Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[denuseri]

another way to look at it is, those that express faith may not know the cat is alive or dead, but they hope, they believe , they have faith that the cat lives, or has died (if exposed to the radioisotope) whatever yu surley get the point

[awakening2]

Interesting, just wonder what I shall write to score a point! well if you believe and benefit humanity nay living beings - good for you, if you believe and do not do good, whats the use of the believe? Similarly, if you dont believe and do good for the nature - good on you, and if you don't well there are many like you and all can be said is that its sad...I feel the followers of the two Bible and Quran have done great works for humanity more then any others, especially those who like to be critics...so better leave them on their own, however better would be if we join them as well and match if not exceed their deeds to make our world so much more beautiful!

[awakening2]

I find Thorne's statement very thought provoking, "...consciousness is a function of energy and not simply a biochemical anomaly..." Further, " ...the same can be said of your atoms, whether from the decay products of your body..."! Synfall also adds an interesting statement above...even though I sense there seems to be little difference between the two...(sure not my judgement to make…!)

Nevertheless, I really liked the logical interpretation and rather find them a bit alarming/enlightening in a sense that it adds, indirectly some logical weight to the concept of life after death and the ultimate accountability and justice, professed by some religions, especially following holy Books. This lead to a simple calculation:
a) suppose there is no such reality of accountability (after death) so we need not worry of what ever we do here will make any difference to us, then those who thought so scored nearly 90-100 out of 100 as far as the enjoyment in this life is concerned (doing what pleased more). The score of those who believed in accountability in the life after death would be around 50 out of 100 as they did lot of self-restraints and self-control and enjoyed only things those were permitted in their beliefs.
b) Suppose there is accountability after death and these atoms and “conscious energy” are transformed back “for re-birth” as was done in the first case (our present life). Now those who did not believed in life after death and accountability, would lose every thing (being non-believer- no marks for the good deeds performed in ignorance, and punishment for the wrong doings done willingly). The believers, on the other hand, will be getting 90-100 percent marks. So it means if we believe we will not be a total loser in case there is no life after death, and if there is life after death – perfect winners. However, non-believers will be on two extreme ends, if there is no life after death and accountability, they are better off the rest, but on the contrary they would be the worst off (if there is accountability and life after death). Thus, playing safe would be to believe and do good deeds, so even in the worst case scenario, have some consolation (50%) then losing all?

Many thanks for the two for this philosophical discussion...though I wonder why I am trying to think about something that I know nothing about and the outcome of which I can only guess? Why not on the things which are in front of me and can give an outcome in my life-time, given my efforts in it...!

Still, Nice to be here...it does stimulate one's thinking!

[Thorne]

I wonder why I am trying to think about something that I know nothing about and the outcome of which I can only guess? Why not on the things which are in front of me and can give an outcome in my life-time, given my efforts in it...!

This is my point of view as well. We would all be far better off utilizing our energies to make this life better, for ourselves and our families, than in worrying about some potential afterlife. It's like the difference between using your hard earned income to buy groceries and pay the mortgage, insuring your safety, or spending it on lottery tickets for some intangible potential gain which may never come.

As for doing good deeds, I believe that most people, despite what they profess, refrain from doing "bad" things more out of fear of the consequences of the here and now rather than the consequences of some possibly mythical future.

We should respect the rights of others not because some god supposedly tells us to, but because that's how we want to be treated ourselves. We should obey the laws not because we fear for our souls, but because we fear prison and punishment, and because those laws give us all a sense of security which anarchy would not.

And if I'm wrong? If there is a God, and he is more concerned over my lack of faith than in the fact that I tried to be a good, honest person? Then to hell with him (and me)! I don't think I'd want to spend eternity with such a god.

