The Atheist belief is sad indeed.

[Sunstone]

Since there are no scientific methods to test for a God, all atheists are acting on a hunch.

If you are speaking of god in general, that's one thing. In speaking of god in general, there is always some small chance (much less than 50%) that deity exists.

But are you speaking of god in general? God in general is different than the god or gods of the bible. For the god or gods of the bible to exist, all of reality would need to be absurd. Madness would be sanity. Sanity would be madness.

Human reason would need to be systematically misleading us, incapable of allowing us to discern truths. Fossils would need to be plants of the devil to mislead us, or of the biblical god to test one's faith. The Great Flood would be required to have happened without leaving solid evidence of itself. The earth, despite appearances, would need to have four corners. etc., etc., etc.

We would need to believe that deity can be petty, stupid, malicious, vain, blood-thirsty, irrational, and opposed to reason.

I could go on and on, but you get the drift: The biblical god contradicts -- and is contradicted by -- reason and science.

So it's a bit misleading to say that atheists are operating only on hunches.

 

[Sunstone]

The most rational position is held by those who freely admit they don't know.

That's not always true. Anyone who claims not to know whether the Great Flood happened is likely to be less rational than someone who claims to know it did NOT happen. That's because the weight of reason and evidence suggests it did not happen. In the same manner, anyone who claims not to know whether the god described by the bible exists is likely to be less rational than someone who claims to know it does not exist. That's because the weight of reason and evidence suggests the biblical god does not exist.

 

[Father Heathen]

Since there are no scientific methods to test for a God, all atheists are acting on a hunch.

How is it irrational to reject assertions that are not substantiated by evidence or logic?

 

[crimsonlung]

OK folks, this is not an attack thread. Some of my favorite RF members are Atheists. Actually, most are. That said, I want to address the Atheist mindset.

Most Atheists I know came from religious families. They could be looked upon as religious pioneers if you will. Not being an Atheist myself, I guess I am wondering about the emotion one would have to experience when you first decide there is no God.

It was not really an emotion for me, it was a combination of things and research I was doing. Zeitgeist played a big part of it, and I know the film isn't credible, but the research I did thereafter proved Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to be a fallacy. I was raised in a Muslim family, but the rest of my family was strict Catholic, my mother converted to Islam and it causes much hostility in the family, and I slowly watched as religion tore my family apart. All the arguments they had were about religion. This kind of pushed me away from religion all together.

Are there true Atheists out there, or are some Atheists just closet Christians who want to look trendy and cool but would pray if their plane was crashing

I would pray in a plane crash, but it would be because I think their MIGHT be a god, better to let him see me praying then not. But I am still learning I may find god, I may find something else, but I definitely don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Judaism, at least, most of it.

The Atheists who would not pray in this instance, these are the folks I want to have a dialog with. The true Atheist if you will. What did it feel like when you realized there was no god? As you are aging, how does it feel to believe that when you die, it is all over? Does that make you sad?

It really sounds like your trying to convert here.

But no, it doesn't make me sad, I believe I turn into fertilizer when I die, so the only thing that I worry about is if I die a painful death or not. I hope I go quick and painless

 

[Jeremiah]

OK folks, this is not an attack thread. Some of my favorite RF members are Atheists. Actually, most are. That said, I want to address the Atheist mindset.

Most Atheists I know came from religious families. They could be looked upon as religious pioneers if you will. Not being an Atheist myself, I guess I am wondering about the emotion one would have to experience when you first decide there is no God.

Is it like realizing there is no Santa Claus? I doubt it. When we have that realization we still get gifts and celebrate Christmas.

Are there true Atheists out there, or are some Atheists just closet Christians who want to look trendy and cool but would pray if their plane was crashing?

The Atheists who would not pray in this instance, these are the folks I want to have a dialog with. The true Atheist if you will. What did it feel like when you realized there was no god? As you are aging, how does it feel to believe that when you die, it is all over? Does that make you sad?

"Does that make you sad?"

No, in fact my understanding of the nature of death has only enriched my life, given it meaning, direction and philosophical understanding. The realization of death can be daunting at first, but humans are very adaptable.

It really would not be such an issue if that is what we were told from early on. Instead many make a big fuss over a finite existence. It seems to some existing is not enough for them, they have to exist forever, they can't be grateful for the time they got. I much rather live wide-eyed if for only a moment and know my existence, then close my eyes and miss my only chance.

 

[Jeremiah]

Since there are no scientific methods to test for a God, all atheists are acting on a hunch. Unless they are privy to scientific data they are keeping to themselves. Oh I know they pull the old "cant disprove a negative" spiel, but science is not in the habit of forming premature conclusions about the unknown. So I suppose those who boast that they have science on their side, are the first to abandon it so they can hold to an opinion that massages their fancy.

