Should I Become An Atheist?

[Silas]

GOD fearing people behave in regards to their fear... for their soul.

ATHEISTS... only fear getting caught by other humans...

there is a fundamental difference in how such will affect ones behavior.

-MT

I quite agree, Mosheh. God fearing people behave in regards to their fear. Atheists behave in regard to their fellow human beings. I know which I find the more civilised.

To clarify for you one of the main positions of atheists on morality, it seems to us atheists that a believer who kills another human being (and I don't just mean murder, but I mean kills under any circumstance - murder, or through war, or by accident, or by abortion) is able to shrive their soul with the thought that the dead person has just been delivered to the Gates of St. Peter, and if it was a relatively blameless person, you can imagine that they are now enjoying the benefits of Heaven and the Bliss Eternal.

The atheist has no such recourse. This one life is the only life we get to get, and after we die, that is totally it. When I was younger, hearing about any deaths at all, particularly of young people, through war or terrorism or accident - used to absolutely reduce me to rubble. I've actually had to force myself to take a slightly more fatalistic attitude to the great mass of death in this world, from hundreds of thousands in a tsunami to ten to fifteen deaths reported yesterday from Iraq and Afghanistan, if only for the benefit of my sanity. I mourn, still, but I don't go into great keening wailings of grief any more. :|

Yes, my fellow liberals, you saw the 'A' word there. I am instinctively against abortion, and I am so because of my atheistic beliefs. (I accept abortion as a fact of life, though, and better it is regulated as law than unregulated as crime, because it will happen regardless)

 

[audible]

if there is no GOD... why not kill, rape and murder all we want?


why was it bad for hitler to kill millions??? if it is only man who makes the rules.

and all morality is just made up by wackos???

hummm?

-and humanism... and all modern atheists concepts of right and wrong.. was inspired by religions.... they just cut out the religious parts.. and call it modern.. and atheist.....

hitler had those same views.

-MT

hitler was a christian.
all atheist are of a higher moral character then you could ever aspirer to, they have a respect for life you could never have, they cant deprive any one of there right to live, they do good because they wish to not because of a fear of retribution or to appeaze a god.

you sir are a complete moron.

 

[audible]

I'll give you some more detail, since you think I am being dishonest....

When I was younger, I embraced a rather limited philosophy in which there was simply no room for any type of supernatural agencies such as god or gods, and no way for an afterlife to possibly occur. So naturally, I was an atheist. As I have read more and thought more and talked with more people, I have come to the realization that the philosophy in which these views were based was flawed. Specifically, I have now come to the larger understanding that there can be truths which we do not and perhaps cannot know,

thats true, but a god did it sceniro, is just delving into fantasy.

and that my previous assertion that "it is impossible that a God could exist" was *incorrect.* I can no longer make such claims.

if you can allow irrational thought to take president, in you head you must of had a latent belief in a god from the on set.

 

[Lerxst]

I have no problems with people clinging to a belief due to the other effects that such a belief can bring - the psychological benefits can be immense.
But that does not mean that the main belief is not irrational or illogical.

I agree. I just do not necessarily see the terms illogical/irrational as necessarily pejorative terms, when applied to metaphysical issues.

Also, there is not so much a paucity of evidence as an absolute lack of evidence.
And God is an entirely logical possibility - but one that is logically equivalent to something that doesn't exist. And there are an infinite other such things - so why have a belief that this particular one of them exists?

Well, as I said, one benefit is that it can provide significant improvement to the quality of one's life, and that is nothing to sneeze at.

It is perfectly okay to say "this thing MIGHT exist" when there is no evidence to support it. But to actually BELIEVE that it DOES EXIST is irrational / illogical.

Agreed.

You have utterly missed the point - as so many do.

No, I understand it quite well. And the little story about x-rays demonstrates quite clearly that an irrational belief can also be the True one.

Whether it ultimately proves to be true or not, to have a belief in something without any evidence at all is illogical and irrational.
The 16th Century scientist might be correct - but his belief without evidence was irrational and illogical.

Exactly. And it was still true. Truth is a higher concept than provability or evidence. In all likelihood there are many, many truths that our little minds cannot grasp. To draw sweeping conclusions from what we know today about the ultimate reality of the universe is unwarranted. I'm not saying that you do this, I don't really know anyone on this board yet, but I do know other atheists who do, and I find it rather amusing.

Which is why I, as an atheist, and like so many other atheists on this site, do not go as far as saying "God does not exist".
We merely DO NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT GOD EXISTS because it is illogical and irrational to have such a belief.

