Can an Atheist Answer These?

[tonyrey]

Okay… so why can’t animals then have free will that’s just more restricted? Isn’t allowing for free will to be restricted by intelligence opening the door to a scale of free will with us further along than most animals?

There is no intrinsic reason as far as I can see. But what’s the point of having free will if you’re not intelligent to exercise it?
(I’m speculating now.) For all we know the capacity for consciousness, intelligence and free will may exist in one tiny living cell and only comes into operation when there is an adequate “substratum”.
I do believe we are not the only beings on this planet who have rights and agree with Albert Schweitzer about the need to respect life.

 

[Oreoracle]

Indeed. That’s one of the key differences between a theist and an atheist. If it came to a question of life and death an atheist would be more tempted to save his own skin rather than sacrifice his life to save some one else.

That’s usually because an atheist realizes that they will probably never see the light of day again while the theist believes they’ll go to some sort of paradise. By the way: I’ve never seen a theist who believes they’ll go to Hell. I think that says something right there…People will believe anything to feel secure.

So he is nobler if he does choose to die because he expects nothing in return - unless of course the theist expects to go to hell!
Then there is no doubt about who is making the greater sacrifice.

Nonsense. Killing yourself and not expecting to continue living in an afterlife is far worse than killing yourself and believing you’ll be tortured. I’d rather be in pain than not exist.

In either case the fact that a person can overcome the will to survive demonstrates the power of the mind over the body. And that is evidence that there is more in life than meets the eye of the atheist.

Actually, it only demonstrates the power of the human brain. The theist is capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone. It shows that reason does not dominate our minds, but rather the search for more pleasure. To the theist, and to all people, reason is often only worthwhile insofar as it helps us live more comfortably. If reason leads us to believe that we’re really gone when we die, you have the potential to toss reason aside, as demonstrated by your possession of faith.

 

[shoewindow3000]

The theist is capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone. It shows that reason does not dominate our minds, but rather the search for more pleasure. To the theist, and to all people, reason is often only worthwhile insofar as it helps us live more comfortably. If reason leads us to believe that we’re really gone when we die, you have the potential to toss reason aside, as demonstrated by your possession of faith.

Talk about condescending…

I went from atheist to theist because I was able to leave my comfort zone.

And yes, even you have comfort zones. Otherwise, you would be willing to consider to an opposing idea.

 

[JDaniel]

No No No, you see it’s not a great dollar, but a great coin that is also a dollar, but this coin has infinite value and can take any shape, so it can divide into any value, even irrational ones or imaginary numbers. It’s also both heavy and light at the same time, and sent a Quarter, which is part of the great Coin along with the Nickle (which doesn’t really do much so we say it does a bunch of spiritual type things to affirm that it exists), to pay for the flipping that was going to be done, and hence now we use a system of money based on debt

Pele!

Why?

jd

 

[liquidpele]

Pele!

Why?

jd

I dunno, ask the Great Coin.

 

[tonyrey]

You are confusing phenomena with explanations of that phenomena.

Not at all. I am being extremely realistic. If we are biological machines we are biological machines which happen to have feelings and thoughts but we are not persons in the generally accepted sense of the term. We are fundamentally the same as all the other biological machines on this planet. It is only our superior intelligence that distinguishes us from other animals. We are advanced mammals and no more than that, i.e. naked apes.

Experiencing love for instance is one thing, how it biologically, chemically and physically works another. A scientific explanation of how love works does not diminish the experience itself.

It depends on what you think love is. If it is thrust upon two physical organisms surely it is not so wonderful as the voluntary union of two “soul-mates”. I don’t like the word but it conveys the importance of the spiritual aspect of love. Physicality is a poor competitor…

argumentum ad populum

Not at all. It was a response to your statement “It is you who makes a difference here, so you should ask that” - insinuating that I am an isolated case…

btw, the vast majority on this planet does not believe in your god

The vast majority believe in God or gods. They may be mistaken but there is plenty of evidence to justify their belief.