[leo9]

b) Suppose there is accountability after death and these atoms and “conscious energy” are transformed back “for re-birth” as was done in the first case (our present life). Now those who did not believed in life after death and accountability, would lose every thing (being non-believer- no marks for the good deeds performed in ignorance, and punishment for the wrong doings done willingly). The believers, on the other hand, will be getting 90-100 percent marks. So it means if we believe we will not be a total loser in case there is no life after death, and if there is life after death – perfect winners. However, non-believers will be on two extreme ends, if there is no life after death and accountability, they are better off the rest, but on the contrary they would be the worst off (if there is accountability and life after death). Thus, playing safe would be to believe and do good deeds, so even in the worst case scenario, have some consolation (50%) then losing all?

The trouble with Pascal's Wager (as it's historically called) is that it only works if you assume (a) that there is, or isn't, only one God, and (b) that He/She/Whatever is sufficiently egocentric and brutal to damn people just for not praying to Him/Her/FlyingSpaghettiMonster, regardless of their other virtues.

As a polytheist I have trouble with premise (a). I don't have any trouble accepting that the God of the Mosaic faiths exists, as one of the many aspects of the Allfather, but I personally prefer to give my worship to the Goddess. But even within the limits of the Mosaic faiths, it won't do you any good to believe in Jaweh of the Torah if it turns out that Allah was in charge all along. Or vice versa.

And premise (b), as defined by the First Commandment, only really applies within the Mosaic faiths. Most other religions accept, outside of their primitive backwoods factions, that the gods will reward you for living a virtuous life whether or not you pray in their particular name or none at all.

[MMI]

I'm an atheist. And, insha'Allah, I always shall be.

[awakening2]

umm...! well Thorne...just a question, if you have two kids and both of them keep their room clean and tidy (if its not too much to ask from kids these days!), and one does it because it is his/her habbit and the other does it because it is both a habbit and also because s/he knows that you would like it to, who will become your favorite!?! then the two grow up and leave your home and you hear one day both of them being interviewed for their remarkable organizational abilities, one of them says I was born like that and the other says, I like doing it not only because I am an organized person but also because I know that it is what would make my parents happy/proud of me - and after all that they have done for me, I deem find it befitting on mybehalf to make them feel happy as well! Who's would you like more?!

And MMI...was just wondering if there is something wrong in your previous sentence..."I'm an atheist..." and then in the same sentence "... Insha'Allah.."?!

Hope we end up happily, whatever it is!

[lucy]

And MMI...was just wondering if there is something wrong in your previous sentence..."I'm an atheist..." and then in the same sentence "... Insha'Allah.."?!

I thought it was a joke, but i could be mistaken.

Hope we end up happily, whatever it is!

Agreed. But then again, as an ignostic atheist i can agree with almost anything since it doesn't matter anyway

[Thorne]

umm...! well Thorne...just a question, if you have two kids and both of them keep their room clean and tidy (if its not too much to ask from kids these days!), and one does it because it is his/her habbit and the other does it because it is both a habbit and also because s/he knows that you would like it to, who will become your favorite!?! then the two grow up and leave your home and you hear one day both of them being interviewed for their remarkable organizational abilities, one of them says I was born like that and the other says, I like doing it not only because I am an organized person but also because I know that it is what would make my parents happy/proud of me - and after all that they have done for me, I deem find it befitting on mybehalf to make them feel happy as well! Who's would you like more?!

I'm not sure I get your point, here. I can't really see any difference between the two positions you are stating. For my part, I don't care why they keep their rooms clean, as long as they do. (And having raised two boys, I know that this is a forlorn hope.)

The point that I was making, though, is more akin to this analogy:
The mother of twin boys is raising them on her own, because the father is out of the picture for several years. The boys have never met their father, and only know what their mother tells them. And she tells them that if they don't behave, when their father comes home he will throw them out of the house.
Now, one of the boys, fearful of the potential punishment, toes the line and does what he's told. The other boy tells his mother that he doesn't have a father, so she can stop threatening him, but he behaves himself anyway, even though he's not afraid of some future punishment.
Which boy is more admirable? To my mind, the second boy is, simply because he does what's right without fear of being punished. And if it turns out that there really is a father? Which boy would he think is the better of the two?