What we call rational grounds for our beliefs are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts. -Huxley

"Gods" are considered unfalsifiable statements and therefore they do not qualify as a valid scientific theory.

 

[Jeremiah]

How is it irrational to reject assertions that are not substantiated by evidence or logic?

Are you rejecting the existence of Thumperberry, the magical purple dragon who poops rubies? Well, you have no good reason to deny his existence, you are just acting on a hunch. I tell you he is real, I just can't possibly prove it, at all. But that does not mean he is not real.

 

[Kerr]

OK folks, this is not an attack thread. Some of my favorite RF members are Atheists. Actually, most are. That said, I want to address the Atheist mindset.

Most Atheists I know came from religious families. They could be looked upon as religious pioneers if you will. Not being an Atheist myself, I guess I am wondering about the emotion one would have to experience when you first decide there is no God.

Is it like realizing there is no Santa Claus? I doubt it. When we have that realization we still get gifts and celebrate Christmas.

Are there true Atheists out there, or are some Atheists just closet Christians who want to look trendy and cool but would pray if their plane was crashing?

The Atheists who would not pray in this instance, these are the folks I want to have a dialog with. The true Atheist if you will. What did it feel like when you realized there was no god? As you are aging, how does it feel to believe that when you die, it is all over? Does that make you sad?

I have never decided there is no God. I have just never decided there is one. Was born into an atheist family, so it just came natural to me. Does it make me sad that we will all just rot in the group? Yes. And it scares me. But I do not choose what to believe depending on what is easier or what gives more comfort, I choose to believe in what makes sense to me. In the end, I guess I hope I am wrong... and right, in that I would never wish for a place like hell to exist for anyone.

As for God himself, well, I guess it would be interesting if he existed, from a philosophical standpoint. From a practical standpoint I am not sure it makes that much difference to me. After all, we are who we are. The existence of God wouldn´t change that. In my opinion, at last .

 

[Danmac]

How is it irrational to reject assertions that are not substantiated by evidence or logic?

I am not suggesting that you accept any assertions. Science hasn't accepted the God theory, neither have they rejected it. They haven't even made a statement on the matter. That is because they don't make assertions without evidence. The atheist has made an assertion and closed the book on the God theory. Unlike science, they do not remain open on that which has not been proved or disproved. They are acting on a hunch.

 

[Danmac]

"Gods" are considered unfalsifiable statements and therefore they do not qualify as a valid scientific theory.

How do you know that future science will not overturn that conclusion?

 

[Danmac]

If you are speaking of god in general, that's one thing. In speaking of god in general, there is always some small chance (much less than 50%) that deity exists.

But are you speaking of god in general? God in general is different than the god or gods of the bible. For the god or gods of the bible to exist, all of reality would need to be absurd. Madness would be sanity. Sanity would be madness.

Human reason would need to be systematically misleading us, incapable of allowing us to discern truths. Fossils would need to be plants of the devil to mislead us, or of the biblical god to test one's faith. The Great Flood would be required to have happened without leaving solid evidence of itself. The earth, despite appearances, would need to have four corners. etc., etc., etc.

We would need to believe that deity can be petty, stupid, malicious, vain, blood-thirsty, irrational, and opposed to reason.

I could go on and on, but you get the drift: The biblical god contradicts -- and is contradicted by -- reason and science.

So it's a bit misleading to say that atheists are operating only on hunches.

So you have scientific data that disproves God?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not suggesting that you accept any assertions. Science hasn't accepted the God theory, neither have they rejected it. They haven't even made a statement on the matter. That is because they don't make assertions without evidence. The atheist has made an assertion and closed the book on the God theory. Unlike science, they do not remain open on that which has not been proved or disproved. They are acting on a hunch.

That is a serious misrepresentation of both Atheism and Science, I fear.

Science has nothing to say about God because God is defined in such a way as to be outside scientific scope. It really has nothing to do with "remaining open".

If anything, the attitude of Science towards the existence of God is better described as giving up on the whole matter, and therefore being quite "closed" to it.

On the other hand, God is also a subjective concept that can nonetheless be analysed by rational means. It is dishonest or at least ignorant to claim that Atheists act "in a hunch" to be Atheists.

How do you know that future science will not overturn that conclusion?

Because that is a direct consequence of the concept of God. By definition he can't be proven by science.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, it doesn't. It's based on the premise that Christianity is the only alternative to atheism, which is obviously false.

You see things from a narrow viewpoint my friend. First off, all I said was it did not matter whether there is a God or not, religion gives me comfort. I further said that Pascal's wager was a poor tool for conversion.

