So, if you are no longer a Christian...

[Tinker Grey]

Me either, but I do know it's illogical to think absolutely nothing could make something. So maybe, at least we can be willing to throw that theory out in favor of some eternal existence as the causal force.

If something always existed, then nothing need make it.

 

[Chriliman]

You dont have to do anything, but you are the one that keeps claiming something cant come from nothing. To supportnthis claim, it may be beneficial to show nothing has ever existed.

I'm content with knowing it's impossible to demonstrate that absolutely nothing has ever existed and I am willing to move forward from there to the possibility that something eternal has always existed as the sufficient cause for our universe and us. What is it? Is it possible to know? Maybe so.

 

[Chriliman]

If something always existed, then nothing need make it.

Right, but that doesn't mean nothing existed.

 

[HitchSlap]

How does stupid feel? Psalm 14:1

That's exactly how I felt after having been a Christian for 30+ years.

 

[HitchSlap]

Right, but that doesn't mean nothing existed.

Right, nor does it mean your god existed.

 

[Non sequitur]

My "ill chosen words" come straight out of the school of philosophy known as absurdism, as I would have thought obvious from the fact that I've alluded to it and mentioned it out right a number of times. The Absurd in this sense specifically refers to the human need to seek value and meaning in a universe devoid of either. Take a look at this article on Albert Camus if you'd like to learn more on the subject.

I am not saying that belief in atheism means that a particular person sees no meaning in life; I am saying that if atheism is true, then there is objectively no meaning in anything. None of this is a matter of projecting and biases--I did not get these views from the Christian community but the atheistic one.

You are creating the idea of "meaning of life". You are presupposing it exists, in any sense, then address it.

It is biased and projecting.

You can create a problem/idea/concept and then talk about it all you want, but you can't say it inherently exists and then talk about it in any objective sense.

 

[Silmarien]

If that works for you, stick to it. For others, there is something to be said about being honest with one's self and simply not being able to reconcile a belief, if they dont believe it is true.

There's really nothing dishonest about Pascal's Wager, at least when pulled out of the "hedging your bets" framework. Doubt and disbelief are two entirely different things. Being able to step back and ask, "And what if I'm wrong?" isn't a sign of dishonesty; it's a sign of sanity.

I've been both a practicing and non-practicing theist, and I was pretty Pascalian during the transition period. It wasn't a matter of trying to believe when I didn't; it's that committing yourself to theism in more than just some vague sense is a gamble. You're suddenly invested and the question of whether or not you're right is much more relevant.

You are creating the idea of "meaning of life". You are presupposing it exists, in any sense, then address it.

It is biased and projecting.

You can create a problem/idea/concept and then talk about it all you want, but you can't say it inherently exists and then talk about it in any objective sense.

When did I say that it inherently existed? I explicitly said that if atheism is true, objective meaning does not exist, so I'm not sure why you think I'm presupposing its existence at all.

I also don't know why you keep on saying I'm biased and projecting. I spent a fair amount of time in the intellectual orbit of the atheist existentialists, so my assumption until fairly recently was that objective meaning did not exist. If atheism as an intellectual movement has devolved to the point where nobody even cares about these questions anymore, that's unfortunate. Atheists used to have something interesting to say.

 

[Non sequitur]

I also don't know why you keep on saying I'm biased and projecting. I spent a fair amount of time in the intellectual orbit of the atheist existentialists, so my assumption until fairly recently was that objective meaning did not exist. If atheism as an intellectual movement has devolved to the point where nobody even cares about these questions anymore, that's unfortunate. Atheists used to have something interesting to say.

Christians, too.

Well, rarely...

Because atheism inherently entails that life is absurd, morality is meaningless, and humanity a maddened animal that, due to the whims of evolution, cannot help but grasp for a transcendence that ultimately does not exist.

It's entirely possible to think that all of that is true and not be happy about it. There's no cognitive dissonance, unless you're going to claim that any atheist who ever dabbled in Absurdism is not a real atheist.

