Atheists/Agnostics & Death

[Cute Tink]

The 'extraordinary claim' is not that God exists, but that He doesn't. An idea that the universe came from nothing is frankly radical, because it has no backbone that the belief in God has.

Science and atheism don't hold that the universe came from nothing, so your understanding is a bit flawed.

Not a single shred of evidence has supported the rejection of God. But nonetheless, He is routinely rejected by specious reasoning and even in your post, using 'god(s)' as to trivialize it even more.
These things are nothing more than a rejection of depth, insightful intuition, rationale, and observation. There's a strong metaphysical ideology that there couldn't possibly be multiple gods because if they were co-equal, they wouldn't be able to operate any other way than as a single principle.

I don't reject God. I simply don't believe in Him.

But atheists don't think about these things, because their agenda is clear.

Nothing like stereotyping to close out a post.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The 'extraordinary claim' is not that God exists, but that He doesn't. An idea that the universe came from nothing is frankly radical, because it has no backbone that the belief in God has.

Atheism does not entail believing that the universe came from nothing. In any event, you need to show that Goddidit provides a good explanation for the origin of the universe, since that is what you are claiming.

 

[Colter]

I simply acknowledged I had no reason to believe in Him. If you want to call that "forsaken" then okay.

You are missing a lot of people in this scenario - those who believe in a different creator or creators and those who have no made up their minds.

The concept of a "God" is not intended to be a particular deity in any one religion.

 

[quatona]

The concept of a "God" is not intended to be a particular deity in any one religion.

Yes, oftentimes it is intended to be exactly that.
But since you don´t intend to use the word that way - what is the term "God" intended to communicate when you use it? Just so we know what you are talking about.

 

[pinkelephant44]

I am replying to the original poster.

I think it is a discussion that can be had based on materials you both can agree upon, specifically science. It has been a while since I ventured down that particular reading path but I think if you research the topic there is information that points that the lifeforce of an individual simply returns to its primitive energy state. It isn't an afterlife like Christians or other religions believe but it does point to the possibility of a continuous consciousness. Obviously from there the conversation could continue down a scientific path but it is also one that God can be tied into if having the conversation with someone who isn't opposed to the possibility.

 

[Colter]

Yes, oftentimes it is intended to be exactly that.
But since you don´t intend to use the word that way - what is the term "God" intended to communicate when you use it? Just so we know what you are talking about.

God =The creator of Life, the Universal Father, the First source and center.

Contrasted with the belief that mind emerged from matter, that there is no mind behind the emergence of mind, no purpose within evolution.

 

[Cute Tink]

The concept of a "God" is not intended to be a particular deity in any one religion.

"God" in usage generally refers to the religion where the name of the being is God, otherwise it is not capitalized as it wouldn't be a proper noun.

 

[Chris B]

what might a religious person tell an atheist in such a case?

It's going to depend on the religion, and whether the religious person is prepared to give any respect to the atheist's position.

While fit and healthy I've been told by more than one religious person from more than one religion that I'm going to be tortured in hell when I die. I can't for consistency's sake see why they should tell me anything else while I was busy making the transition.

If they tried Pascal's Wager on me I'd consider attempting to take them with me, doing the world a last service.

Chris.

 

[Chris B]

It's difficult to tell Atheist anything of a spiritual nature, they generally have to discover the truth through experience

Do you have any particular reason to suppose they have less in the way of experience, or put in less in the way of effort, than you have?
So why suppose they have ended up with a poorer answer than you have?
It's a bit of a special pleading to say that if thought, experience and struggle matters, then yours must take priority over anyone else's. Not least because if it was a good argument then the rest of the world could adopt it and use it against you.

 

[Chris B]

The Good News is that "the faith" never abandons an authentic Believer. .

Unfortunately this cannot be falsified only because the doctrine is usually coupled with a neat example of the "True Scotsman" fallacy. If anyone does move away from Christianity, thoroughly and comprehensively, it can then be declared that they were never a "true, saved Christian" in the first place. Neat.

If I was never a true Christian then I don't think any Christian can be sure they are. I can't think of anything they might cite in evidence that didn't apply to me, thirty years ago.

 

[Chris B]

If people want to pray for me...

Those are the only times I wish I was a Wiccan or Laveyan Satanist, so I could reply "Thank you, and I will cast a spell for you." Just to see how they feel about being on the reverse end of the exchange.

Chris

 

[Chris B]

Wouldn't that make such a person an Agnostic? To be an Atheist generally means a decision has been made.

It's not quite so tidy or black and white. Have look for the Dawkins Scale of belief. (It's OK, you don't have to meet Dawkins there.)

