Athiests - Why is rejection better than acceptance? Why is No Hope Better than Hope?

[JRKH]

Shut your mouth, Christine. You’re spewing hot wind like some spoiled little 12 year old princess who’s having a knee-jerk reaction and throwing a fit.

Not every atheist is a puffed up self-god know it all. Some of us lay in bed wondering why we weren’t aborted because there is no purpose or point to being here in the first place. Some of us cry out in our hearts and hear absolutely nothing. There is no Holy Spirit in our heart. We don’t believe in God because it doesn’t ring true. There are people that simply aren’t wired to be that way.

If you honestly think that most people enjoy the though of erasing upon death and never seeing their dead mother or father or children again, then you aren’t living on the same planet as the rest of us.

Atheists and agnostics simply do what they can with what they’re given.

I’m sorry. I’m not sure if God exists, or WHICH God exists, or HOW MANY gods exist, or what WAYS there are to get to god, or even if there’s an afterlife regardless of whether God exists or not.

I cannot stand you theists who think that every atheist and agnostic wake up every morning, have a good stretch, and tweak their evil mustache as they’re going to be all about doing naughty things all day because they aren’t afraid of God.

I cry out in my heart all the time. I wish something could make me believe. Christianity is just as believable as Islam, which is just as believable as other belief systems. Christianity is also just as UN-believable as Islam, which is just as UN-believable as other belief systems.

I’m envious of people who have that comfort in their lives. No matter what happens, their life has purpose because God wove them into His Grand Design.

We have no grand design. We’re computers made of meat that for some reason have feelings and consciousness that do us more harm than good. That’s how some of us view ourselves.

When your children or grandchildren go through their atheistic phase during their teenage and early 20 years, I hope you’re more receptive to them than you are hiding behind an internet persona.

I hope you tell them that you love them, not that they’re puffed up with false hubris, and I certainly hope you can manage to enjoy your life with them, atheistic or not.

Just as an aside to the main conversation, Nowings, I will be praying for you that you find some peace in your heart. Whether you come to fully believe in a specific creed or not.

I fully agree with you that Christine’s comments were being “less than helpful”. Such posts to me are just spitballing and really do not advance any kind of understanding. In fact, as we see from your post, they are positively counter-productive.

Christine, if you are still looking in, I hope you will take this critisism in the charitable spirit in which it is intended.
The point of this thread was to learn from atheists why they feel the need to “Preach” their brand of “faith” (even if the choose not to call it faith). What they felt it offered that we should know about. Then we could discuss the issues rather than just tossing “soundbites” back and forth.

Nowings, I say again that I will pray that you someday find peace.

Peace
James

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m no philosopher but I think that your whole dissertaion above is what is called a “Strawman argument”. Maybe I’m wrong, but what you have done is construct an erronious picture of the life of a Christian and then proceeded to discredit such a “Christian”.

No, I wasn’t attempting to give a “picture of the life of a Christian.” I was articulating mistakes in perception that can possibly arise from having a false view of reality.

I’m sure that there are plenty of Christians who don’t make those mistakes, just as I’m sure that there are plenty of atheists who make other kinds of delusional mistakes.

We’re talking about ideas here, not specific individuals. In general, I think that ignoring reality is bad for people in the long run – I was asked to sketch out my reasons for thinking so, and I did with examples of potential problems that could arise.

Think of it like this. When you drive, if you take your eyes off the road for a split second, it probably won’t cause a problem. But the more frequently and the longer you take your eyes off the road, the greater the likelihood that there will be a problem.

That’s how it is with taking your eyes off of reality.

 

[AnAtheist]

With God, you never feel alone.

I very much doubt that. Humans are social beings. Without other people you will feel alone. The thought of your god may give you some comfort, but I seriously doubt that will fully compensate for human companionship.

 

[AnAtheist]

The point of this thread was to learn from atheists why they feel the need to “Preach” their brand of “faith” (even if the choose not to call it faith).

Doesn’t anybody feel that? People like to have company thinking like they think. Republicans preach to Democrats. HipHop fans preach to Metal fans. And vice versa. Everyone wants to be right, and a society only works when its members share a common thought or belief. For quite some in ancient Europe that was the Roman Empire combined with a pagan pantheon, then it was the Holy Roman Empire and Christianity, then it was Nationalism and revolutionary ideas, now it’s Democracy and human rights. And in some parts of the world it is Islam e.g.
I, coming from a country that was burned to the grounds in a largely religous war, very much embrace the idea of separating politics from religion. The state, the government should have no dealings with the religious life of anybody. That protects everybody from persecution because they just believe in the wrong god or none for all that matters. Of all people Christians remembering their early beginnings should know that. They didn’t want to participate in the religious dealings of Old Rome, therefore they were persecuted. But instead of learning from those experience, when Christians came to power they made things even worse.
So, if we atheists can shake the belief that the “right” faith entitles one to rule over others by the rules of that very faith, the world will become a better place. But when I look around, esp. thinking of Islam, I am not very optimistic.

