow down and worship me and live forever it wouldn't be much of a testimony of who you are as a human being but only of what you want regardless of how.

If a God showed itself to be real then atheists would acknowledge this reality. That you have to mention this hypothetical suggests you understand God isn't factual and available to human senses. So belief in any God would be baseless, and some other non-rational reasons are why they believe.

God wants willing glorification not selfish supplication for personal gain.

Really. how do you know? Heard about it from others? Read it in a holy book? Made it up yourself? Where are the facts?

Gods leaving open the question of its existence testifies to the true believers hope in a good and just future for its own sake not because it’s been proven to exist.

The same would be the case if no God exists.

Because it is good and just not because they may gain some immediate or future benefits that may or may not happen. Their faith testifies to who they are.

They are people who ended up believing in religious lore, and can't explain why they do. Faith can lead to immoral acts like Baptists enslaving black people, followed by the KKK terrorizing black citizens, including torture and murdering them, as good Christians. And why did Catholics and Lutherans join the Nazi party and conspire to round up and murder the Jews of Europe? Why did European Christians think it justified to kill and exterminate Native Americans, and the indigenous people of Africa, South America, and Asians? And let's not forget about Islamic extremists who will kill themselves in the name of God as they murder innocent citizens. Tell us more about the benefits of being Christian and being faithful.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no other choice..

There IS a choice, and you have made it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You well know that people in many Muslim countries are so impoverished, that they seek citizenship in the West. ..so suggesting that I would be better off living as an immigrant is ridiculous.

How does their impoverishment prevent you from immigrating to their region? I am an immigrant in a poorer country than the one I left, and it makes life less expensive.

the question is why you are against people believing in G-d.

I've never seen an atheist take that position. Why should I or anybody else care what a believer believes? I posted this on this thread last week:

• "I don't mind what you or any other theist believes about gods. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn't insane, isn't sacrificing animals to his god or gods, and keeps the noise down. Why would I care?"

What atheists and secularists everywhere want is to free of religion and any unwanted effect it may have on their lives. Right now, American humanists have their hands full with that country's theocratic Christians, who have taken control of the Supreme Court. It's not about their beliefs. It's about the behavior informed by those beliefs.

why should you believe that others find comfort .. but not you?

For the same reason that I believe that somebody who wants anything else finds comfort in something - they chose to partake. It's how I know that if you're wearing a coat and I don't feel the need to wear one, a coat comforts you but not me. Just substitute a god belief and religion for a coat in that analysis. The theist "wears" a god belief and a religion, and the atheist could but doesn't. That's why the atheist believes his religion comforts the believer but not himself.

Believers put their trust in G-d, and hope for a more fulfilling life after death.

That's what's sometimes called pie-in-the-sky. From "The Preacher And The Slave":

You will eat (You will eat)
Bye and bye (bye and bye)
In that glorious land in the sky (in the sky)
Work and Pray (Work and Pray)
Live on hay (live on hay)
You'll get pie in the sky when you die
(That's a Lie)

This is the promise of Christianity since the Sermon On The Mount. Stand down when the man exploits you, for your reward (pie) will come after your death (in the sky). Be meek. It's blessed. Be longsuffering. Turn the other cheek when the man smites you, and you will eat pie in the sky in the great bye and bye.

Atheists do not have hope in life after death

This atheist is comfortable knowing that death may be the end of my consciousness forever. This is a nice example how a belief that comforts a believer is not needed by the unbeliever.

You claim that believing in God would make your life a misery. Why?

I didn't use the word misery, but I did say that theism can come at a cost and that remaining in Christianity would likely have degraded my life for the reasons given. Such beliefs would meet no needs of mine, but would consume scarce resources like time and money.

Exactly .. you assume that when you die, you will be oblivious

My words were, "What I say is that for all we know, consciousness ends with death." Why didn't you repeat MY words rather than attempt to paraphrase them. You changed their meaning in the process from what I said to something different that you said. It's an exceedingly common cognitive bias, but I have only seen it in the religious misdescribing the words of atheists. You change the equivalent of "we might or might not be unconscious for eternity following death" to "you assume that when you die, you will be oblivious."

You're far from alone. This is from a week ago:

He: "I ask any atheist here what atheism means to them, they will say it means that they assume no gods exist unless and until they are convinced otherwise (provided with sufficient knowledge). But that position does not comport with the 'I don't know' of agnosticism. Because it presumes to know that no gods exist unless our knowledge of their existence dictates otherwise"

Me: "Wrong again. You have nothing to offer an atheist in conversation until you can grasp your error, which seems to be beyond your intellectual capacity. This inability decimates your credibility (ethos), which in turn results in others reading your words not in terms of them possibly having any insights worth considering to wondering what kind of cognitive bias is in play with you - why you appear to be unable to conceive of the absence of belief (unbelief, as I use the word) as different from taking a position that a proposition is true or false (belief or disbelief)."

So what if I feel comfort? That doesn't prove anything at all

Proof isn't necessary. Compelling evidence is sufficient to justify belief.

if @F1fan was so comfortable without God, why would he talking to so many believers about God?

Who started this thread? It's the theist who is usually the one injecting gods into discussion, not the atheist.

Atheists say they follow the rules of logic so atheists tend to be skilled thinkers.

Did you care to rebut that? Atheism is commonest in demographics where people are best educated.

Its also an implied Ad hominem argument fallacy against theists.