And which would you choose?

[awakening2]

Smiles! I like your thoughts Thorne! Yes, I feel there are subtle differences - that of a half empty glass or a half full glass! You may do it for the fear of punishment or you do it out of the love and appreciation! I am 45, and still when I clean (and try to do it regularly!) my place, I cherish the feeling that if my mum was around, she would have felt proud of me! I learned my cooking skills and cleanliness from her. I do acknowledge her positive contributions from the time, when I was unable to express myself (just born) to the time where I reasoned unreasonably (young boy), till the time that the world's acknowledged universities and institutions acknowledged my little achievements. Many including my mum have played their role in my development. All these individuals and my mum don't need a part of my degrees or awards or the money I make, they just would like to hear from me that I do acknowledge/appreciate their positive role in my life - this will make them smile and feel satisfied if not proud.

I don't fear my mum for the fear of punishment, she is not more powerful then me, at least not now but, then yes, this is all the more reason to fear more, for I may lose her love and affection, if I disappoint her. My point is that fear also flows from losing a love of your loved one and to me it is more powerful then the fear of the punishment.

We all like to be acknowledged, I do, if I don't, based on my limited knowledge of psychology, I would not be a normal person. The boy who does it on his own and consider that to be only his own virtue denies the efforts of the parents who provided him that environment in which he learned, and of all those individuals who contributed in his personality development. The second child, give credit where it is due, even though he is also now doing on his own yet acknowledges the fact that many factor contributed - yes both the boys had options but one of them chose not only to learn and adopt the right traits for himself, but also to acknowledge from where they were coming for.

My point was that if I was to be in your shoes, I would have not tried to reject (or ridicule..."hell with...") the existence of the God (for do I really know? or is it that I do not still have the sufficient knowledge to make a judgement?) I rather would have played save saying, well I am not sure yet, nevertheless what I do good is because I feel good doing so, and if that is what the God, if exist, says so, well good for both of us – for me to know that there is God who believes like me in my goodness, and also good for the God who has someone like me!

Recently you said, "We should respect the rights of others ... because that's how we want to be treated ourselves.." well I accept and am with you on it, so why not respect for the ONE, so He, if there may have respect for us?!

[Thorne]

Recently you said, "We should respect the rights of others ... because that's how we want to be treated ourselves.." well I accept and am with you on it, so why not respect for the ONE, so He, if there may have respect for us?!

I don't know if there is a God. As I've stated many times, in many places, I don't particularly care, either. What I do know is that, if there is a God, the probability is very high that he is absolutely nothing like what the priests try to tell us. My point in that last post is that I would not even consider worshipping a being as capricious and inflexible as the biblical God.

[MMI]

All hail to the Omnipotent, so impotent; so unjust he punishes us for his own imperfections; so insecure, he threatens to damn us eternally for not singing his praises; so unforgiving, that only the blood sacrifice of his own son is acceptable penance; so dependable that thousands of martyrs have died because he would not save them.

So ungenerous that there is not one single provable act of goodness or kindness throughout the whole of history - whether history began 7,000 years ago or 13.5bn years ago - that can be attributed to him.

Should we treat each other that way: oppressively, selfishly, treacherously? Is that how to bring Heaven to Earth?

Ooops! Are my prejudices showing?

[MMI]

The diffference between Thorne and myself (I think - I have no authority to speak for him) is that he doesn't think there is a God, although he is not certain. I want there to be a god - a good god - the Christian god, perhaps. But I am sure he is not there.

Your post, I'm afraid, just will not resonate with someone who does not admit the existence of God - any god.

Concerning improving the quality of the monk's lifestyle, the monk was wrong - the tourist was right. But as the monk just wanted to follow his own established habits and traditions, maybe he was right in that way. There's nothing divine about the choice, either way.

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.

William Cowper

What tosh! What utter piffle!