 

[stenlis]

You may well be correct, however there are some who are posting on this website who clearly feel that we poor misguided Christians should give up our “God delusion” and accept “Reality” (That is we should accept their version of reality).
It is to these people that I was primarily addressing the thread.
It’s one thing to, as an individual, reject God and say I have no faith etc…
It’s another thing entirely to “preach” said belief to others with the goal of changing their minds.
This speaks of having a faith. It is a faith of “Reason” and “Reality” and “It’s Got to be Proved to me”. A belief and a Faith so strong that one feels the necessity to come onto a Catholic website and try to “convert” us to this belief.

Perhaps Atheists aren’t seeing this, but it is there none the less.

Atheism is just about as homogenous as theism. My impact on and responsibility for actions of some atheists is about as big as yours is on the behavior of sikhs or shintoists.

The ideas I consider worth spreading are that of rationalism, humanism and scientific approach. Atheism is merely incidental to these.

Yes I know this to be true. It is unfortunate that some people get so hung up on the details and the “Guilt” and completely miss the Joy of the Christian Life. Especially when part of that IS that you are the archetect of your own life. That paying back that “six thousand year old debt” is just a sprinkle of water away and it’s done with.

As I said, whatever works for you is fine. Personally I find some basic mechanics of the christian doctrine deeply unjust (immoral) and irreconciable with both my rational and emotional picture of the world.

To me this is just a very sad statement. Of course if living for eternity meant living in this world, I could see your point, but gladly we look forward to an different existance infinitely more fulfilling than this one.
So - I don’t want to miss out on that.

I think the fact that all things will pass makes the things more beautiful. When I perish I will not be there to mourn my non-existence. That is not sad, it’s peaceful.

 

[AnAtheist]

I think the fact that all things will pass makes the things more beautiful. When I perish I will not be there to mourn my non-existence. That is not sad, it’s peaceful.

“Death holds no terrors. While I am, it is not. When it is, I am no more.”
(Epicuros)

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yes well stated Stenlis. While atheists are commonly treated as a monolithic group - that’s hardly the case. I hear opinions ranging from a belief in absolutely nothing to people who say while there may be no god, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no purpose in [call it] creation or the universe (or whatever). Some view religion as harmful, while other atheists see some good in religiosity.

For me I would simply like people to share a greater respect for rational thought; and I do believe that religious faith requires a suspension of logic. I’ve seen every bizarre rational for religion presented as if it were fact (and I must be the crazy one for not instantly seeing how logical Christianity is). The worse I suppose is evangelical (or otherwise conservative) protestants. I suppose they’re not used to people calling their beliefs irrational and bizarre (since they’re so accustomed to calling everyone elses beliefs bizarre and irrational). Therefore their reaction against atheism (and other forms of rational objection to Christianity) tends to be the harshest. I would say (in my experience) Catholics rank second in this regard.

I’ve seen everything from Bayesian probability theory to quantum mechanics misapplied (and misunderstood) to prop up religion, when there simply is no reasonable basis for religion. This is where theists annoy me the most. There seems to be no limit to how low they’ll go to defend their faith. No matter how absurd the logic, how much they must twist and misapply (and even pervert) science … whatever it takes (to borrow from Clinton) to keep hope alive.

The Catholic Church, since Galileo (after realizing its own folly and the threat science presents to theism) has kept its own cadre of scientists on retainer as it were. The church only makes statements pertaining to science after careful deliberation (unlike fundamental protestants who seem far more willing to make constant fools of themselves). I even heard that the church held a forum on extraterrestrial life recently (I suppose they’re creating plans to deal with that contingency as well). Nevertheless, the faithful remain seduced?

 

[reggieM]

“Death holds no terrors. While I am, it is not. When it is, I am no more.”
(Epicuros)

That’s a very good example of the selfishness of atheism. The only concern is for oneself and one’s pleasures. Thus, Epicurous the Hedonist. Justice, charity for others, spiritual progress to completion and fulfillment – all wiped away in an inhuman embrace of nothingness.

 

[fcpilot]

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ."C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity

One just has to love C.S. Lewis.

 

[yankee_doodle]

That’s a very good example of the selfishness of atheism. The only concern is for oneself and one’s pleasures. Thus, Epicurous the Hedonist. Justice, charity for others, spiritual progress to completion and fulfillment – all wiped away in an inhuman embrace of nothingness.

Frankly even if your charge were true (and of course it’s not) it wouldn’t bolster the veracity of your religion one bit. You call the “embrace of nothingness” inhuman, but doesn’t that depend on how you define human?