The majority of atheists do not claim that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
They merely do not have the belief that GOD EXISTS.

Do you understand the difference?
One is a belief in a negative.
One is not having a belief.

I understand the difference quite well.

I'm glad to hear that the majority of atheists here are as you say. In my normal group of interlocutors on a different board, we refer to your position as "weak atheism" and we refer to the position that "We know God does not exist" to be "strong atheism." I really cannot argue with weak atheism, as my own stance of agnosticism is rather close to it. But I think strong atheism is unfounded.

 

[Lerxst]

thats true, but a god did it sceniro, is just delving into fantasy.

It might be fantasy, yes. But since we have no way to check, it is a bit rash to rush to judgement.

if you can allow irrational thought to take president, in you head you must of had a latent belief in a god from the on set.

Nothing irrational about conceeding the possibility that there are truths that cannot be comprehended by our little minds. This is quite different from actively believing in any of these possible truths....

 

[Silas]

Ooh, I missed one:

why was it bad for hitler to kill millions??? if it is only man who makes the rules.

You really do need to think of the corollary of those statements before you make them. Was it bad for Hitler to kill millions just because a Supernatural Being said so? Think of those millions, the torture, the suffering, the grief. Are you saying that you have no personal feeling about the badness of that either way, but only regard it as bad because God said so?

 

[Lerxst]

And God is an entirely logical possibility - but one that is logically equivalent to something that doesn't exist. And there are an infinite other such things - so why have a belief that this particular one of them exists?

I've been thinking about this last point. It is troubling. It is basically the lottery paradox: If I buy one lottery ticket out of the one billion issued, no one would be surprised if I said that I *highly* doubt that I own the winning ticket.

But I could also say the same thing about your ticket, and about Joe Blow's ticket, etc.... and, of course, I'd be wrong.

Somewhere, out there, is a complete and total explanation for everything (or is there? can we even assume that?) that our minds may or may not someday be able to grasp. I haven't a clue what it might entail. Neither does anyone else, regardless of what they might think. Certainly one is justified in taking a stance in which the bare minimum is assumed, where Occam's razor is applied to the metaphysical realm, because it is economical to do so. But one should be aware that this does not necessarily get one any closer to the Truth - it is ultimately a subjective choice about how to view the world.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

Ooh, I missed one:You really do need to think of the corollary of those statements before you make them. Was it bad for Hitler to kill millions just because a Supernatural Being said so? Think of those millions, the torture, the suffering, the grief. Are you saying that you have no personal feeling about the badness of that either way, but only regard it as bad because God said so?

yes... if i knew... after many years of studing science that no GOD existed.. and i could be sure...

then i wouldnt worry about anything, and i would live my life fighting for as much power and glory as can be achieved, and if that meant killing you and enslaving your children to work in my fields, then yes.. i would do so.

as would most men who have never been taught otherwise.

HISTORY PROVES THIS.. in fact in most cases... having been taught religion men will still act and think that way. brutish.

do not kid yourself... the men of this world today may seem tame in comparision to the olden days.. but they are the same men..

we have not evolved... we have only changed norms and habitual influences.

it is only our comfort which keeps us from the mind set of the savage.

-MT

 

[geeser]

It might be fantasy, yes. But since we have no way to check, it is a bit rash to rush to judgement.

wrong, you could insisted that the goolydogbird existed on the planet roz, and created everything, as there 's no way of checking or the smugcathorse created all, any number of subjective ideas and you cant check any of them, one is a good as the rest but none are rational.

Nothing irrational about conceeding the possibility that there are truths that cannot be comprehended by our little minds. This is quite different from actively believing in any of these possible truths....

wrong, if you concede them to be truths, then you believe them to be truths, with no evidence then they can only be subjective.
as I said above you could also believe in the truth of the smugcathorse or the goolydogbird etc etc etc.............................................................

 

[Lerxst]

wrong, you could insisted that the goolydogbird existed on the planet roz, and created everything, as there 's no way of checking or the smugcathorse created all, any number of subjective ideas and you cant check any of them, one is a good as the rest but none are rational. wrong, if you concede them to be truths, then you believe them to be truths, with no evidence then they can only be subjective.
as I said above you could also believe in the truth of the smugcathorse or the goolydogbird etc etc etc.............................................................

Didn't concede they were truths. I said they might be truths. As for your examples, I don't know what those terms mean.

Certainly there are truths that no human knows, and most likely truths that no human will ever know. Truth is a higher concept than provability. That is true even in something as simple and rigorous as mathematics itself.