 

[tonyrey]

By the way: I’ve never seen a theist who believes they’ll go to Hell. I think that says something right there…People will believe anything to feel secure.

Then your knowledge of theists is very, very limited. I listened to a homily by a priest just three weeks ago stressing how difficult it is to get into heaven - and he is by no means exceptional. In fact Christians, particularly Calvinists, have often been condemned for making people live in fear. There’s an advert by atheists on London buses telling us God doesn’t exist so we can enjoy life without having to worry. I can assure you the last thing Christianity gives you is unconditional security. It makes you aware that you and you alone are solely and utterly responsible for what happens to you when you die. The atheist has the peace and security of living in a closed system in which everything is cut and dried - and terminated by death.

Killing yourself and not expecting to continue living in an afterlife is far worse than killing yourself and believing you’ll be tortured. I’d rather be in pain than not exist.

Then you’re quite exceptional. Which is worse? An eternity of misery or the bliss of oblivion? A friend of mine ceased to believe in God and killed herself precisely because she wanted to escape from it all…

In either case the fact that a person can overcome the will to survive demonstrates the power of the mind over the body.
Actually, it only demonstrates the power of the human brain. The theist is capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone. It shows that reason does not dominate our minds, but rather the search for more pleasure. To the theist, and to all people, reason is often only worthwhile insofar as it helps us live more comfortably. If reason leads us to believe that we’re really gone when we die, you have the potential to toss reason aside, as demonstrated by your possession of faith.

The comfort zone for the atheist is this little world… with no fear of the unknown… no one to answer to except yourself… completely free to do what you like… sheltered from the darkness of eternity… not bothered in the slightest by the prospect of the bourne from which no traveller returns… Life and death without God are for you total liberation… For the atheist this life is not just a comfort zone but - apart from the inevitable drawbacks of life - a paradise on earth!

If what you say is true - that reason does not dominate our minds, but rather the search for more pleasure. - you are an atheist because you believe there is more pleasure in living without being judged and without the possibility of going to hell!

 

[Oreoracle]

Then you’re quite exceptional.

Perhaps I am. If I am an exception, then your sweeping generalizations about atheists are bogus.

Which is worse? An eternity of misery or the bliss of oblivion?

Are you being serious right now? There is no “bliss.” There wouldn’t be anything. That’s the point. No sensation, no perception, no memories, nothing.

But no matter how miserable our environment is, most of us derive pleasure just from existing and perceiving the world and being in the company of others. No matter how hellish the environment is, there would always be optimism and pleasurable thoughts. (Unless, of course, God altered my mind. But then it wouldn’t be “me” suffering.)

The comfort zone for the atheist is this little world… with no fear of the unknown… no one to answer to except yourself… completely free to do what you like… sheltered from the darkness of eternity… not bothered in the slightest by the prospect of the bourne from which no traveller returns… Life and death without God are for you total liberation… For the atheist this life is not just a comfort zone but - apart from the inevitable drawbacks of life - a paradise on earth!

Do you take handfuls of pills before you post?

If what you say is true - that reason does not dominate our minds, but rather the search for more pleasure. - you are an atheist because you believe there is more pleasure in living without being judged and without the possibility of going to hell!

False. I feel the need to apply reason to all of my beliefs. One can’t simply pick and choose. If I’m logical in every aspect of my beliefs except for religion, I’ll surely notice the incongruity and experience doubt, which makes me suffer. That is exactly what happened. My belief in God could not endure the logical climate of my mind; it was substandard because of the lack of evidence. Sure, it lingered for a while, but once I realized that my belief in God was entirely fear-induced, it quickly vanished.

As you see, people can make a habit of being rational. Breaking from this habit will cause suffering. This is consistent with what I’ve said about the pleasure-seeking mind.

 

[tonyrey]

Which is worse? An eternity of misery or the bliss of oblivion?