If by human you mean a willingness to entertain myth as reality in order to provide an imaginary diversion to the fact of our mortality, then indeed we are inhuman. In essence what you call inhuman is in fact a denial of one aspect of our humanity, our mortality. By imagining man possesses an immortal soul that will live infinitely we’re made out to be more than what we truly are.

Religion uses imaginary claims to elevate man; and then accuses rational thinkers of reducing humanity when we discuss the real human condition? I think that’s simply stupid!

 

[yankee_doodle]

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ."C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity

One just has to love C.S. Lewis.

yet another over-simplistic (might I say childish) statement by C.S. Lewis.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I think the fact that all things will pass makes the things more beautiful. When I perish I will not be there to mourn my non-existence. That is not sad, it’s peaceful.

I don’t think we need to imagine the “ultimate end” proposed by atheists is more or less attractive than the heavenly eternity proposed by religious myths. I think the myth makers probably deserve more credit than that (although I’m certainly willing to entertain arguments explaining why an end to existence should be viewed as more attractive than the eternal bliss proposed by religious myth). The ultimate end proposed by most myths is IMHO rarely less attractive (to the common person anyway) than reality (with the exception of perhaps Norse mythology).

 

[fcpilot]

Religion uses imaginary claims to elevate man; and then accuses rational thinkers of reducing humanity when we discuss the real human condition? I think that’s simply stupid!

Rather an impertinent statement, don’t you believe? You state “imaginary claims”? You were there? You apparently regard yourself as a rational thinker? You would appear to be focused on fighting a battle that serves no purpose. What are you to gain? What motivates you and to what end? You win. Now tell me what?

 

[reggieM]

Frankly even if your charge were true (and of course it’s not) …

Thanks for your reply. It might be best to explain why my comment is not true rather than chance the subject to matters that I didn’t propose – for example:

… it wouldn’t bolster the veracity of your religion one bit.

It wouldn’t mean that my favorite sports team was the best in the NFL either. But it would mean that “my charge” was true and that I pointed out a characteristic of atheism.

You call the “embrace of nothingness” inhuman, but doesn’t that depend on how you define human?

It does depend on the definition of terms - true.
First, the fact that the term “inhuman” exists is a problem for the atheistic-materialist view. That is merely one more aspect of human culture that would be eliminated in the atheist-mindset (unless said atheists want to embrace contradictory notions, which is a very common thing so see).

My critique is only such also if a person thinks that an “embrace of nothingess” is a problem. Many atheists would not think that – but apparently you do.

By imagining man possesses an immortal soul that will live infinitely we’re made out to be more than what we truly are.

By embracing nothingness as an origin and destination, for reasons I gave, the atheist view makes human beings less than they truly are. The fact that atheists argue against this and do not simply accept the direct implications of their philosophical position is merely a lot more evidence that humans (even atheistic ones) are more than the nothingness ascribed to them by atheism itself.

Religion uses imaginary claims to elevate man; and then accuses rational thinkers of reducing humanity when we discuss the real human condition? I think that’s simply stupid!

Again, in an atheistic worldview that ends with meaninglessness and nothingness, there is nothing more stupid than thinking there is a purpose in discussing it.

 

[gamewell45]

Why would you want to convince other people to not believe in anything?

I think that any group or religion, for whatever reason, right or wrong has their own agenda and will do whatever it deems proper to make it known to the general public.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Rather an impertinent statement, don’t you believe? You state “imaginary claims”? You were there? You apparently regard yourself as a rational thinker? You would appear to be focused on fighting a battle that serves no purpose. What are you to gain? What motivates you and to what end? You win. Now tell me what?

I have come to believe that operating from an irrational premise produces an irrational result. I of course do realize American society will not drop religiosity anytime soon (and there’s even good arguments in support of the notion that religiosity has served us well in a certain regard, notwithstanding it’s not real).

Moreover, I don’t think I’m “fighting a battle” in any respect. The only thing atheists can do is ensure our voice is heard and continue to offer rational commentary. Frankly I’m becoming less convinced that there’s any utility in debating with theists on this issue (since no matter how irrational the arguments used by Christian and other theistic apologists are, theists will continue to swallow them up). In fact heated debate has a tendency to further entrench us in our positions, rather than offer any hope of uniformity in opinion (and actually I don’t believe uniformity of opinion is a productive goal anyway).

Without a bit of healthy skepticism the natural slippery slope of religious faith is zealous rage. It seems, however, arguable that at one time in our history religious faith may have provided a counterbalance to urges of nationalism and socialism (and other forms of governance that strive to drive pluralism out of our societies). The irony of course is without rationalism religion often winds up producing the same result (intolerance of pluralism, homogeneous beliefs, chilling free expression, and so on). Even the atheism of today is uncomfortably uniform in its world view.