I have heard that Cowper often struggled with depression and doubt. One night he decided to commit suicide by drowning himself. He called a cab and told the driver to take him to the River Thames. However, thick fog came down and prevented them from finding the river (another version of the story has the driver getting lost deliberately). After driving around lost for a while, the cabby finally stopped and let Cowper out. To Cowper’s surprise, he found himself on his own doorstep: God had sent the fog to keep him from killing himself. Even in our blackest moments, God watches over us.

Do you believe that? Or do you think that, being unable to reach the Thames in that weather, the cabby thought the best thing to do was to return his passenger to the point where he picked him up? Or will you now tell me that, even if the cabby did choose to do that, it must have been God who inspired him? Where does free will feature now?

"Blind unbelief is sure to err..." Is my unbelief blind? It seems to me more likely that it is blind faith that is bound to be wrong.

[Thorne]

The diffference between Thorne and myself (I think - I have no authority to speak for him) is that he doesn't think there is a God, although he is not certain. I want there to be a god - a good god - the Christian god, perhaps. But I am sure he is not there.

That's a fair statement of what I feel. I am not certain, as no one can be certain, that there is not a God, Christian or otherwise. One cannot prove a negative, so I cannot claim that God definitely does not exist.

You say you want there to be a god, while I say that I don't need a god. And God certainly would not need me!

The Creator is there, he does not need us to survive, we are insignificant in our present state in the whole universe. No matter how hard we wish the Creator to behave the way we want him to behave, HE has HIS own ways…the ways of the Creator not of humans.

This is closer to my feelings regarding any potential God. If he's out there, this little ball of dirt and water is only an infinitesimal portion of his creation. It is only man's innate need to believe himself greater than he is that allows him to postulate a God who's greatest desire is to see each of us join him in heaven.

I have no quarrel with those who have faith, regardless of their beliefs. They are as entitled to their belief as I am entitled to my disbelief. My only problem (well, with regard to this topic, anyway) is with those who would try to force their beliefs upon others, sometimes violently, using their God as justification. These are the true demons in our world. And all should fight against them.

[MMI]

You say you want there to be a god, while I say that I don't need a god. And God certainly would not need me!

Good point: Christians need their God, and Jehovah needs them.

As for me, wanting is not the same thing as neeeding. As I have rejected the notion, I clearly don't need a god. I take credit for my own achievements and accept the blame for my own faults. I don't need anyone to thank or to blame, and I am no better or wose than other god-fearing people.

(Q. Why are people with faith said to be

god-fearing when they worship a god of love?)

But it would be nice if there were a kind and benevolent deity out there really looking after our interests.

[Thorne]

(Q. Why are people with faith said to be

god-fearing when they worship a god of love?)

But it would be nice if there were a kind and benevolent deity out there really looking after our interests.

They are God-fearing because Jehovah, as depicted in the Old Testament, is a capricious SOB, capable of inflicting horrid punishments on those who stray from his path.

As for a "kind and benevolent" deity: I suppose that would imply that there would also have to be a nasty and evil deity as well, since a kind deity wouldn't allow the kinds of things which happen every day in this world.

[jezabel]

I have no quarrel with those who have faith, regardless of their beliefs. They are as entitled to their belief as I am entitled to my disbelief. My only problem (well, with regard to this topic, anyway) is with those who would try to force their beliefs upon others, sometimes violently, using their God as justification. These are the true demons in our world. And all should fight against them.

I have to agree with you on this point, that these people who profess to be representing 'their' God should be stopped.

But, and this is the crux, they aren't doing it for the glory of God, theyre doing it from a point of view spurred on by others who want the glory for themselves.

Im a Christian, I believe there is a God...ok shoot me down !!!!!!

I dont have proof that God exists, but then again I dont need it....I have faith .... and thats all I need. My God is a merciful God, who loves us all whether you believe in Him or not....dont worry people, He believes in you lol.

ok, im finished, but no doubt i'll have vitriol thrown at me now, but to be honest, i dont care...im confident in my beliefs and thats all that matters to me

jez xxx

[Thorne]

I have to agree with you on this point, that these people who profess to be representing 'their' God should be stopped.