Are you being serious right now? There is no “bliss.” There wouldn’t be anything.

To be more precise, if you wish to quibble:
Which is worse? An eternity of misery or the bliss of the prospect of oblivion?

Do you take handfuls of pills before you post?

Your sarcasm reveals your inability to refute my statements. I leave others to decide how reasonable you are…

False. I feel the need to apply reason to all of my beliefs. One can’t simply pick and choose. If I’m logical in every aspect of my beliefs except for religion, I’ll surely notice the incongruity and experience doubt, which makes me suffer. That is exactly what happened. My belief in God could not endure the logical climate of my mind; it was substandard because of the lack of evidence. Sure, it lingered for a while, but once I realized that my belief in God was entirely fear-induced, it quickly vanished. As you see, people can make a habit of being rational. Breaking from this habit will cause suffering. This is consistent with what I’ve said about the pleasure-seeking mind.

A beautiful example of self-delusion and hubris. You are convinced that you (and other atheists) have applied reason to all your beliefs whereas theists have not, that atheists have chosen to leave their comfort zones whereas theists have not, that the search for more pleasure has not dominated the minds of atheists but it has dominated the minds of theists. Unfortunately atheism is a far more comfortable zone than theism…

The comfort zone for the atheist is this little world… with no fear of the unknown… no one to answer to except yourself… completely free to do what you like… with the peace and security of living in a closed system in which everything is cut and dried - and terminated by death. It is certainly far less comfortable to believe that each one of us is solely and utterly responsible for what happens to us when we die… and that after we die we shall all receive exactly what we deserve…

You deduced from the fact that your belief that your belief in God was entirely fear-induced that your belief was false. Yet you pride yourself on the “logical climate” of your mind. It probably hasn’t occurred to you that your rejection of God could also be fear-induced…

 

[Oreoracle]

To be more precise, if you wish to quibble:
Which is worse? An eternity of misery or the bliss of the prospect of oblivion?

As I’ve stated, I don’t find the prospect of oblivion blissful. I find it horrifying.

Your sarcasm reveals your inability to refute my statements. I leave others to decide how reasonable you are…

By “statements” you mean “rantings,” right? I can’t refute a rant.

A beautiful example of self-delusion and hubris. You are convinced that you (and other atheists) have applied reason to all your beliefs whereas theists have not

Nope. I said nothing of other atheists and only spoke of the stereotypical theist, not all theists. Nice try.

that the search for more pleasure has not dominated the minds of atheists but it has dominated the minds of theists.

This is absurd. I explicitly stated that the human brain, not just the brains of theists, searches for pleasure by default. When you’re ready to stop referring to imaginary quotes you think I’ve made and you want to have a serious discussion, let me know.

Unfortunately atheism is a far more comfortable zone than theism…

Not from where I stand.

You deduced from the fact that your belief that your belief in God was entirely fear-induced that your belief was false.

Another false inference! No, I said that the belief had no evidence to support it. If I believed that no gods exist, I wouldn’t be an agnostic.

Yet you pride yourself on the “logical climate” of your mind. It probably hasn’t occurred to you that your rejection of God could also be fear-induced…

Yeah, because I’m sure you know my mind better than I do. I wonder if God told you how I felt. Is that how you know?

 

[tonyrey]

As I’ve stated, I don’t find the prospect of oblivion blissful. I find it horrifying.

I’m not surprised! It points to the fact that we do not exist in order to disappear utterly after a few brief years on this earth. But the point I am making is that in comparison with an eternity of misery the prospect of oblivion is blissful.

I said nothing of other atheists and only spoke of the stereotypical theist, not all theists.

Your exact words: “The theist is capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone”. The implication is that an atheist or agnostic is not (or is less) capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

This is absurd. I explicitly stated that the human brain, not just the brains of theists, searches for pleasure by default.

But you implied that the theist is less likely to resist that search for pleasure.
I don’t know why you introduced your hypothesis in the first place because it has no bearing on the truth of theism or atheism.

