Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Nooj]

I was an atheist when I was young. As far as I can remember, I did not have a good reason to be an atheist. Now, this question is becoming more puzzling to me than ever. Why would people want to be an atheist?

It's not about what people want, it's about what's true or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't have answers. I only have bunch of questions. That is holding on everyone except atheist. They seems to know everything.

No atheist I know claims this, and I know many. I don't claim to know for certain what happens after death, and I do ponder such issues, even very recently. Of course, I do take a tentative position on the issue (that death is finality), but that doesn't mean I don't revisit the issue in my thoughts. At times, I think that Buddhist rebirth-minus-karma (total personhood destruction, but consciousness rearising) might be a possibility.

You seem to have a lot of prejudices about atheists. Perhaps you should ask more questions about whether or not your understanding of atheists is accurate or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nooj]

But I can see why feeble minds would hide their fear behind escapist fantasies of continuing on forever and ever in an otherworldly Pleasantville. It's an extremely naive, short-sighted and egotistical fantasy.

That's a little harsh. I don't think you have to be feeble or afraid to want to hold onto life.

It is a quite different matter between not knowing the origin of the universe and not knowing what would happen to YOU after your death. You may not care about the former, but I don't think you do not care about the latter. Quit thinking about it does not make you any easier.

You're not a very good mind-reader. I don't care about what comes after death, because I don't exist after death.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Most of us have one last thing to learn:

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Socrates, from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers

Socrates did not mean that as a law of human nature. He was speaking for himself at a particular time in his life. He was not a skeptic who denied the possibility of human knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wicked Willow]

That's a little harsh. I don't think you have to be feeble or afraid to want to hold onto life.

Everybody wants to hold onto life. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that it's the finiteness of life that makes it precious to begin with.
But it takes a certain mindset to project a magical land of plenty waiting for us beyond death's door.

 

[juvenissun]

And now are saying atheists are arrogant? I've noticed this is the common reply christians make when an atheist disagrees with their poor explanations even a christian scientist would laugh at. That's great that you have questions, but that also doesn't mean there aren't sound scientific explanations for them already. But it's quite clear you don't trust science.

I don't know everything. No one ever will. But science doesn't pretend to. Religion does. Science is continually being funded. Why you might ask? Because it works. And since you know that all the "atheist scientists" are wrong about the earth, then sure you must know how it really works. Your nobel prize awaits you.

Trust science for what? Trust my after-life to science? Sure not.
Science works on something, but not on other things. That is where the problem is.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Trust science for what? Trust my after-life to science? Sure not.
Science works on something, but not on other things. That is where the problem is.

The nature of that question seems rather unreasonable. I'm sure were we inclined to it, someone or other around here could expound at great length the nature and details of the decay that your body. That how the variations in what happened to you that killed you, the humidity of the air your body is in,etc effects that process. In that arena, what happens after death can be discussed at great length.

But to expect people of science to expound scientifically upon the nature of an afterlife? How absurd. Here in lies a basic and easily recognized difference between the theist and atheist. An atheist sees this question and might, "That is about as worth discussing as what particular species of troll is turned to stone by sunlight, and which must flee in the presence of the laughter of children."

 

[juvenissun]

No one said we necessarily have the ability to witness everything natural. But to make claims and statements about what we cannot sense at all is pure guesswork, pure speculation.

-Lyn

The problem is not that you judge information from other as speculation.
The problem is on YOU. If you do not speculate, you do not have much to say or to do. How many times do you say "I don't know" in a day? The amazing thing is that you will continue to say that till your death.

Would it be nice if you can find something that answer questions in a confirmative manner? It does not matter whether it is true or not.

 

[SiderealExalt]

The problem is not that you judge information from other as speculation.
The problem is on YOU. If you do not speculate, you do not have much to say or to do. How many times do you say "I don't know" in a day? The amazing thing is that you will continue to say that till your death.

Would it be nice if you can find something that answer questions in a confirmative manner? It does not matter whether it is true or not.

I'm sure many people go about their lives, living within the bosom of comforting lies. There are a great many others who cannot comfort themselves in the knowledge that what is attempting to bring that comfort is rooted in falsehoods. They look in the mirror, literal or proverbial, and say to themselves that it is not worth it to do such a thing.Lies for the sake of answering a question are not worthy of being called answers.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would it be nice if you can find something that answer questions in a confirmative manner? It does not matter whether it is true or not.

It always matters whether it is true or not. And it always matters if one has intellectual integrity or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

They currently have no answers, okay.

How do you know they will point toward the existence of some spiritual mechanism? We don't currently have any answers to them, how do you know what the answers are going to be? UFO's, multiple universes, ancient technology, a sixth sense, even ghosts may have incredible answers that still won't point toward a "spiritual mechanism." Of course, we may find that they can be answered by less than incredible means.

Okay, so any of them could lead to the bankruptcy of atheism. But given our current understanding of any of these topics none of them do, and that's kind of the point. For example, if we get conclusive evidence that there is a God, that totally bankrupts atheism. However, as of now we do not have conclusive evidence that there is a God, so I don't believe in one. Furthermore, if it turns out there is a god, or gods, and not the Christian one, does that not bankrupt Christianity?

Again, perhaps I fail to see your point.