I hope for the day when a rational approach to religion, economic theory, and political philosophy will again become wedded to each other (as it did during the enlightenment).

 

[yankee_doodle]

Thanks for your reply. It might be best to explain why my comment is not true rather than chance the subject to matters that I didn’t propose – for example:

I’ve discussed my objections to theism exhaustively on this forum, and don’t think it rude, but I’d rather not debate the issue (I simply have neither the time or inclination at this point).

It does depend on the definition of terms - true.
First, the fact that the term “inhuman” exists is a problem for the atheistic-materialist view. That is merely one more aspect of human culture that would be eliminated in the atheist-mindset (unless said atheists want to embrace contradictory notions, which is a very common thing so see).

If it were a problem for the “atheistic-materialist view” (as you call it) I would think atheists would acknowledge the problem (and it would be described within the atheist community as a problematic element of non-belief in religiosity). The fact that it isn’t tells me it’s only a problem among theists (and reflects your prejudices towards non-theists).

My critique is only such also if a person thinks that an “embrace of nothingess” is a problem. Many atheists would not think that – but apparently you do.

It’s no more a problem then saying I don’t have a soul that will float away to a celestial paradise and inherit a host of young attractive virgins when I die (btw I think the fascination with “virgin females” comes from primitive male insecurities concerning sexuality).

By embracing nothingness as an origin and destination, for reasons I gave, the atheist view makes human beings less than they truly are. The fact that atheists argue against this and do not simply accept the direct implications of their philosophical position is merely a lot more evidence that humans (even atheistic ones) are more than the nothingness ascribed to them by atheism itself.

with all due respect … huh? Please elaborate.

Again, in an atheistic worldview that ends with meaninglessness and nothingness, there is nothing more stupid than thinking there is a purpose in discussing it.

Hmmm, nahhh (I decline the invitation)

 

[yankee_doodle]

I think that any group or religion, for whatever reason, right or wrong has their own agenda and will do whatever it deems proper to make it known to the general public.

It’s certainly much harder to say atheists or agnostics or others who hold minority views towards religion (who have no churches or global organizational structures like the Catholic or Anglican Churches) have a uniform “agenda”?

It frankly almost strikes me as irrational paranoia (when the statistics speak for themselves).

 

[reggieM]

with all due respect … huh? Please elaborate.

We can take a different look. Religion elevates man by pointing to something (and someone) greater. So, we find that there is someone greater than CAF’s yankee_doodle, for example – not that you are not great yourself, but there is someone greater than you.

When we look to that and emulate that person – we ourselves are elevated.

 

[yankee_doodle]

We can take a different look. Religion elevates man by pointing to something (and someone) greater. So, we find that there is someone greater than CAF’s yankee_doodle, for example – not that you are not great yourself, but there is someone greater than you.

When we look to that and emulate that person – we ourselves are elevated.

OK fair enough, and I suppose in theory this could be true (although I would argue it hasn’t been true in application). However, it still bears no relevance to the veracity of religious claims. I think I could invent a myth of an even better god than the Judeo-Christian version. Could I then say to someone who objects to my assertion that this god exists they’re trying to reduce humanity and make us into mere intelligent mammals (rather than potentially immortal quasi-angelic super-beings)? Doesn’t that sound logically ridiculous?

The entire premise of your argument sidesteps the real relevant question (IMHO it’s a red herring). Does this god exist?

Hasn’t virtually ever society in history invented their own collection of myths to help explain phenomena they didn’t understand? We have evidence of primitive religion dating back tens of thousands of years. The creation story in Genesis probably started out as a Sumerian myth (that grew legs and was adopted throughout the middle east in one form or the other). The first mention of monotheism we find in history originated with the Egyptians (not the Jews). We know the Exodus never happened (reasonably speaking).

Evolutionary science tells us the Christian Jesus is a new version of a man (Adam) who almost certainly never existed. The evidence continues to pile up, yet the religious seem oblivious; and that’s fine to a point. Where I take issue is when religion tries to promote absurd theories and dress them in the cloak of science. It shows me that religion doesn’t mind thwarting human progress and the development of scientific knowledge to ensure its survival. I suppose I should be thankful I don’t live in an Islamic society (where religion uses the force of law and compulsion through threats of violence and murder to enforce its dark, horrific mind control over society).

For these reasons I think it’s irrational to say atheism reduces humanity. For one thing we don’t insult its intelligence thank you very much . Frankly, I see nothing elevating about the prospect of intelligent adults actually believing in childish myths

All that being said it’s certainly reasonable to argue religion has some positive influence on our society. But rather than viewing religion as an elevating force, we should see it for what it is. It’s a gap filler until we find rational ways to deal with reality.