It is the height of human folly to simply apply our reason and logic and then somehow conclude from them that we "know" the answers to deep metaphysical questions. We don't. You might think you do, but you don't. Logic is wonderful for discovering analytic truths. When I solve a differential equation, I am certain of the solution, just as certain as you. Reason is great for determination of synthetic truths (or at least there probability of being true, we can never be certain about them the way we can with analytic truths)- understanding the physical world that can be probed by our senses and our technology - therefore I am as certain of any well-established scientific theory as any atheist might be. But there is a third realm, the metaphysical realm, where the questions are tougher and not necessarily soluble, much less soluble with the tools we have. Did something happen 'before' the universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? Are there other planes of reality we cannot discern? I don't have a clue what the answers might be, and neither do you.

Atheism follows from applying Occam's razor - I agree that it is the simplest solution, the most economical, and probably the correct one. But I don't *know* that - there is no way of *knowing*. So I take the most honest stance I can, and I admit what I cannot know.

 

[Sarkus]

I've been thinking about this last point. It is troubling. It is basically the lottery paradox: If I buy one lottery ticket out of the one billion issued, no one would be surprised if I said that I *highly* doubt that I own the winning ticket.

But I could also say the same thing about your ticket, and about Joe Blow's ticket, etc.... and, of course, I'd be wrong.

Bear in mind, though, that "one chance in a billion" is 0.000000001.
"One chance in infinity" is absolute ZERO. (I'm sure you know the mathematical proof?)

If you buy all 1 billion combinations for the lottery - you WILL win.
If you buy a billion combinations for something that has an infinite number of combinations - there is ZERO chance of you being right.

Just playing with the numbers, any specific GOD has a ZERO chance of existing.
Likewise - for there to be absolutely nothing outside our Universe is also just one possibility in an infinite number of possibilities - and thus ZERO chance.

All we can say with certainty is that there is something outside the universe (infinite possibilities ranging from absolute-nothing to absolute-everything!)
We can know nothing else about it.

Some people call this unknowable exterior to our Universe GOD.
Most people who do also assign something to this God - and thus it becomes a ZERO chance of existing.

Some people believe this GOD interacts with the interior - but I am unaware of the evidence, only heresay, myth etc.

Ah well - it's fun playing with the numbers

 

[Lerxst]

Just playing with the numbers, any specific GOD has a ZERO chance of existing.

According to your base assumptions, perhaps. I can think of scenarios in which something at least 'god-like' can be posited as *possible* with something higher than probability of zero.

Again, we can go through these little probability exercises, because there is not a whole lot else we can do, but they don't necessarily correspond to reality at all. I'm hesitant to draw any conclusions other than "we don't really know." Which is why I call myself an agnostic.

Likewise - for there to be absolutely nothing outside our Universe is also just one possibility in an infinite number of possibilities - and thus ZERO chance.

Yes. Exactly - the atheistic worldview is just one of many, we have no way of verifying that it corresponds to the ultimate reality than we do any of the other scenarios. Atheism has the very nice feature that it is the simplest explanation, though. So I fully understand the attraction. Especially given that I have spent the majority of my adult life as an atheist, and have only in the last few years become an agnostic.

My behavior is essentially atheistic - I don't actively believe in any gods, I don't pray, I don't go to church, I don't follow some arbitrarily handed-down rules concerning morality, etc. I live my life under the tacit *practical* assumption that there are no gods. This is how I am, in a pragmatic sense, essentially an atheist. But from a more metaphysical perspective, I understand that I simply don't know what the ultimate reality is, and that no one else knows either. What to do about this complete lack of information is really a personal, subjective choice.

 

[geeser]

Didn't concede they were truths. I said they might be truths.

therefore you must concede that the goolydogbird and smugcathorse could have created everything just the same as a god.

As for your examples, I don't know what those terms mean.

exactly there meaningless, they are made up to show the irrationality of aledged truths.

Certainly there are truths that no human knows,

certainly there are things we dont know or understand yet but it does not mean because we're a little ignorant at the moment that it has to be "god made it all possble" thats infantile in the extreme.

 

[Lerxst]

therefore you must concede that the goolydogbird and smugcathorse could have created everything just the same as a god.

Rather than use such terms, I merely acknowledge that I have no knowledge regarding the fundamental origin of our universe and if there possibly exist other levels to reality that are in principle beyond our meager minds.

exactly there meaningless, they are made up to show the irrationality of aledged truths.