But, and this is the crux, they aren't doing it for the glory of God, theyre doing it from a point of view spurred on by others who want the glory for themselves.

Either that, or they want the control that being the sole interpreter of God's will can bring them. Either way, I don't buy it.

Im a Christian, I believe there is a God...ok shoot me down !!!!!!

I dont have proof that God exists, but then again I dont need it....I have faith .... and thats all I need. My God is a merciful God, who loves us all whether you believe in Him or not....dont worry people, He believes in you lol.

ok, im finished, but no doubt i'll have vitriol thrown at me now, but to be honest, i dont care...im confident in my beliefs and thats all that matters to me

jez xxx

There's nothing to shoot down! You have your beliefs, and I can respect that. You don't have to prove that God exists, you only have to believe it. And even if I wanted to go through the effort, there's no way to prove that God does not exist.

So no vitriol from here. I'll let those "true" believers toss that around. All in the name of God, of course.

[Ultraprene]

Absurd beliefs, preposterous utterances, obnoxious behavior, and destructive acts are just that, and deserve no free pass just because they are derived from religion.

[angela_shy]

i'm more a non-theist than an atheist (doesn't believe there is a god as opposed to not believing in god).

if folk take comfort from religion, i tolerate their choice, and don't seek to hurt them by criticising the thought structures that bring them peace.

i attend church, read at the church, and embrace the involvement of a church scool in my daughter's life, because as a child i enjoyed the songs, structure, sense of security in knowing a framework defined my world. i will encourage her to ask questions and be critical, but not to the extent of indoctrination with my non-theist views. if she gets to that point of being a non-theist, i hope that will be through contemplation. meanwhile i tolerate her prayers and religious songs and Nativity Story, etc! it's a small price to pay for a secure little one.

and in fact i enjoy the sense of belonging i get now from attending church!

[Belgarold]

Angela,

I think you have found what (I believe) religion is all about. I think it is about that comfort, family, etc. And it is the way to help us through and teach us about life and death and morals.

I think that is why I have, though, my problems with those religions that seem so self-conscious about their own religion that they have to have me belief exactly as I do.

And get involved in political discourse to try to make it so.

[MMI]

What's the difference between a god and a goddess? Do the gods really have sex? (Do other gods bang on the walls if they make too much noise?)

Why is it important to worship the female rather than the male, especially if they are neither? What makes the mother goddess superior to the father creator?

I know all about Zeus's frolics with earthly maidens and nymphs, but I think he'd shag anything with a hole: "Greek love" and all that kind of stuff. And he's not real anyway.

Can gods be real? Does reality go beyond the natural?

[denuseri]

In the words of Stewart Chase:

"For those who believe no proof is nessesary, for those who do not no proof is possible."

[Thorne]

In the words of Stewart Chase:

"For those who believe no proof is nessesary, for those who do not no proof is possible."

I don't know if I'd go that far! If God drops enough miracles on my head I'd have to say that was pretty good evidence.

Or I'd have to get a stronger umbrella.

[wmrs2]

No! There are no real atheist. Anyone who believes in absolute truth is not an atheist. Without absolute truth there are no premises for thinking, which means there is no logic which always depends on premises. An atheist by definition is a person who believes in no premises and can not think. None of us are like that. Get over it, thinking is what makes you human and in the image of God, like it or not.

[FirstBorn]

I was raised atheist and have for a while had a fling with the old religion of scandinavia. Never really past an agnostic point of wiev but still good fun and educational as for historic insight.

I do not deny absolute truth rather its definition. In all my observations dropped items fall, that makes it emprically true within my limited experience. Most will agree but its not an absolute truth, or so pictures from space stations will have me belive. Those again may just be propaganda and lies and so what. I can live with an X in the equation without filling in a made up entity as explanation.