Atheism does not have morality as meaningless, nor life is absurd as a consequence, despite whatever flowery language you surround it with. If you say it does, which is why you appear to see it as unhappy, that's your meaning and you have injected it with that unhappiness. But it comes from a biased POV.

You've yet to show how it inherently entails either of those.

 

[bhsmte]

There's really nothing dishonest about Pascal's Wager, at least when pulled out of the "hedging your bets" framework. Doubt and disbelief are two entirely different things. Being able to step back and ask, "And what if I'm wrong?" isn't a sign of dishonesty; it's a sign of sanity.

I've been both a practicing and non-practicing theist, and I was pretty Pascalian during the transition period. It wasn't a matter of trying to believe when I didn't; it's that committing yourself to theism in more than just some vague sense is a gamble. You're suddenly invested and the question of whether or not you're right is much more relevant.



When did I say that it inherently existed? I explicitly said that if atheism is true, objective meaning does not exist, so I'm not sure why you think I'm presupposing its existence at all.

I also don't know why you keep on saying I'm biased and projecting. I spent a fair amount of time in the intellectual orbit of the atheist existentialists, so my assumption until fairly recently was that objective meaning did not exist. If atheism as an intellectual movement has devolved to the point where nobody even cares about these questions anymore, that's unfortunate. Atheists used to have something interesting to say.

That's cool.

My comment was geared towards the Christians that will tell a former Christian (now atheist), you were never a real Christian, you didn't try hard enough to find God, you didn't study the bible properly, etc. etc. etc.

These types of folks, just struggle that someone else doesn't agree with their personal faith belief and they can't reconcile something in their mind as true, when they don't believe it is even close to true.

 

[Silmarien]

Christians, too.

Yes, Christian scholarship has somewhat degenerated into a polemical mess as well, but there's still some great work out there. Mostly coming out of England.

Atheism does not have morality as meaningless, nor life is absurd as a consequence, despite whatever flowery language you surround it with. If you say it does, which is why you appear to see it as unhappy, that's your meaning and you have injected it with that unhappiness. But it comes from a biased POV.

You've yet to show how it inherently entails either of those.

1) If the Absurd is defined as the human need to seek meaning in a universe that is devoid of meaning, human life is inherently absurd as long as 1) humans seek meaning, and 2) the universe is devoid of meaning. I really do not understand how anyone can fail to see a conflict between these two premises.

2) If there is no meaning, then morality is by definition meaningless. It's a matter of personal preference, cultural biases, or evolutionary psychology. Either way, poke it with a stick long enough and the whole house of cards comes falling down. If rape is only taboo because it was a poor reproductive strategy, it could conceivably have been otherwise. This is not in and of itself an argument against atheism, but it is certainly a difficulty for it as a feasible worldview.

That's cool.

My comment was geared towards the Christians that will tell a former Christian (now atheist), you were never a real Christian, you didn't try hard enough to find God, you didn't study the bible properly, etc. etc. etc.

These types of folks, just struggle that someone else doesn't agree with their personal faith belief and they can't reconcile something in their mind as true, when they don't believe it is even close to true.

Oh, absolutely. I don't condone that type of behavior at all.

Maybe I misunderstood your comment? I thought you were responding to the appeal to Pascal's Wager--if so, it's worth pointing out that Pascal's Wager was initially aimed at agnostics, not atheists. It's for fence sitters, not for people who have made up their minds.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, Christian scholarship has somewhat degenerated into a polemical mess as well, but there's still some great work out there. Mostly coming out of England.



1) If the Absurd is defined as the human need to seek meaning in a universe that is devoid of meaning, human life is inherently absurd as long as 1) humans seek meaning, and 2) the universe is devoid of meaning. I really do not understand how anyone can fail to see a conflict between these two premises.

2) If there is no meaning, then morality is by definition meaningless. It's a matter of personal preference, cultural biases, or evolutionary psychology. Either way, poke it with a stick long enough and the whole house of cards comes falling down. If rape is only taboo because it was a poor reproductive strategy, it could conceivably have been otherwise. This is not in and of itself an argument against atheism, but it is certainly a difficulty for it as a feasible worldview.



