A question for atheists.

[Desert Snake]

Hmm. Seems like some is salty that their religion isn't justified in the light of evidence.

??? Please edit.

Something to do with saltwater taffy perhaps? I'm not sure, but I think it means something.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think I see where you're going with this, but that still doesn't necessitate the God variable, does it? I mean, people can find inspiration, motivation, or hope in almost anything at all.

How can people that are tortured in a dungeon, keep hope alive? Or how about someone who knows they're insane but can't do anything about it? They're tortured by their own mind, and every day is a struggle to maintain some form of rationality and to keep from committing suicide. I know I'm emphasizing the worst cases, but we all have to deal with these issues from time to time. I suffer from the Cassandra syndrome, whereby I'm condemned to know the Truth but few to none will listen to it.

In the hypothetical scenario of being chained to a wall and being constantly tortured, maybe the prisoner will fall back to their memories of a happier time, or any innumerable flight of fancy. They'll do anything to help ease the suffering of their situation. I'm not denying that at all. I think it's a primitive part of human nature. I'm simply equating one with the other. Once we recognize the similarities between our propensity to mentally escape certain situations via imaginary scenarios to our propensity for believing in god, we'll be one step closer to seeing faith for what it really is. And even if we didn't immediately recognize those similarities, I think we still have to admit that the wishful thinking which we rely on in dire times to create hope, whether it be a realisitc hero charging through the door to rescue us or a benevolent omniscient being making a special place in heaven just for us, come from exactly the same part of the human experience.

Your argument against faith is a diversion from the subject, hope. It's the most prevalent problem I find with atheists, their answer to the possible hope for a laissez-faire God, is to argue against the irrational, hearsay religions. But when that's focused on, it becomes obvious that God for us is a dead end subject, except for the 50/50 possibility of a nebulous, undefined hope. Even if there is no God, the hope is still some comfort. Ultimately meaningless, yes, but given the big picture, so what? But then again, we don't know that either.

I'm not saying it's terrible to have faith - I mean, I read fiction too and I enjoy it.
I'm simply arguing that we need to recognize that Harry Potter isn't real and never wrote an autobiography... He's never going to swoop into our homes at night and cast away our dark feelings with his magic wand.
No manner of logical argument, wishful thinking, or emotional attachment can ever make Happy Potter actually exist.

Harry Potter and other such fictional paladins are just revealed religion, v. 2.0, for those who treat it seriously.

The last time I got into a conversation with someone who was making a similar argument, albeit for pantheism, I apparently offended them and we haven't had a productive conversation since.
That's not my intention here, but I do have to ask how exactly you see a difference between hope in something extremely fantastic and probably unlikely is any different from hope in something completely false?

A pantheist, as opposed to a pandeist, is just as committed to his revelations as any revealed "religionist" (and pandeism is just an irrelevant, embellishment to the big quesiton mark). All I'm offering is hope shrouded in a fog of possibility. And if it isn't an improvement on our mortal condition here, then essentially the atheists are right.

If you'll go so far as to admit that the revealed religions are based on falsehoods, why even bother with maintaining faith in something that is utterly without evidence aside from our known escapist proclivities? I think I've already shown that we can create faith and hope in absolutely anything at all... Why should one fantastic escapist mind trick be considered any more legitimate than another?

Like I keep saying, I'm not advocating faith, only hope in a positive outcome that's merely possible. And how can hope be an escape when I remain focused on my earthly existence? I don't base any of my choices on it. It's just part of an unknowable mystery.

Deist, Pantheist, Monotheist, Polytheist, Atheist...Only one of those is really any different.

Then why are formerly avowed atheists like Dawkins and Krauss, saying that a laissez-faire God can't be ruled out? There's no evidence either way. The Big Bang is an impenetrable fire wall. I call that 50/50.

And even if you're arguing for the validity of your life's philosophy, well I have no problem with that at all. I have a little bit of woo associated with my life at times too - I'm just not afraid or ashamed to admit that it's self-induced woo that I've invented to get me through ****ty times. I'd never pretend or preach that my woo is somehow a solution to the great mystery of existence... you know what I'm saying?