They don't make any such demonstration. There is no reason to conclude with absolute certainty that gloopy clumps of grey encased in crania and having a few I/O ports are capable of discerning all manner of truth from a finite set of external stimuli.

certainly there are things we dont know or understand yet but it does not mean because we're a little ignorant at the moment that it has to be "god made it all possble" thats infantile in the extreme.

Never said is "has to be". Merely saying it *might* be. Apples and oranges.

 

[Mythbuster]

They say the wise points to the moon with his finger, and the idiot just stares at the finger....."

Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.

 

[Lerxst]

They say the wise points to the moon with his finger, and the idiot just stares at the finger....."

Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.

"Belief does not make truth": Agreed.

"Belief does not make evidence": Agreed.

"Evidence makes truth": Completely disagree.

Evidence does not make truth. There have been truths long before anyone ever had any evidence for them. The truth of the existence of x-rays existed 500 years ago before the evidence existed. The truth of the fundamental theorems of calculus existed before anyone was around to figure them out.

Even in something as simple as an axiomatic formulation of number theory, truth is a stronger notion than provability. A system will have truths that cannot be proven by that system's rules, as I am sure you are well aware.

Truth is what it is. What we *know* is less than the truth, and possibly some things that we think we know are distortions of the truth or misunderstandings of the truth. There is no guarantee that our little brains can be aware of all truths.

 

[(Q)]

simple fact is.. empirical science does not disprove GOD in anyway..

Nor will science disprove unicorns, dragons, fairies or anything else one might conjure from their imaginations.

However, science WILL prove that gods are not required for anything.

Hence, The Devil Inside can choose for himself which avenue would provide the most useful information.

 

[Lerxst]

However, science WILL prove that gods are not required for anything.

Science has steadily shrunken the gaps where God might "dwell" and I'm sure that those gaps will continue to get smaller. But I think that there will always be questions beyond science that science cannot address. Science cannot address the ultimate question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" It might not even be a meaningful question, but that doesn't mean it isn't of concern to many of us.

What science will or will not do in the distant future is certainly worth speculating on. But for now, at least, there is still a void for many people that science cannot fill. That is not to disparge science, it is just an observation.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote a wonderful little book called Rocks of Ages in which he argued for a truce between science and religion. He pointed out that they each rule seperate, non-overlapping majesteria. Perhaps someday the size of religion's majesteria will shrink to the point of it becoming irrelevant. I don't know.

Personally I'd like to see the monotheistic, fundamentlist, tribal, violence-inducing brand of religion swept off the planet ASAP, and replaced with a pantheistic or diestic non-sectarian religion that Einstein would be proud of. Not gonna happen in my lifetime.

 

[Godless]

Personally I'd like to see the monotheistic, fundamentlist, tribal, violence-inducing brand of religion swept off the planet ASAP

So would every atheist on this forum!

and replaced with a pantheistic or diestic non-sectarian religion that Einstein would be proud of.

No need to replace belief, with other beliefs, lets just leave it at that. Reality is, objective reality is, lets just abolish all nonsence mysticism period.

But for this, one needs a completely new defenition of mysticism to realy understand it's concept.

Mysticism evokes, accepts, or uses dishonest notions to create problems where none exist. Contrary to popular belief, mysticism today seldom involves religion or the occult. For, religion and the occult are dying forms of mysticism with fading powers to hurt honest value producers. More generally, mysticism is the dishonesty that evolves from using feelings or rationalizations to generate mind-created "realities". In turn, those "realities" create unnecessary problems and unnatural destructions. Unnecessary and unnatural because the human brain cannot create reality. Instead, the brain perceives and then integrates facts of reality. Thus, "reality"-creating mysticism is a perversion or disease of human consciousness. Indeed, mysticism is the destruction disease. For mysticism blocks brain integrations to erode all values. Hence, mysticism is suicide on all levels -- on personal, family, social, and business levels; on local, national, and world levels.

click

Godless

 

[Lerxst]

No need to replace belief, with other beliefs, lets just leave it at that. Reality is, objective reality is, lets just abolish all nonsence mysticism period.

The problem is (to me at least) that there is a baby in that bathwater. I think there is good that can be harvested from a 'spiritual side' to life (albeit a much more secular version of it relative to what religion means to most of the world today).

I doubt that we will ever be able to agree on that, though.

In the meantime, don't you think that in order to move the world away from fundamentalism and it's dangers (a goal that both atheist and agnostic share) that it is more practical to expect and encourage baby steps? The world will not embrace atheism overnight. However I think there is a movement within Christianity itself, for example, towards a much more 'liberal' angle. I think we could all get along fine if the religious were Unitarians, for example...