Can I prove there is no god, 100%? No.
That doesn't make me a 50/50 agnostic.
I suspect that very little, possibly nothing, should be declared known with 100% certainty.
I can't see a valid way to avoid a measure (even if tiny) of existential epistemological doubt.
Even if I'm 97%, 98% 99% sure.
Theistic believers, on the other hand, are more frequently happy to declare themselves 100% sure that what they beleive is true.
in binary terms to describe myself as "atheist" is far less inaccurate than describing myself as agnostic, except to someone who holds that any variation from "absolute certainty" is agnosticism.

"You eat one lousy foot and they call you a cannibal."

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Do you have any particular reason to suppose they have less in the way of experience, or put in less in the way of effort, than you have?

More or less, yes.
Atheism didn't become adopted until the world became comfortable and fruitful. It's blinding. Go ask any poor person or someone living off the land of a second world country if they believe in God, and you'll receive nothing but yeses.

 

[Chris B]

By the way, what would such Atheists say that the word "Agnostic" refers to, if not what they themselves believe??

Agnosticism comes in three major forms, and at least one doesn't like to be confused with the other two.

Personal Agnostic : "I don't know. Maybe some day I'll have enough information to decide, one way or the other, but right know I don't have so everything is still open.
Apathetic agnostic: "I don't know and I don't care. It's not worth the effort of looking into."
Dogmatic agnostic: "I've looked at this carefully and concluded that it is impossible to know. I don't know and you don't know either, even if you think you do."

 

[Chris B]

.. there is no reason that proposes the universe could have come from anything else.

Yes there are, several. it's off-topic here, though.

 

[bhsmte]

It's not quite so tidy or black and white. Have look for the Dawkins Scale of belief. (It's OK, you don't have to meet Dawkins there.)

Can I prove there is no god, 100%? No.
That doesn't make me a 50/50 agnostic.
I suspect that very little, possibly nothing, should be declared known with 100% certainty.
I can't see a valid way to avoid a measure (even if tiny) of existential epistemological doubt.
Even if I'm 97%, 98% 99% sure.
Theistic believers, on the other hand, are more frequently happy to declare themselves 100% sure that what they beleive is true.
in binary terms to describe myself as "atheist" is far less inaccurate than describing myself as agnostic, except to someone who holds that any variation from "absolute certainty" is agnosticism.

"You eat one lousy foot and they call you a cannibal."

Well stated and right on target!

 

[Chris B]

More or less, yes.
Atheism didn't become adopted until the world became comfortable and fruitful. It's blinding. Go ask any poor person or someone living off the land of a second world country if they believe in God, and you'll receive nothing but yeses.

You miss the early origins of atheism, and the importance of not being seen as atheist in any time and place where non conformity was dangerous. Many of those known as "deists" were functional atheists using a broadly acceptable cover-word.
And as far as the numbers of theist, world-wide, I'd be far more impressed if there was any consistency about the nature, values purpose, desires of of the God believed in. I actually take that to point to God as a man-made concept.

 

[Chris B]

~Matthew 12:30~
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

I'll take Jesus' word over yours.

Well you would.
That doesn't make you right of a certainty: it's a statement of your belief and conviction. That's fair enough.
Arrived at by a fallible human being.
As was what I believe, which is why I try to restrain myself from statements which imply 100% certain knowledge, directly or indirectly.

(minor edit, mostly grammar.)

 

[dtc]

"Tell an atheist?" I have no idea what you expect us to say. We think there's an afterlife; atheists generally don't. Someday we'll all find out who's right about that.

Maybe you can tell an atheist it seems it would take more faith to believe there isn’t a God than there is, there are simply too many things that are illogical in a pure Godless evolution without a creator, some examples are 1. Unselfish love, some love is selfish but we also have unselfish love and if we all just evolved through “survival of the fittest” it would be totally illogical that we all have unselfish love to the extent we would sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others, Plus why are we happier loving than being loved and why are we our happiest when we are doing/helping others – These surely must be attributes that God our Creator has designed in us his creation.
Also maybe tell them We all (Christians and non-Christians) know we are not perfect – God knows it too and forgives us and accepts us. While some may say that God’s /Jesus’s love/mercy is there for all (not just in this earthly life but for all of eternity), others would say we must ask God/Jesus for eternal salvation in order to receive – So why not ask for it and believe and have faith that Jesus can and will deliver on his promise (also some may say that by acknowledging we are asking – so again just go ahead and ask and believe that Jesus will deliver on his promise).

 

[Chris B]

There is no MOTR, middle of the road solution to the fundamental question of life.

Agreed. Some proposed answers on certain big topics and questions are so separated that trying to take and average of them, or find a compromise between them, or fiddling around with definitions, is just nonsense.

It would take a massive amount of work, and still be unconvincing, to try to imagine a universe where both Grace and Karma were ruling factors.
Where reincarnation was and was not a reality...
Getting down to something like "This gun is loaded" "This gun is not loaded" one just starts to see where the form of words and exact concepts might to begin to matter*, but on the larger divides this does not provide enough wiggle room to bridge the gap.

*"this gun is loaded but cannot fire..."?