Once again, would you like to try to rebut the idea that faith is an inferior method for determining what is true about the world than skepticism and empiricism, which is the basis for the critical thinker rejecting the god claims of believers?

I also disagree that there is an ad hominem fallacy there implied or otherwise, which is essentially an argument that another is wrong because of who he is. The implication is that the theist is guessing, which is what all unjustified belief (faith-based belief) is.

Feel free to rebut any of this if you think that you can show how and why it's incorrect.

I have shown that it is logically impossible for engaged atheists to not have relevant beliefs of their own when approaching this subject matter. The word itself means anti - theism. You can't be anti anything without a belief on which to found what your against. Yet atheists would have us believe that they themselves belief nothing and argue nothing and have to do nothing to prove nothing...nothing that is but criticize theists for having beliefs with what they consider to be evidence.

Atheists want you to believe that they believe nothing? This atheist believes plenty and has posted thousands of RF posts worth of those beliefs, such as the belief that empiricism is the only path to truth about the world.

It’s a fact that millions of people around the globe have experiences that science cannot explain.

So what? Are you suggesting that that is evidence for a god?

It’s a fact that this universe has been unimaginably fine-tuned to be suitable to human existence.

No, it's not. And even were that true, what did that god actually do except discover laws that constrained its choices? What does a god need natural law for anyway? What use is gravity to a god that can control matter by thinking about it?

It’s a fact that throughout nature we find evidences of design.

Intelligent design? Where? We find regular patterns like the apparent movement of the sun through the sky and the phases of the moon, but that is also not evidence of an intelligent designer.

It’s a fact that science hasn't explained how the specific information contained within DNA got there without design.

Sure they have. Chemicals react without intelligent oversight. Furthermore, why is that an argument of yours? You haven't explained how a god did it, so why do you require that of others? If yours is a valid argument against naturalism, then mine is equally valid against supernaturalism, because it's the same argument from ignorance - if you can't say how it happened, then my answer must be correct.

This is what I mean by atheists either changing up the goal posts or ignoring what's been offered. I gave you several sources of evidences but instead of asking questions or debating the evidence - how for instance information theory and DNA are evidences of intelligent design - you simply ignore it and move on.

What questions would those be? I've never had a question for you about your offered evidence. Your beliefs are faith-based. What would I ask you? Why you think the universe looks designed? Why you think atheism and antitheism are synonyms? Why you think DNA is evidence of a god? Your arguments simply aren't convincing. The problem isn't with others not accepting them. The problem is with you accepting them and being unable to convince critical thinkers, and it's a you-problem. It frustrates you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..It's how I know that if you're wearing a coat and I don't feel the need to wear one, a coat comforts you but not me. Just substitute a god belief and religion for a coat in that analysis. The theist "wears" a god belief and a religion, and the atheist could but doesn't. That's why the atheist believes his religion comforts the believer but not himself.

That's not right.
A person who does not wear a coat, I assume is because they are more comfortable without it.

This atheist is comfortable knowing that death may be the end of my consciousness forever. This is a nice example how a belief that comforts a believer is not needed by the unbeliever.

Perhaps if you believed that there is a life after death, you would be troubled due to ignoring any moral code,
and making up your own .. so it is comforting to think that nothing bad can happen to you after death.

You see .. it can work both ways .. and I din't start this "comfort" business.

Such beliefs would meet no needs of mine, but would consume scarce resources like time and money.

..reminds me of old scrooge, in the Christmas movies..

 

[F1fan]

That's not right.
A person who does not wear a coat, I assume is because they are more comfortable without it.

Why would a person wear a coat when it isn't necessary?

Perhaps if you believed that there is a life after death, you would be troubled due to ignoring any moral code,

Yet atheists have moral codes, they just aren't following any arbitrary religion's moral code. Religious codes vary, so ow can any believer criticize what atheists can frame for themselves via their own wits. I'm curious how anyone who wants to follow a religiouss moral code will know which is the right one, and which religious codes aren't. If the self doesn't have the confidence to use their own mind to decide what is good moral action then how can they know if a religion offers a good morality?

and making up your own .. so it is comforting to think that nothing bad can happen to you after death.

What would fear of a horrible afterlife do to help a person make a sound decision about any religion's moral code? Fear is coercive, and it tends to force irrational decisions. Is that a good idea? Shouldn't you be encouraging humans to calm down and think soberly about important ideas? Should you encourage others to use facts, even though you don't?

You see .. it can work both ways .. and I din't start this "comfort" business.

Comfort as an antithesis to stress, like what religions impose on gulible people with threats of hell, and a promise the discomfort eventually goes away with alliance to God's moral code. Speed up eliminating the discomfort by rejecting the religious threats and emotional coercion. Think for yourself, be accountable, be responsible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There IS a choice, and you have made it.

No, there is no other choice and I have explained to you in great detail why there isn't.

But, unsurprisingly, you didn't quote those parts and just ignored it again.

To summarize: there is no other choice because in order to be consistent, you would have to live your life as if EVERY unfalsifiable claim might be correct, "just in case".

And that would make living your life impossible on a very practical level.

 

[muhammad_isa]

To summarize: there is no other choice because in order to be consistent, you would have to live your life as if EVERY unfalsifiable claim might be correct, "just in case".

You'd need to give me an example..
What "unfalsifiable claims" are comparable to what might happen to us after death?

Believing we can fly, and jumping off a mountain? What exactly?