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. My philosophy doesn't get me through tough times (other than explaining why God, if It exists, of necessity won't intervene). My God is Truth, wherever that leads. Agnostic-atheism is the only other possible fit with that. A hard atheist isn't interested in ultimate Truth, and is just as blind in his faith to his self-revelation that there is no God, as any believer is to his revealed religion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Something to do with saltwater taffy perhaps? I'm not sure, but I think it means something.

I re-phrased it. Salty is a term in modern verbiage in America to indicate someone being upset over loosing or slighted circumstance.

Ex: Ted just lost terribly in a game tic tac toe. He is now in a poor mood because of it. Ted is salty over his loss.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How can people that are tortured in a dungeon, keep hope alive? Or how about someone who knows they're insane but can't do anything about it? They're tortured by their own mind, and every day is a struggle to maintain some form of rationality and to keep from committing suicide. I know I'm emphasizing the worst cases, but we all have to deal with these issues from time to time. I suffer from the Cassandra syndrome, whereby I'm condemned to know the Truth but few to none will listen to it.

I am going to say something probably a bit controversial.

Why should they believe that their life has hope if there is not any? I'm the kind of person who thinks there is a justifiable line that can be crossed that makes suicide okay. I think the line is very very far away and that the vast majority of people who commit suicide haven't crossed that line and should seek help and we need to make that help available. If you are being tortured in a dungeon with no real chance to escape I think it should be a viable option to commit suicide. Same thing for unrepeatable mental illness. A faith in god or any other kind of delusion may help temporarily but then at that point its just a beautiful lie. Is that better than knowing the truth? It may come down to a personal choice on that matter. However it doesn't lend itself really in any way to positive aspects of faith in god of any kind.

 

[jonathan180iq]

How can people that are tortured in a dungeon, keep hope alive? Or how about someone who knows they're insane but can't do anything about it? They're tortured by their own mind, and every day is a struggle to maintain some form of rationality and to keep from committing suicide. I know I'm emphasizing the worst cases, but we all have to deal with these issues from time to time. I suffer from the Cassandra syndrome, whereby I'm condemned to know the Truth but few to none will listen to it.

Haha

My whole point was that people will invent any means necessary to deal with pain and suffering. I'm not arguing that they will never give up - but even people in the darkest dungeons will come up with SOMETHING to bring them peace, or at least a little reprieve. I'd also posit that some people will come to absolute terms with their imprisonment and even teach themselves to revel in their suffering which would in turn create peace for themselves.. Psychology is weird and people will find 1,000 different ways to skin that cat.

Your argument against faith is a diversion from the subject, hope. It's the most prevalent problem I find with atheists, their answer to the possible hope for a laissez-faire God, is to argue against the irrational, hearsay religions. But when that's focused on, it becomes obvious that God for us is a dead end subject, except for the 50/50 possibility of a nebulous, undefined hope. Even if there is no God, the hope is still some comfort. Ultimately meaningless, yes, but given the big picture, so what? But then again, we don't know that either.

I actually trying to directly address hope. Even if I never mentioned the god concept again, we are still talking about the same human desire to find stability/peace/happiness/hope whatever you want to call it. It's different things to different people.

Even if you're only arguing for a hands-off god, you still have to answer why you're calling it god in the first place? You're trying to back-door your way into a intellectually acceptable explanation for some ethereal being... I just don't understand why.

If there is a god who is hands-off... Then what does it matter if he's there or not?

I completely agree that there is comfort in hope - I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that hope can be anything at all. If the god concept never existed in the human thought process, the truth of our ability to find comfort in anything would not change.

Harry Potter and other such fictional paladins are just revealed religion, v. 2.0, for those who treat it seriously.

Exactly - And for some people it is quite possible to find a deep satisfactory comfort in the their faith in something that is admittedly fictional.
How is that any different than any other faith concept?

