My problem with atheism

[serp777]

If you existed in a culture that did not know other modes of faith, I could understand. But we are in an age of globalization. Unfamiliarity is no excuse to dismiss all faith. To do so is just intellectual laziness. It is a childish reaction to the faith you grew up with. It is an act of rebellion that lacks maturity.

Adding more religions simply decreases the probability that one of them is correct, assuming any of them are correct. The more religions there are, the less likely you've picked the right one.

It would be a serious waste of time to go through the tens of thousands of religions just to fulfill your definition of intellectual laziness.

I mean i also don't understand why you don't have this problem with religious people--its intellectually lazy to just pick a faith without exploring all 10,000 faiths to make sure you didn't miss something. Its even more intellectually lazy to stay with the religion you're born with because you haven't tried other religions.

 

[The Conservative Atheist]

Ok a lot of people here have been harping on Fry for only talking about the Christian god and the reason he did that is because he was asked what he would do if he met the Christian god. If a christian asks you "What would you say if you met God?" would you assume he means the concept of an almighty creator and expect you to give an answer that fits with all categories of all of the gods that have ever existed? No because that is ridiculous expecting Stephen Fry to give one answer that can fit with all different versions of all types of gods and not the god he was asked about or even the god that is most culturally relevant isn't reasonable. His answer also doesn't reflect his views on other religions just because he talks about the christian god here doesn't mean he assumes other religions don't exist or matter any less than christianity.

 

[JRMcC]

Yes many atheist know of all of them but just address the one that is more culturally relevant. The Eastern gods like krsna and siva are just as moronic as any other. As to why you think a butter eating chubster is more worthy of worship than a tyrannical brute alludes any form of reasoning.
An Eastern god is still a god and still a foul and idiotic concept in the minds of a naturalist. More so the Eastern gods are more idiotic and exceedingly less believable than an Abrahamic one. Prabupada's krsna is just as unbelievable as Jimmy Swaggart's Jesus.
By the way, the Middle East is still Eastern so all major religions are still Eastern.

So Brahman in Advaita Vendanta is just as moronic as Allah? Really? I don't believe in either, but one is clearly more plausible than the other. What do you think of the Dao?

 

[George-ananda]

Like idiocy and superstition?
We understand reality and have no desire to make things up. What is bad about that? Your claims are just childish assertions for the most part. You seem to be making references to spirituality which is just a form of superstition and nonsense.
What an atheist closes his/her mind to is lunacy not emotional merits or intellectualism; the two can exist.

Where is that much anger coming from? And why? What's going on with you?

If I should even have replied seriously.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's best to take his posts with a heaping of salt since he's probably trolling when he posts stuff like that. He's a trickster type.

I really wish I was pulling my usual antics this type Franky but this is not one of those sadly . I can be very serious and very aggressive and I won't deny it.

 

[Ultimatum]

By carefully considering whether people might experience real things outside the reach of their five mundane senses.

The supernatural, then.

But as my last sentence said some people 'close their mind to the possibility'

Not really. It is a more of a matter of why would one decided to believe, completely and utterly blindly, in a supernatural dogma? Moreover, what does one get out of this supernatural dogma that a non-religious person can't?

I have studied such claims and clearly believe the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal accounts tell me something real is going on that does not fit the materialist-atheist worldview.

What anecdotal accounts? And are these accounts able to be understood by someone without religious experience?

In fact I believe the great wisdom traditions of India explain these things well.

Like what?

 

[Ultimatum]

Please read the rules for DIR's. Anyway, no one said anything about the "supernatural". I hate that word.

This is "Religious Debates" not DIR..? I thought so, anyway?

 

[Jumi]

This is "Religious Debates" not DIR..? I thought so, anyway?

It was in a DIR a moment ago.

 

[JRMcC]

It comes about when people say things that only a mentally deficient person would say.
The only excuses are people who live in backwarded societies such as North Korea. Last I recall though North Korea does not permit the internet.



Do not avoid the question. What is going on with you making claims fit for a liar? By liar I mean the type that lies to white wash their own views; such as Kim Jong-un who professes to live in a "Democratic People's Republic."

You are white-washing the views you allegedly do not hold as universal and instead cover them with fallacious mockery. Besides being a liar what other sort of intellectual blemish marks your mind? Hm?



Nothing about what you said was serious. It was moronic through and through. You should not even be permitted to speak publicly for anybody. Go back and read your initial comments which are laughable.

Would you like to defend your claim that Allah as a God concept is just as foolish as Brahman in Advaita? You would care to answer if you weren't trolling, wouldn't you?

 

[JRMcC]

Not really. It is a more of a matter of why would one decided to believe, completely and utterly blindly, in a supernatural dogma?

I don't think George-ananda's position is a particularly dogmatic. The dogma is coming from Sha'irullah who is deeming beliefs other than his/hers idiotic and childish.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

On some issues in the thread.

I think that if we lived in a world where there was only one religion or even a closed of society where people only ever knew of a single religion they would be far more likely to believe in god. One of the first things to really shake my faith happened when I was really little. I lived in a very conservative Christian family where all of my parent's friends were Christian and in a small town that was 98% percent Christian. I wasn't even aware that there WERE other faith's out there. Then I turned 8 and I learned about Islam. Of course what I was taught about Islam was mostly that it was some terrible religion of violence but none the less the fact that there were people that didn't believe in god was pretty ground breaking. I had pictured atheists as vile, evil, murderous beings at 8 years old. Not because of my own brilliant natural deduction but from the fact they were going to hell.