Unfortunately atheism is a far more comfortable zone than theism…
Not from where I stand.

Does the atheist believe he must give an account of all his faults and failings to anyone?
Is he completely free (within the bounds of possibility) to do what he likes?
Is there more peace and security living in a closed system in which everything is terminated by death than in a completely unknown form of reality which could last for all eternity?
Is it more comfortable (or not) to believe we are solely and utterly responsible for what happens to us when we die and that after we die we shall all receive exactly what we deserve?

You deduced from the fact that your belief that your belief in God was entirely fear-induced that your belief was false.
Another false inference! No, I said that the belief had no evidence to support it. If I believed that no gods exist, I wouldn’t be an agnostic.

You oscillate between atheism and agnosticism:
“My belief in God could not endure the logical climate of my mind; it was substandard because of the lack of evidence. Sure, it lingered for a while, but once I realized that **my belief in God **was entirely fear-induced, it quickly vanished.”
In other words you don’t believe God exists… or have you subsequently changed your mind and allow for the possibility that He does exist?

Your assertion that theism is fear-induced is as gratuitous as the assertion that atheism is fear-induced.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You don’t have to look far. There are many fatalistic people in the world. They don’t believe we are biological machines but they do believe the future is beyond our control: “what will be will be” or “what is written is written”. How many times have I heard the argument “There is no point in trying to fight corruption because there will always be corruption”! This has the effect of making people passive and not making any effort to change things. If you really believed you are just a biological machine you would not try to do anything. You would take the line of least resistance and make no attempt to resist temptation. In fact it is a beautiful excuse for doing anything you like. That is why it is a far more attractive proposition than the belief that we alone are responsible for our thoughts and actions. Belief in God is often disparaged as wishful thinking but the rejection of God may well be, perhaps subconsciously, motivated by the desire to be free of irksome obligations and absolute master of one’s own destiny.

That might be the effect of believing that things are beyond one’s control, but I asked what things would be like if people actually were biological machines, not if they thought they were.

 

[tonyrey]

That might be the effect of believing that things are beyond one’s control, but I asked what things would be like if people actually were biological machines, not if they thought they were.

If we actually were biological machines we would be robots. We would not be able to reason because reasoning is more than mechanical deduction. Reasoning implies originality, creativity, insight, evaluation, flexibility, imagination and purposeful activity. That is why a mechanistic explanation of reality is completely inadequate and sterile.

 

[Shredderbeam]

If we actually were biological machines we would be robots. We would not be able to reason because reasoning is more than mechanical deduction. Reasoning implies originality, creativity, insight, evaluation, flexibility, imagination and purposeful activity. That is why a mechanistic explanation of reality is completely inadequate and sterile.

Why is reasoning necessarily more than mechanical deduction?

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m not surprised! It points to the fact that we do not exist in order to disappear utterly after a few brief years on this earth.

Firstly, I don’t think we exist in order to be anything. I’m not convinced that there is any sort of underlying intention behind the happenings in the universe. When someone points to order and insists that it must have been intended, I readily point out the disorder. When someone points to goodness, I just as quickly point out the badness. I’m not even mentioning that order and goodness are subjective notions that vary from person to person!

Secondly, feeling pleased with an idea doesn’t make it true and feeling displeased with an idea doesn’t make it false. I cannot conclude that my life is eternal just because I’m uncomfortable with the possibility that it is only temporary.

But the point I am making is that in comparison with an eternity of misery the prospect of oblivion is blissful.

To you, maybe, but not to me.

Your exact words: “The theist is capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone”. The implication is that an atheist or agnostic is not (or is less) capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

I think that theists, in general, aren’t as fixated on truth and deliberation and so they’re more likely to become religious. Usually, a society that consists of gullible, ignorant people will be dominated by religion while a progressive society fueled by academia will not be religious. Open a history book and you’ll find this to be true. The intellectual wannabes and the superstitious are often the religious ones.