They find hope and joy in something that is decidedly not based in reality. How is that different from any faith or hope placed in god?

A pantheist, as opposed to a pandeist, is just as committed to his revelations as any revealed "religionist" (and pandeism is just an irrelevant, embellishment to the big quesiton mark). All I'm offering is hope shrouded in a fog of possibility. And if it isn't an improvement on our mortal condition here, then essentially the atheists are right.

You're simply offering one form of hope though...

I could just as easily make the argument that there are benevolent aliens watching over us and protecting us, even when we don't understand the bad times... If there is hope that comes from that, then isn't it just as legitimate as your deistic hands-off god? It's certainly just as useful, right?

Like I keep saying, I'm not advocating faith, only hope in a positive outcome that's merely possible. And how can hope be an escape when I remain focused on my earthly existence? I don't base any of my choices on it. It's just part of an unknowable mystery.

Yes, I understand. And I'm offering hope in any positive outcome at all, so long as it gives someone some peace and comfort - I just refrain from attaching the god concept onto it because I see it as unnecessary weight. I would do the same for someone's hope and faith that their dead relatives will comes walking through the door one morning just to have one final conversation... I understand the desire and need for such fanciful beliefs. I just don't think there's any reason to realistically expect that which is beyond the realm of possibility.

Then why are formerly avowed atheists like Dawkins and Krauss, saying that a laissez-faire God can't be ruled out? There's no evidence either way. The Big Bang is an impenetrable fire wall. I call that 50/50.

It's a matter of intellectual honesty. If I were to say that I knew for absolute certain that there is no such thing as god, in any form, I'd be lying. I would have to have special knowledge to make such a claim, and I don't have that. No one does.

But that doesn't deter me at all from arguing from a firm stance that gods do not exist. I make no qualms about gaps in knowledge. I just don't delude myself by filling in those gaps with personal flights of fancy.

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. My philosophy doesn't get me through tough times (other than explaining why God, if It exists, of necessity won't intervene). My God is Truth, wherever that leads. Agnostic-atheism is the only other possible fit with that. A hard atheist isn't interested in ultimate Truth, and is just as blind in his faith to his self-revelation that there is no God, as any believer is to his revealed religion.

I read what you just said and I have to ask why don't you just say that you value truth about anything else? I mean, why are you calling it god, if it's just truth?

I could take your train of thought and call my value of knowledge "god", but that doesn't make knowledge a god... It just means that I value knowledge above most other things.

I'm absolutely interested in ultimate truth. I just think, from an atheistic perspective, that's it's a bit premature to assume that there is some god sitting out there in the ether just waiting to be discovered...
I mean, you aren't holding out hope for belief in the Spaghetti People of Nebulon 7, are you? You're holding out hope for god.

Why?

 

[Shad]

So if one person said a balloon was black and another said the same balloon was white, that wouldn't be a contradiction? If the same person was to say it was black and then say it was white, he'd be schizophrenic, or more likely, just someone working hard at being a jerk.

Irrelevant response. First off you claimed an atheist should just believe anyways which is a contradiction in terms. One can not be an atheist and a believer. Next you talked about the difference between a vocal atheist and a non-vocal one which is not a contradiction. It is merely stating a position or not openly to others which, again, is not a contradiction. Do you know what a contradiction is and how it does not apply to being vocal or not?

 

[Demonslayer]

you aren't holding out hope for belief in the Spaghetti People of Nebulon 7, are you?

Aren't we all?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Aren't we all?

With all our hearts....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Surely nonexistence would be the ultimate relief from the troubles of existence?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Haha

My whole point was that people will invent any means necessary to deal with pain and suffering. I'm not arguing that they will never give up - but even people in the darkest dungeons will come up with SOMETHING to bring them peace, or at least a little reprieve. I'd also posit that some people will come to absolute terms with their imprisonment and even teach themselves to revel in their suffering which would in turn create peace for themselves.. Psychology is weird and people will find 1,000 different ways to skin that cat.