Should there be a god and should he (obviusly HE im made in his image and im male) My observations indicate that he's kinda small minded and judgemental tending to pull pranks without considering consequenses (just like me). So im pretty much in for a bit of punishment for being him/me... No matter really ill demand trial by combat according to solid cristian tradition. Prolly get my ass kicked but itll take a while, the soul being immortal and all that.

[MMI]

No! There are no real atheist. Anyone who believes in absolute truth is not an atheist. Without absolute truth there are no premises for thinking, which means there is no logic which always depends on premises. An atheist by definition is a person who believes in no premises and can not think. None of us are like that. Get over it, thinking is what makes you human and in the image of God, like it or not.

This looks like drivel to me. I don't believe in god, and I deny the existence of any god.

I can think.

And that's the truth!

[leo9]

Anyone who believes in absolute truth is not an atheist.

It's not necessary to believe in a god to believe in absolute truth. There are other philosophical bases for such a position.

Without absolute truth there are no premises for thinking, which means there is no logic which always depends on premises.

Wrong. Plenty of philosophies have been constructed on the basis of conditional or locally valid premises. More importantly, that's the way real people really think most of the time: nobody waits to determine the absolute truth of the weather forecast before deciding to wear a coat. One of the ways humans can still beat computers is that we can take decisions based on uncertain or incomplete data, which hangs up brains based on pure logic.

Get over it, thinking is what makes you human and in the image of God, like it or not.

And your evidence for the nature of god is what?

[Wiscoman]

No! There are no real atheist. Anyone who believes in absolute truth is not an atheist. Without absolute truth there are no premises for thinking, which means there is no logic which always depends on premises. An atheist by definition is a person who believes in no premises and can not think. None of us are like that. Get over it, thinking is what makes you human and in the image of God, like it or not.

I know this is an old post, but I've just got to say this makes no damned sense at all.

[FirstBorn]

No! There are no real atheist. Anyone who believes in absolute truth is not an atheist. Without absolute truth there are no premises for thinking, which means there is no logic which always depends on premises. An atheist by definition is a person who believes in no premises and can not think. None of us are like that. Get over it, thinking is what makes you human and in the image of God, like it or not.

Seems the sport of the day taking a proper swing at this statement. Ill really try not to because i can tell someone is pretty adament about it.

"There are no real atheist" Theist being people "with a god" thus atheists being people without a god. You could state the one cannot be defined by missing a feature (ie god) and thus cant be atheist. Thats a semantic argument thou, based merely on theist being the norm.

"Anyone who belives in absolute truth" This may make sense as an argument if you belive you have the absolute truth. Beliving however contradicts the wery concept of absolute truth. Simply because if something was absolutely true noone could possibly dispute it. "Faith" or "belief" implies that you made a more or less educated guess along the way, so by definition you dont know whatever truth you belive. (pretty much your own statement on atheism comming back to haunt you)

"Without absolute truth there are no premises for thinking" Id say the excact opposite. Given the knowledge of what is absolutely true, thinking (that is considering things from more than one angle) would meen defying your knowledge of a true angle. Should said truth be religius in nature, thinking would be blasphemy.

"Get over it, thinking is what makes you human and in the image of God, like it or not" Now i may have misread my bible more specifically the book of genesis. Man may have been created in the image of god atleas according to your source. However man lost his innocence with that whole apple deal. General consensus in cristian society states that if your not thinking (or not thinking right) your innocent. Thats why the court will let you go if you succesfully plea insanity.
Thus thinking wasnt part of the creation, but rather something we stole and got punished for stealing.

This whole mess could lead to the idea that thinking is against god. That infact accepting whatever truth you found and never applying thought or motive to anything is the only way to fly.
However you could read the whole getting kicked out of paradise only to come back once your good enuff. As an incentive for learning everything about gods creation in order to please god.
That would make you a scientist, being a scientist again meens you have to question your basic theory. In this case the belief in absolute truth and god.