However, I think we all have a fairly equal capacity to suspend reason at the beginning of our lives. It’s the choices we make that cause us to prefer reason or toss it aside later on in life.

But you implied that the theist is less likely to resist that search for pleasure.

No one can resist seeking pleasure. Those who do are the martyrs who do so in order to gain recognition or be pleased by their own tenacity. Negating pleasure, to these people, is in itself pleasurable, and that is why they do it. They are pleased by thinking that they don’t need pleasure.

I don’t know why you introduced your hypothesis in the first place because it has no bearing on the truth of theism or atheism.

I think it explains why so many people are religious. It has little to do with fact, but with comfort.

Does the atheist believe he must give an account of all his faults and failings to anyone?
Is he completely free (within the bounds of possibility) to do what he likes?
Is there more peace and security living in a closed system in which everything is terminated by death than in a completely unknown form of reality which could last for all eternity?
Is it more comfortable (or not) to believe we are solely and utterly responsible for what happens to us when we die and that after we die we shall all receive exactly what we deserve?

I cannot answer for every atheist.

In other words you don’t believe God exists… or have you subsequently changed your mind and allow for the possibility that He does exist?

“I don’t believe that God exists” is not to say, “I believe God does not exist.” There is a difference. If I had to choose, though, I would say that he doesn’t exist. I have no definitive knowledge of this, however, which is why I’m an agnostic. I don’t think knowledge of God’s existence or lack thereof is possible.

Your assertion that theism is fear-induced is as gratuitous as the assertion that atheism is fear-induced.

“Gratuitious” means “more than necessary.” I think you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand the word. Why is my assertion unnecessary? If I didn’t make it, you would claim that the majority of the world is religious and that I should have to explain why that is.

 

[tonyrey]

Why is reasoning necessarily more than mechanical deduction?

I have already stated that reasoning implies originality, creativity, insight, evaluation, flexibility, imagination and purposeful activity…

 

[kk23wong]

First, freedom is granted by the God. Atheists will eventually believe my words.
This planet is conscious.

With regards to the question above,

1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?
They are the nature of living things. Our world consists of “Minds, Emotion, Desires, Live and Death”.

2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?

Sex is a desire. Reproduction is a natural process.

3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?
The continuation of civilizations (in which, I think you meant to be) is “love”. Jesus “teaches” you love.

For what reason?
Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?
A sunflower is only an organic living tissue of the Earth. Virus also.
Human (animals) is the offspring of the God.

In other words, why does every species of life on earth want to perpetuate itself?
The major reason is the unity among species themselves. It is similar to the one of races.

By the way, “Male is a Comfort if you are an orphan”.

God Bless

Teru Wong

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The theist is capable of suspending rationality in order to stay in his comfort zone. It shows that reason does not dominate our minds, but rather the search for more pleasure. To the theist, and to all people, reason is often only worthwhile insofar as it helps us live more comfortably. If reason leads us to believe that we’re really gone when we die, you have the potential to toss reason aside, as demonstrated by your possession of faith.

Spot on. The train of though that has given us everything in modern life, that has given us real knowledge, simply does not allow theism. The train if though that arrives at theism has no rational basis, for it is believing that for which there is zero evidence.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If we are biological machines we are biological machines which happen to have feelings and thoughts but we are not persons in the generally accepted sense of the term.

What is this generally accepted sense you speak of? As far as i am aware a person is a human.

We are fundamentally the same as all the other biological machines on this planet. It is only our superior intelligence that distinguishes us from other animals. We are advanced mammals and no more than that, i.e. naked apes.

We are fundamentally the same as all the other biological machines on this planet.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Spot on. The train of though that has given us everything in modern life, that has given us real knowledge, simply does not allow theism. The train if though that arrives at theism has no rational basis, for it is believing that for which there is zero evidence.

Out of curiosity, what do you take to be “real knowledge”?