What greater loss is there than a total loss of opportunity for fulfillment? What, write poetry in your head that will die with you/ Build a pyramid out of sand that the guard with trample when they come to collect your body?

I actually trying to directly address hope. Even if I never mentioned the god concept again, we are still talking about the same human desire to find stability/peace/happiness/hope whatever you want to call it. It's different things to different people.

Yeah, but for how many of them dream of living and dying in inescapable squalor?

Even if you're only arguing for a hands-off god, you still have to answer why you're calling it god in the first place? You're trying to back-door your way into a intellectually acceptable explanation for some ethereal being... I just don't understand why.

It would have created the universe to spawn sentient creatures like us, with free will and choose to pursue the Truth, which is, knowledge, justice, love and beauty. You're still arguing in your head against the revealed gods of religion.

Irrelevant response. First off you claimed an atheist should just believe anyways which is a contradiction in terms. Next you talked about the difference between a vocal atheist and a non-vocal one which is not a contradiction. It is merely stating a position or not openly to others which, again, is not a contradiction. Do you know what a contradiction is and how it does not apply to being vocal or not?

Where did vocal and non-vocal come from? What does, "One can not be an atheist and a believer." You forgot to say, a believer in what? Do you believe in yourself? And if you believe God doesn't exist, you're also a believer, no matter how hard you try to force your personal definitions on words. If you want to blow up your dictionary, I can't stop you, just make sure it's yours, and don't let anyone else use it as a pillow. Ooooo, I like the imagery.

Surely nonexistence would be the ultimate relief from the troubles of existence?

Oblivion is the word. And fyi, I think if there is some sort of hereafter, judgment will be carried out by the newly departed by hitting (or not) the oblivion button--being seated in the light of Truth and unable to lie to themselves as they may have done so often....before. Lies like mainly, "my superior importance is justified". Otherwise, if you can't imagine anything at least as good or better, then looks like you're all set, though you might at least take a tour first.

 

[Shad]

Where did vocal and non-vocal come from? What does, "One can not be an atheist and a believer." You forgot to say, a believer in what? Do you believe in yourself? And if you believe God doesn't exist, you're also a believer, no matter how hard you try to force your personal definitions on words. If you want to blow up your dictionary, I can't stop you, just make sure it's yours, and don't let anyone else use it as a pillow. Ooooo, I like the imagery.

It was within the part of the OP I first responded to. Read your own comments again.

It is easy to figure out exactly what type of belief I was referring by the context of atheism. I didn't forgot to say anything as it is obvious for anyone with some reading comprehension. You reference to belief is that of gnostic atheism not atheism in general so is moot. You are playing games to avoid your error, nothing more

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oblivion is the word. And fyi, I think if there is some sort of hereafter, judgment will be carried out by the newly departed by hitting (or not) the oblivion button--being seated in the light of Truth and unable to lie to themselves as they may have done so often....before. Lies like mainly, "my superior importance is justified". Otherwise, if you can't imagine anything at least as good or better, then looks like you're all set, though you might at least take a tour first.

So, what's with the little emoticon smiley wearing sunglasses? Was I supposed to be moved to the thought that you are "cool" for making the "tour" comment? I can assure you I am more sure of how wrong you are in your ideas about an "afterlife" than you are convicted in your entire faith.

Also, I figured I'd just come out and tell you since you seem to have completely glossed over it - I purposefully used the terms "existence" and "nonexistence" in order to precisely juxtapose the two. I believe I am free to choose the phrasing of my ideas, but perhaps you are an authority and can therefore command me to use the word "oblivion" instead? I'm thinking not, but you'll have to let me know.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So, what's with the little emoticon smiley wearing sunglasses? Was I supposed to be moved to the thought that you are "cool" for making the "tour" comment? I can assure you I am more sure of how wrong you are in your ideas about an "afterlife" than you are convicted in your entire faith.

I make no claim to certainty whatsoever. I merely speculate about possibilities. The tour comment was meant to be humorous, not cool and sophisticated. But now that you mention it....