Oh, absolutely. I don't condone that type of behavior at all.

Maybe I misunderstood your comment? I thought you were responding to the appeal to Pascal's Wager--if so, it's worth pointing out that Pascal's Wager was initially aimed at agnostics, not atheists. It's for fence sitters, not for people who have made up their minds.

This is what I always say; if whatever religious belief works for someone, makes them a better person and better able to cope with life, then by all means, stick to it.

It is only when, a certain group need to negatively judge a non believer, make statements that go completely against well evidenced reality and or deny well evidenced science, is when I will question someone.

 

[Noxot]

nothing seems simple.

hmm I do wonder if any christian turned atheist thought they would know what they would feel and then when it happened they felt that way? can a few emotions really represent a full picture of what things are?

i'm too chaotic of a mess to be able to sort that kind of stuff out. I do know that I tend to be negative when I forget God.

Pascal's Wager might not matter so much because it's an outside concept and in the other world we are stripped of our outer will. so whatever is at the root of why pascal's wager was accept would be what remains and the why or motivation of a thing sometimes matters more than the utility of it. for someone like me, I don't think "faking it" is that great of an idea and so I try to not be fake.

 

[Silmarien]

It is only when, a certain group need to negatively judge a non believer, make statements that go completely against well evidenced reality and or deny well evidenced science, is when I will question someone.

Agreed, but keep in mind that all of those things apply to New Atheists as well, who will attack all theists as delusional, deny the well-evidenced reality that consciousness exists, and go after atheistic scientists like Denis Noble for challenging their particular metaphysical commitments. So this particular problem isn't exactly one sided!

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed, but keep in mind that all of those things apply to New Atheists as well, who will attack all theists as delusional, deny the well-evidenced reality that consciousness exists, and go after atheistic scientists like Denis Noble for challenging their particular metaphysical commitments. So this particular problem isn't exactly one sided!

Either side has some that will negatively judge automatically, no question.

 

[Non sequitur]

1) If the Absurd is defined as the human need to seek meaning in a universe that is devoid of meaning, human life is inherently absurd as long as 1) humans seek meaning, and 2) the universe is devoid of meaning. I really do not understand how anyone can fail to see a conflict between these two premises.

I see a connection between the two premises, because that philosophy assumes that humans seeks meaning.

Therefore, if you accept that, you're entering things already accepting humans seek meaning.

Since atheism doesn't have anything to do with humans seeking meaning, I'm not sure why you're using that as evidence to support why you'd be unhappy as an atheist.

2) If there is no meaning, then morality is by definition meaningless. It's a matter of personal preference, cultural biases, or evolutionary psychology. Either way, poke it with a stick long enough and the whole house of cards comes falling down. If rape is only taboo because it was a poor reproductive strategy, it could conceivably have been otherwise. This is not in and of itself an argument against atheism, but it is certainly a difficulty for it as a feasible worldview.

You keep leaving out the word "objective", where it necessarily has to be.

However, I can see that if you keep asserting issues/problems into things, you'll have non-happy thoughts about them.

I'm just not sure why you'd do that, if you are trying to come from a non-biased POV.

 

[JoeP222w]

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

There really is not such thing as an "ex-Christian", or someone no longer being a Christian. Because the fundamental nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in which God does the work of transforming the heart of the individual, God cause them to repent of their sin, God causes them to have faith in Jesus Christ, God sanctifies them in the truth of Jesus Christ, and God is the one who perseveres them in their faith in Jesus Christ. The Christian gets the privileges of being involved in his or her faith, but all credit for their faith and perseverance goes to God and Him alone.

If an individual believes that they are the one who causes themselves to be saved, causes themselves to repent, causes themselves to have faith in God, causes themselves to work at being a Christian, then causes themselves to leave the Christian faith, then I say that they have not rightly understood the gospel of Jesus Christ and they are a false convert.

 

[JoeP222w]

If you cannot find yourself able to imagine/role-play the scenario (not how, whether it is plausible, etc), please don't comment or vote; it's not a debate.