In a pluralistic society how can one fully believe their own religion when others have just as much faith in their own? Where is it that they can find such strength of faith that they are right and so many people hold so many contradictory answers? To me I can't.

 

[JRMcC]

In a pluralistic society how can one fully believe their own religion when others have just as much faith in their own? Where is it that they can find such strength of faith that they are right and so many people hold so many contradictory answers? To me I can't.

The way I see it you have these options:

1. Accept one of the world religions
2. Draw your own conclusions, perhaps using religious teachings or philosophy as a source of wisdom.
3. Believe none of it all and be atheist.
4. Realize that options 1, 2, and 3 all require attachment to a position that can't be proven true one way or another and be agnostic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The way I see it you have these options:

1. Accept one of the world religions
2. Draw your own conclusions, perhaps using religious teachings or philosophy as a source of wisdom.
3. Believe none of it all and be atheist.
4. Realize that options 1, 2, and 3 all require attachment to a position that can't be proven true one way or another and be agnostic.

The only problem I have is that 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist.

 

[JRMcC]

The only problem I have is that 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist.

Hmmm that's true. It becomes a problem of semantics when you try to sort it out. We might have a very similar view. I don't believe that there's being or consciousness that created this universe, intervenes in it, or pervades it. So that makes me an atheist.

I am a sort of agnostic when it comes to the first cause. The atheists I was referring to in option 3 are those naturalists who think that if there was a first cause at all, that it's a material cause. This is most certainly a belief. I accept that this could be true, and I also accept that there could be an intelligent being of some sort for a first cause. But it seems likely to me that neither of these are correct. I think the answer to the first cause questions is so infinitely beyond our ability to comprehend that it's useless to take a position on the matter.

So yeah, both of us agnostic atheists?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hmmm that's true. It becomes a problem of semantics when you try to sort it out. We might have a very similar view. I don't believe that there's being or consciousness that created this universe, intervenes in it, or pervades it. So that makes me an atheist.

I am a sort of agnostic when it comes to the first cause. The atheists I was referring to in option 3 are those naturalists who think that if there was a first cause at all, that it's a material cause. This is most certainly a belief. I accept that this could be true, and I also accept that there could be an intelligent being of some sort for a first cause. But it seems likely to me that neither of these are correct. I think the answer to the first cause questions is so infinitely beyond our ability to comprehend that it's useless to take a position on the matter.

So yeah, both of us agnostic atheists?

Seems to be yeah.

I cannot really think of a point in time in which an atheist would not be agnostic. I mean if you believed that you had some sort of esoteric gnostic knowledge that there was no god it would almost be self contradictory. Except in godless types of mysticism or something. But the general "I just don't believe in god" would be almost universally agnostic. In fact my agnosticism on the subject leads to my atheism.

 

[George-ananda]

It is a more of a matter of why would one decided to believe, completely and utterly blindly, in a supernatural dogma?

I wouldn't know because I don't do that. What I do though, is consider everything objectively and form an opinion on what is going on. I have come to the strong opinion that things do occur that don't fit into the materialist worldview.

 

[lovemuffin]

By carefully considering whether people might experience real things outside the reach of their five mundane senses. But as my last sentence said some people 'close their mind to the possibility'. I have studied such claims and clearly believe the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal accounts tell me something real is going on that does not fit the materialist-atheist worldview. In fact I believe the great wisdom traditions of India explain these things well.

The supernatural, then.

I believe that from this point of view, there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy in the way it's prevalent in western religious traditions. There is only one reality, but experienced in a different manner by different human faculties. Usually "supernatural" entails the idea of events which would typically have "natural" explanations, but in this specific case do not. Miracles, essentially. Mystical experiences typically have a different character.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Would you like to defend your claim that Allah as a God concept is just as foolish as Brahman in Advaita? You would care to answer if you weren't trolling, wouldn't you?

I am not trolling.
Both are forms of superstition. End of story. Brahman is just as much of a god concept as any other. All I have is the world and that is it. So why would you argue superiority to another cultural preference when they are both the same?

Being an atheist is lacking belief in ALL gods and being a naturalist is lacking belief in all superstitions. It does not matter if Brahman is a deity or a "existence of reality" since they are both nonsensical. End of story.

 

[JRMcC]

I am not trolling.
Both are forms of superstition. End of story. Brahman is just as much of a god concept as any other. All I have is the world and that is it. So why would you argue superiority to another cultural preference when they are both the same?

Being an atheist is lacking belief in ALL gods and being a naturalist is lacking belief in all superstitions. It does not matter if Brahman is a deity or a "existence of reality" since they are both nonsensical. End of story.

Ok, I understand your point of view. That's not the way I see the issue, but I won't push your buttons.

 

[nazz]

Do you expect that specific answer to be representative of a fair percentage of other Gnostic Christians? Would you feel like offering an estimation of how many?

It's a core idea in Gnostic thought and is found throughout Gnostic writings. I don't know of any Gnostics that don't accept it.