Also, I figured I'd just come out and tell you since you seem to have completely glossed over it - I purposefully used the terms "existence" and "nonexistence" in order to precisely juxtapose the two. I believe I am free to choose the phrasing of my ideas, but perhaps you are an authority and can therefore command me to use the word "oblivion" instead? I'm thinking not, but you'll have to let me know.

What did I gloss over? And it was a suggestion, certainly not a command, which betrays a tendency to exaggerate. Even if I could come through the Internet and enforce it, I wouldn't. I value your moral rights equally with my own. You could well have put it "existence or oblivion" which would have juxtaposed them. Oblivion implies a consciousness that no longer exists, while "nonexistence" does not. It's an alternative to a continued existence. It is indeed a pretty cool concept when you think about it, since oblivion is humane, unlike the vindictiveness and sadism that motivates those who purvey Hell. But if I ever make a suggestion that you find erroneous or offensive, you have my permission to ignore it. As for me, I never give anyone permission to offend me.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sorry for the delay

What greater loss is there than a total loss of opportunity for fulfillment? What, write poetry in your head that will die with you/ Build a pyramid out of sand that the guard with trample when they come to collect your body?

I agree that it can seem like a bit of a loss, but only for those who actually believe that their man-man structures are somehow going to follow them in death... I mean, isn't this terrible revelation that you're alluding to exactly what happens in the real life? Anyone who is alive knows that anyone who is dead is dead... Their tombstones are here, sitting in a field over their long-forgotten bodies. Their temples and pyramids are sitting alone in the sand, revered by people for their grand design and lavish foolishness more than for the validity of their faith at the time of construction.

It may be a sad truth, sure. But it's still the truth, isn't it?
Everything we've ever worked for is going to perish right along with us. Most of the things that we value are going to ultimately be without value after we are gone. That does not mean, however, that there is no value while we're here.

Yeah, but for how many of them dream of living and dying in inescapable squalor?

Of course no one dreams of that - which is exactly why they'll wake up everyday and their brains will find SOMETHING to cling to in order to find some peace.

A similar thought experiment would be to imagine those same people having never experienced even a second of life outside of a torturous cell. Imagine that they are tortured from birth. Wouldn't their daily torture eventually just become a non-issue? How would they know that their daily pain wasn't meant to be joyous? Do you imagine that they would just sort of invent some cosmic grandfather to help ease their pain if they weren't really bothered by the pain or reality of their situation?

It would have created the universe to spawn sentient creatures like us, with free will and choose to pursue the Truth, which is, knowledge, justice, love and beauty. You're still arguing in your head against the revealed gods of religion.

Isn't also just as likely though that the development of sentience for the pursuit of knowledge, justice, love, and beauty is simply a natural expression of the Universe?

Again, I'm just asking why you're labeling something as god that can just as easily be described for what it really is...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sorry for the delay



I agree that it can seem like a bit of a loss, but only for those who actually believe that their man-man structures are somehow going to follow them in death... I mean, isn't this terrible revelation that you're alluding to exactly what happens in the real life? Anyone who is alive knows that anyone who is dead is dead... Their tombstones are here, sitting in a field over their long-forgotten bodies. Their temples and pyramids are sitting alone in the sand, revered by people for their grand design and lavish foolishness more than for the validity of their faith at the time of construction.

It may be a sad truth, sure. But it's still the truth, isn't it?

That's the whole point, nobody knows--no matter how many claim to know, from either side.

Everything we've ever worked for is going to perish right along with us. Most of the things that we value are going to ultimately be without value after we are gone.

If the atheists are right, yeah. Nothing survives, it's bleak, But if the theists are right, heaven is a sadistic theocracy, with hell to pay for those who don't submit. Yeah, oblivion for all is definitely a possibility, but nobody knows if that's by design....or what If it is by design, then there's the possibility of hope, but hard atheists reject that out-of-hand, for subjective reasons.


Of course no one dreams of that - which is exactly why they'll wake up everyday and their brains will find SOMETHING to cling to in order to find some peace.

