The bright side of Atheism

[idav]

In your opinion, what would be the reasons why an Atheist may believe that a black cat brings bad luck?

Why is irrelevant to an atheist. As long as that reason isn't God, then atheism still qualifies.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why is irrelevant to an atheist. As long as that reason isn't God, then atheism still qualifies.

so an Atheist acknowledges that fear is irrational, don't they?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Apparently 1robin expects us to somehow attempt to become believers in God's existence so that we do not end in "hot water" (Hell, I assume) after we die.

Assuming that is indeed what he means, it is a non-issue. That argument, the unfortunately named "Pascal's Wager", is not worth worrying about. At all.

He's a kafir that's going to burn in hell according to Islam, anyway.

 

[Alceste]

Apparently 1robin expects us to somehow attempt to become believers in God's existence so that we do not end in "hot water" (Hell, I assume) after we die.

Assuming that is indeed what he means, it is a non-issue. That argument, the unfortunately named "Pascal's Wager", is not worth worrying about. At all.

I'd rather "get it wrong" by disbelieving the various unbelievable things other humans claim to be true without evidence than "get it wrong" by believing every untrue thing I hear throughout my life.

Hell is only one of an infinite number of things people have claimed without evidence. As such, it's just not particularly scary to me. Dragons are probably scarier, or the idea that lizard people in human disguises are controlling the world.

 

[idav]

so an Atheist acknowledges that fear is irrational, don't they?

Why would they? Fear isn't always irrational.

 

[paarsurrey]

Apparently 1robin expects us to somehow attempt to become believers in God's existence so that we do not end in "hot water" (Hell, I assume) after we die.

Assuming that is indeed what he means, it is a non-issue. That argument, the unfortunately named "Pascal's Wager", is not worth worrying about. At all.

Thanks for explaining it for me. Regards

But I don't think it is a non-issue.

Has anybody returned to this world from there to make it totally irrelevant?

Anybody please.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Thanks for explaining it for me. Regards

But I don't think it is a non-issue.

Has anybody returned to this world from there to make it totally irrelevant?

Anybody please.

The fact that there is no evidence of an afterlife (and instead evidence that contradicts the foundations of an afterlife) makes it irrelevant.

Fear of something doesn't make it relevant to anyone but the phobiac and their therapist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for explaining it for me. Regards

But I don't think it is a non-issue.

Has anybody returned to this world from there to make it totally irrelevant?

Anybody please.

It is a non-issue. If one can end up in Hell by way of disbelief alone, then there is no point in avoiding such a "fate", for that means God is inherent unfair and therefore unworthy.

Not that I'm expecting that to turn out true, mind you.

 

[idav]

It is a non-issue. If one can end up in Hell by way of disbelief alone, then there is no point in avoiding such a "fate", for that means God is inherent unfair and therefore unworthy.

Not that I'm expecting that to turn out true, mind you.

Hell definitely shouldn't hinge on something such as belief which sounds like being punished for what we don't know.

 

[paarsurrey]

The fact that there is no evidence of an afterlife (and instead evidence that contradicts the foundations of an afterlife) makes it irrelevant.

Fear of something doesn't make it relevant to anyone but the phobiac and their therapist.

No state in the world makes its penal code only to punish its citizens for nothing. Those who do evil things; the penal code is for their reformation and rehabilitation.

Do you agree? Please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hell definitely shouldn't hinge on something such as belief which sounds like being punished for what we don't know.

If one does a wrong or evil. Doesn't one know of it? Please

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

That is indeed the thing, Paarsurrey.

It is all-out impossible for disbelief to be punishable by a fair God.

 

[idav]

If one does a wrong or evil. Doesn't one know of it? Please

Regards

If we disbelieve do we know of it? Faith is not about knowing, makes believing a guess or a gamble.

 

[paarsurrey]

If we disbelieve do we know of it? Faith is not about knowing, makes believing a guess or a gamble.

I don't agree with you.
You have wrongly understood "faith"; perhaps you are defining "blind-faith"; that is with the non-believers.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That is indeed the thing, Paarsurrey.

It is all-out impossible for disbelief to be punishable by a fair God.

Unfounded disbelief will be punishable by a fair God? Do you agree? Please.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Unfounded disbelief will be punishable by a fair God? Do you agree? Please.

Regards

Is unfounded disbelief even possible? I don't think so.

But if I had to guess... no, a fair God would be at the very least reasonable by human standards, if he was to deserve any attention at all.

So you see, we atheists have nothing whatsoever to fear.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is unfounded disbelief even possible? I don't think so.

But if I had to guess... no, a fair God would be at the very least reasonable by human standards, if he was to deserve any attention at all.

So you see, we atheists have nothing whatsoever to fear.

"Unfounded" is fundamental to disbelief, ie, lacking evidence leads to disbelief.
Would we be punished for not believing in unevidenced things?
If so, disbelief in Zeus, Odin, God, Allah, Lakshmi, The FSM, & every other deity
will doom us all.....except for panthiests, if dilution of belief isn't itself punishable.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Unfounded" is fundamental to disbelief, ie, lacking evidence leads to disbelief.

That is one way of approaching it, I guess.

Personally, I find it a bit more natural to simply accept that disbelief just is. It does not need any justification, and therefore can't be lacking on justification it never needed.

Would we be punished for not believing in unevidenced things?
If so, disbelief in Zeus, Odin, God, Allah, Lakshmi, The FSM, & every other deity
will doom us all.....except for panthiests, if dilution of belief isn't itself punishable.

It is a dangerous field of beliefs out there. Except that maybe it isn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is one way of approaching it, I guess.
Personally, I find it a bit more natural to simply accept that disbelief just is. It does not need any justification, and therefore can't be lacking on justification it never needed.
It is a dangerous field of beliefs out there. Except that maybe it isn't.

I don't see any danger in disbelief at all.
To believe only in that which has evidence is the safest course, ie, the default position.
The myth that some supreme being will punish us for not believing in some truth which
cannot be known to us is feckless. Who would know that truth which we should believe
in order to avoid punishment? Major religions & their sub-sects all disagree, so it appears
unknowable anyway.Thus, I'm comfortable being ignorant of the unknowable, which is
better than adopting unfounded beliefs as absolute inerrant truth.

 

[dgirl1986]

As a former long time theist, the GREATEST gift agnosticism/atheism has given me is the freedom from guilt.

The lovely, soft and serene life of peace one can lead when not burdened with Christian guilt. It's worth everything. I'll never go back.

It took a long time to be able to remove the guilt. Once I rid myself of that I felt free.