So, basically, you are saying that we must agree with a flawed premise in order to comment here.

That is not very rational. If you were positing a fair thought challenge, then you would not fear an opposing view point. Truth does not have to fear those who attempt to oppose it.

 

[Non sequitur]

So, basically, you are saying that we must agree with a flawed premise in order to comment here.

That is not very rational. If you were positing a fair thought challenge, then you would not fear an opposing view point. Truth does not have to fear those who attempt to oppose it.

Thought challenges fail if they turn into a "legitimacy challenge".

It's merely wondering what reactions would be.

(Although, personally, I see it as rather telling with responses like these. I'm wondering how many have not been able to go through exercises in debate, where parties switch their stance and argue for what they previously opposed, because it's "a flawed premise"?)

As previously stated, I've responded to (in quite length) a question flipping the scenario. I didn't try to dispute the arrival at the scenario, or how flawed it might be, but addressed it as-is.

If you see it as a flawed premise, then you see it that way.

If you can't, you can't.

 

[Silmarien]

I see a connection between the two premises, because that philosophy assumes that humans seeks meaning.

Therefore, if you accept that, you're entering things already accepting humans seek meaning.

Since atheism doesn't have anything to do with humans seeking meaning, I'm not sure why you're using that as evidence to support why you'd be unhappy as an atheist.

Seeking meaning appears to be a defining trait in our species. If it weren't, we wouldn't have looked at the stars and seen constellations there. We wouldn't have developed astrology and other elaborate fortune telling systems. We wouldn't have the ability to convey meaning through our languages or explore it through our myths and literature. We would have no science, because we would not care to try to make sense of the universe.

One of the few interesting objections to theism is that it reflects the very human need to see meaning and patterns where none actually exist. I disagree with the argument, since it undercuts the very concept of rationality and, if taken seriously, would render scientific endeavor void as well, but the realization that humans have always been obsessed with meaning is one of the foundations of atheism. How else would you explain away all of the world's mythologies and religions?

You keep leaving out the word "objective", where it necessarily has to be.

However, I can see that if you keep asserting issues/problems into things, you'll have non-happy thoughts about them.

I'm just not sure why you'd do that, if you are trying to come from a non-biased POV.

Well, I honestly didn't realize that becoming an atheist required checking your brain at the door. You're pretty much telling me that I'd be a happy little atheist if I simply didn't think about anything, which may well be true, but thinking is really not a bias!

Anyway, that I was talking about objective morality was implied by the fact that I mentioned various theories of subjective morality as alternatives. I find moral relativism very troubling regardless of whether or not morality is grounded in anything objective.

 

[Non sequitur]

Seeking meaning appears to be a defining trait in our species. If it weren't, we wouldn't have looked at the stars and seen constellations there. We wouldn't have developed astrology and other elaborate fortune telling systems. We wouldn't have the ability to convey meaning through our languages or explore it through our myths and literature. We would have no science, because we would not care to try to make sense of the universe.

One of the few interesting objections to theism is that it reflects the very human need to see meaning and patterns where none actually exist. I disagree with the argument, since it undercuts the very concept of rationality and, if taken seriously, would render scientific endeavor void as well, but the realization that humans have always been obsessed with meaning is one of the foundations of atheism. How else would you explain away all of the world's mythologies and religions?

You are conflating (making) sense and meaning.

Well , I honestly didn't realize that becoming an atheist required checking your brain at the door. You're pretty much telling me that I'd be a happy little atheist if I simply didn't think about anything, which may well be true, but thinking is really not a bias!

Anyway, that I was talking about objective morality was implied by the fact that I mentioned various theories of subjective morality as alternatives. I find moral relativism very troubling regardless of whether or not morality is grounded in anything objective.

It doesn't require that anymore than becoming a Christian requires checking your brain at the door. Don't know why you would insinuate that.

I wonder if you think before you post...

Well, now you are saying in order for you to be a happy little atheist you don't think about anything. I do think about things. Does that mean I'm not a happy little atheist?