A similar thought experiment would be to imagine those same people having never experienced even a second of life outside of a torturous cell. Imagine that they are tortured from birth. Wouldn't their daily torture eventually just become a non-issue? How would they know that their daily pain wasn't meant to be joyous? Do you imagine that they would just sort of invent some cosmic grandfather to help ease their pain if they weren't really bothered by the pain or reality of their situation?



Isn't also just as likely though that the development of sentience for the pursuit of knowledge, justice, love, and beauty is simply a natural expression of the Universe?

Again, I'm just asking why you're labeling something as god that can just as easily be described for what it really is...[/QUOTE]

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's the whole point, nobody knows--no matter how many claim to know, from either side.

Sure - I've admitted before that I don't have absolute knowledge. But isn't it safer to bet on the side of caution than to imagine a false world, especially given our known propensity as humans to invent mythologies and fiction as a means of escape?

If the pursuit of Truth is really the highest endeavour, than shouldn't we use a little more restraint in making claims about something so fantastic?

**I'm not really sure what's going on with the rest of that post, as it seems like stuff I wrote that maybe you didn't respond to??

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sure - I've admitted before that I don't have absolute knowledge. But isn't it safer to bet on the side of caution than to imagine a false world, especially given our known propensity as humans to invent mythologies and fiction as a means of escape?

As Jefferson put it so well: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In reality, the only thing we apparently have to fear is the action of bigots and Inquisitors.

If the pursuit of Truth is really the highest endeavour, than shouldn't we use a little more restraint in making claims about something so fantastic?

How would you restrain the pursuit of Truth--and why? What am I saying that's fantastic? Unlike theists and hard atheists, I'm making no claims, only reasoned speculation.

**I'm not really sure what's going on with the rest of that post, as it seems like stuff I wrote that maybe you didn't respond to??

If I remember correctly, I think what followed was secondary and conditional to these vital points.

 

[jonathan180iq]

As Jefferson put it so well: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In reality, the only thing we apparently have to fear is the action of bigots.

Yes, I agree with that quote. But what it does it have to do with my question?

How would you restrain the pursuit of Truth--and why?

That's not what I've suggested. I'm asking why we should jump to faulty conclusions, since truth is something that we hold in such high esteem?

I was recently censured for the subjective quality of being a "jerk" (rules of engagement terminology) because someone was offended by my opinion in a debate forum. No further guidelines were provided so I'm having to walk on eggshells with my responses, or not respond at all. You see the result.

I find it hard to get offended - so don't worry about me. Carry on as usual - I'm enjoying this conversation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, I agree with that quote. But what it does it have to do with my question?

You said, it's "safer to bet on the side of caution than to imagine a false world" What Jeffereson said is in direct answer to theat.

"...especially given our known propensity as humans to invent mythologies and fiction as a means of escape?" We can't use that as an argument. Just because fools go chasing after supposed conspiracies, that doesn't mean there aren't actual conspiracies, or that phony conspiracies are invented as cover. That principle has upheld the greatest undisclosed conspiracy, the assassination of JFK. The facts are there and I believe they will eventually come out--said the conspiracy theorist.

That's not what I've suggested. I'm asking why we should jump to faulty conclusions, since truth is something that we hold in such high esteem?

But it isn't a faulty conclusion, only a possibility that reasonably fits the situation. People all the time ask me how I can claim to know what God's thinking. I can only respond that what I'm proposing is the only scenario that fits while making sense. I'm not claiming that there's not another, I'm just unable to imagine what it would be, without ultimately falling back on blind faith.

I find it hard to get offended - so don't worry about me. Carry on as usual - I'm enjoying this conversation.

Yes, 99% don't get offended to the point of appealing to a higher authority, when nothing but their ego has suffered. The only worthwhile quote Eleanor Roosevelt made that I know of that approaches the level of profundity, is "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". But, it turns out, she didn't say it, and nobody knows who did. Just another step up the stairs of Truth.