Anything lasts through history must have a very good reason. For example, we can not prove the existence of ghost. But the story of ghost started with the beginning of human being. And today, there are much money and intelligence devoted to the study of ghost.

What does that say to you about the possibility of having ghost? Are you kidding yourself by simply dismiss the idea?

My point? I suggest you to pick up one of the unknown, life-concerning question, and start to look into it. Because it matters to YOU.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, it won't take long to reach a point where scientists say I don't know. But the thing about science is that each answer leads to a dozen more questions, each question leading to more curiosity about how the universe works.

Science: Why is the Earth round? Because at the formation of the solar system, debris from the solar system coalesced into planets, and the force of gravity between masses creates spherical objects. But how did these planets coalesce in the solar system? Random chaos, which we're still studying and finding out more about. How does gravity work (is it a wave or particle or something else)? There are different theories, each one leads to new questions.

Religion: Why is the Earth round? God made it that way. How does gravity work? God makes it work. What is chaos? There is no chaos, it's all part of God's plan.

Now there are plenty of questions to be asked in religion, mostly pertaining to ascertaining God's will. Does God send people to hell? Is God pro-life and anti-abortion in all cases? Does God accept different paths to Him or is there One True Religion? Do those who never heard the Good Word go to hell, or limbo, or are allowed in heaven? And these questions, while interesting to discuss, are of little use in the realm of science. So if these are the kinds of questions you say atheists have lost curiosity about, then you are probably right. Atheists are definitely interested in governmental policies (ie, should abortion be legal, what role should religion have in government, etc.) but not as concerned about what God wants us to do.

Please don't just stop there. You haven't say anything yet. What is the God's plan? Creating everything is not much of a plan.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anything lasts through history must have a very good reason.

Astrology has lasted through history. Nevertheless, there isn't a very good reason to believe in astrology.

For example, we can not prove the existence of ghost. But the story of ghost started with the beginning of human being. And today, there are much money and intelligence devoted to the study of ghost.

What does that say to you about the possibility of having ghost?

Virtually nothing.

Are you kidding yourself by simply dismiss the idea?

Not at all. The age of an idea says nothing about its truth. The amount of money or intelligence devoted to the investigation of an idea says nothing about its truth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, I've pondered the topic of life and death quite extensively - and I don't find it threatening in the least. I might not be too thrilled about the prospect of dying, as it tends to be quite an unpleasant experience, but death in itself doesn't seem threatening or even intimidating.

But I can see why feeble minds would hide their fear behind escapist fantasies of continuing on forever and ever in an otherworldly Pleasantville. It's an extremely naive, short-sighted and egotistical fantasy.

I understand. I just wish you would keep thinking about it.
Remember, atheism does not have an answer. Religion has answer, true or not. And, be humble. There ARE many many intelligent religious people.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. None of these are logically necessary conclusions. There are far more possibilities than this.

Not that I believe in disembodied spirits, but ghosts could be a side-effect of evolution, meaning that there does not need to be any "king of the ghosts", or a place for them to exist (aside from Earth). And why should anything special happen if a ghost were to die?


eudaimonia,

Mark

They are logic speculations.

Since the speculation has already started on the existence of ghost, why not expand it to the next step?

 

[juvenissun]

It's not about what people want, it's about what's true or not.

We do not know the truth anyway. So what we choose is what we want to choose.

 

[juvenissun]

No atheist I know claims this, and I know many. I don't claim to know for certain what happens after death, and I do ponder such issues, even very recently. Of course, I do take a tentative position on the issue (that death is finality), but that doesn't mean I don't revisit the issue in my thoughts. At times, I think that Buddhist rebirth-minus-karma (total personhood destruction, but consciousness rearising) might be a possibility.

You seem to have a lot of prejudices about atheists. Perhaps you should ask more questions about whether or not your understanding of atheists is accurate or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No prejudice, but only curiosity. Since I was an atheist before. I found it does not make sense to be an atheist.

I not only "think about" theistic questions, I study them a few hours every day. So far, so good.

 

[juvenissun]

That's a little harsh. I don't think you have to be feeble or afraid to want to hold onto life.
You're not a very good mind-reader. I don't care about what comes after death, because I don't exist after death.

I think you do. It does not make (logic) sense if you don't.

 

[juvenissun]

The nature of that question seems rather unreasonable. I'm sure were we inclined to it, someone or other around here could expound at great length the nature and details of the decay that your body. That how the variations in what happened to you that killed you, the humidity of the air your body is in,etc effects that process. In that arena, what happens after death can be discussed at great length.

But to expect people of science to expound scientifically upon the nature of an afterlife? How absurd. Here in lies a basic and easily recognized difference between the theist and atheist. An atheist sees this question and might, "That is about as worth discussing as what particular species of troll is turned to stone by sunlight, and which must flee in the presence of the laughter of children."

There are many scientific studies about after-life issues.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sure many people go about their lives, living within the bosom of comforting lies. There are a great many others who cannot comfort themselves in the knowledge that what is attempting to bring that comfort is rooted in falsehoods. They look in the mirror, literal or proverbial, and say to themselves that it is not worth it to do such a thing.Lies for the sake of answering a question are not worthy of being called answers.

You can see that it is a lie. Why can't I see it too? Is it so hard to see? I have "seen" it for 20+ years. Do you think I am so dumb?