You morph that statement into a full scale attack on Pascal's wager which I am not debating. In other words, you refuse to let me agree with you, ( I know, thats a scary concept).

It does not matter that Christianity is not the only religion which is the last nail in the Pascal's wager debate where the Atheist always wins.

When you remove the element of conversion, it means a Muslim remains a Muslim while a Jew remains a Jew or even a Satanist remains a Satanist. It's not about who is right or wrong. It is about the comfort a religious person receives.

It is about how you feel, not who is wrong or right.

One last question, which is better, to be right and suffer or to be wrong and comfortable? Perhaps you chose the former for yourself, but what about your loved ones? If they where about to die and was having a hard time dealing with the situation, would you lie to give them comfort as they draw their last breath?

 

[Agnostic75]

Which is better, to be right and suffer or to be wrong and comfortable?

Please explain what you mean in greater detail.

It's not about who is right or wrong. It is about the comfort a religious person receives.

Please explain what you mean in greater detail.

 

[atanu]

Atheism and Theism come in so many grades, arising out of so many reasons that IMO, it is improper to generalise. An atheist may be an atheist because one's father was so. Same with theist. There may be both these types who might rationalise their respective stance -- wrongly or correctly.

But what is always true is that a centralised happy mind is possible with right actions that are based on the experience and understanding of one love.

Till then, the white and black of mind do this. :sw:.



There is a conscience in everyone that is the true God.

...

 

[fantome profane]

It just occurred to me that the real problem with this thread about “the atheist belief” is that this thread is really not about “the atheists belief”. The “sad belief” that the Rick is referring to is not atheism, it is mortality. It could be perhaps argued that mortality is sad, but mortality is not the same thing as atheism.

I happen to know someone who believes in not only in one “God”, but in many “Gods”. She is certainly not an atheist, but she tells me that she has no belief in the afterlife. She believes that humans are mortal and she has accepted her own mortality.

There are also of course many atheists who do believe in some kind of after life. I am not proud of it, but I use to be just such an atheist. I have never believed in “God”, but there was a time when I believed that people would live on after their death in some other state (either reincarnate or move on to some higher plane of existence). Since then I have grown up and I realize I had no rationale for such a belief and I am embarrassed by it now.

The point is that just because you believe in a “God” or “Gods” does not automatically mean you believe that you will be granted eternal life. Also just because you are an atheist does not automatically mean that you have come to terms with your own mortality. These are separate and very different things.

Coming to terms with your own mortality is a painful, traumatic and I suppose “sad” thing, but I think it is a necessary thing. But I don’t think you need to be an atheist in order to do it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good point.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Please explain what you mean in greater detail.



Please explain what you mean in greater detail.

You put me to task.

OK, imagine a situation where a young child has cancer and is suffering a painful death. The child cries out and says, " I never got to grow up and have a family of my own, is this all the life I get?".

Do I need to explain more? This child could be comforted with the hope of an afterlife and to see their family and friends again.

 

[Amill]

One last question, which is better, to be right and suffer or to be wrong and comfortable? Perhaps you chose the former for yourself, but what about your loved ones? If they where about to die and was having a hard time dealing with the situation, would you lie to give them comfort as they draw their last breath?

If they needed to believe in heaven to have peace of mind when they die then I most definitely would lie to comfort them.

 

[Agnostic75]

OK, imagine a situation where a young child has cancer and is suffering a painful death. The child cries out and says, " I never got to grow up and have a family of my own, is this all the life I get?".

Do I need to explain more? This child could be comforted with the hope of an afterlife and to see their family and friends again.

In the case that you mentioned, I would not object to bringing the child some emotional comfort, but your scenario only covers a very small amount of cases. Are you suggesting that all atheist, agnostic, and deist parents should teach their children that theism is true?

Are you suggesting that adult atheists should try to force themselves that a loving God exists because it might bring them emotional comfort? The followers of many religions have emotional comfort, right?

Perhaps you would be pleased if a virtual reality machine was invented that could provide people with any emotions that they find to be comfortable, a machine that was so convincing that users could not distinguish the machine from reality. That way, no one would have to face reality.

It is not comfortable not having all of the answers, but making up answers in order to be emotionally comfortable hinders the search for truth.

Even if a God exists, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are. If a God exists, he could easily reveal his existence and agenda in far more convincing ways than he has. A loving God would easily be able to attract the admiration of most of the people in the world if he wanted to. Withholding valuable evidence does not help God or mankind. On the other hand, if humans made up all religions that have books, that explains why no God ever shows up tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in the world.

Since many atroticities against humanity have been committed because people believed in a certain religion, and many atheists and agnostics have led peaceful lives, it is obvious that belief in religion alone does not cause a person to have good character.