To atheist: what will you feel AFTER death

[wolpertinger]

AnAtheist:

I admit, that the arguments against such blurry god image, that deists and agnostics have, are rather weak.

Deists are true minimalist theists. There is really no decisive argument to support their belief, but since their god is devoid of attributes, there is not much to argue about.

I’m not sure what you mean with ‘blurry god image of agnostics’, unless you mean that there are as simple and strong arguments in favor of agnosticism that are largely independent of the definition of exactly what god is.

But when it comes down to a specific god image, i.e. when people claim to know about certain attributes of their God, then one can easily find a bazillion of arguments against that specific image.

And a bazillion apologetic arguments in return. At the end of the day, people will believe or disbelieve what they will.

 

[UnknownCloud]

I can live with the term ideology, though it has a negative connotation to me. But atheism is clearly not a religion. There are no atheistic rituals, cults, prayers.

It is a religion because it is rooted in faith and has a clear dogma. Of course there are no ‘appearances’ of historic religion because atheism is the dialectic of ‘organized religion’. Hitler and Stalin both brutally rejected all forms of religion in favor of their own state religion. When atheists come into power, people are treated like germs because to an atheist, that is all people are - a collection of cells and germs. I’d say that’s a radical, very ‘religious’, world-view.
Not to mention, atheists are also ingenious propagandists.

There are no First Principles, no facts and no evidence FOR there being a God as well. Now, I can decide between a blurry god image that fills the gaps of my knowledge and plays the first cause/principle/authority part in my world view and become a deist or agnostic. Or I can decide, there is no such thing. That has no influence on the everyday life, has’t it?

Are you interested in truth or not? You seem easily satisfied by the scientific status quo. And you are certainly wrong about First Principles and facts - you either haven’t explored them or you deny thier relavence. To think that people believe in God just because He satisfies the ‘unknown’ is just plain silly. People often believe in God because of what is known. For instance, just because astonomy has shown that the earth goes round the sun, and that the earth and sun are part of a solar system, and the solar system is within a giant galaxy called the Milky Way, and that the Milky Way is in a cluster of galaxies called the Virgo Super Culster, and the Virgo Super Cluster is only a cluster among millions more, doesn’t ‘push’ God out of the picture to just beyong known astonomy. The more that there is known, the more reasons there is to know God. Theology is evident of this phenomenon - it develops alongside science and philosophy and only becomes more and more clear and beautiful. Atheists are infatuated with information and really nothing else. Just because there’s enough information to produce reletively credible doubt against traditional beliefs, all of the sudden it all falls down. That is not the case. In my experience, atheists tell one-sided history, and they tell one-sided science. Just about every claim that atheists made against religion when it began to dawn in Europe are now scientifically erroneous - like a steady-state universe with eternal matter (no need of a creator if the universe needn’t one at all) and of course the not-too-famous atheist approach to psychology. More people ended up sicker and suicidal if not institutionalized than any other time in the hands of Freudian protiges…people were not treated, they were experimented on and drugged up. Atheism is a complete historical failure - that is why it secures its power in universities now, becuase every other attempt in human dealings has utterly failed, and its educational involvement will soon as well.

I admit, that the arguments against such blurry god image, that deists and agnostics have, are rather weak. But when it comes down to a specific god image, i.e. when people claim to know about certain attributes of their God, then one can easily find a bazillion of arguments against that specific image.

Atheism is the religion of indifference. As even I have shown, it is possible to doubt even atheism with credible arguments. You don’t get anywhere by doubting everything. However, you do go somewhere when you investigate on your own. You don’t come across to me as someone who actually contemplates the mysteries of the universe and how man fits in it. You come across as someone easily satified with just being ‘objective’ about everything. Well, I have news for ya, if there is no purpose to life then anything is permissable. Therefore, to what advantage is it to be an atheist over anything else? There wouldn’t be - not at all. So why be an athiest? Obviously, its not about truth - its about the power to choose, especially the power to doubt. Other than that, atheism serves no purpose at all because its only proper end is death - as even the most powerful of atheists have demonstrated.

That has no influence on the everyday life, has’t it?

Whoa…that sounds a bit practical. You mean, if you found that it did would you change your mind? Now you’re learning.

 

[wolpertinger]

UnknownCloud:

It is a religion because it is rooted in faith and has a clear dogma. Of course there are no ‘appearances’ of historic religion because atheism is the dialectic of ‘organized religion’. Hitler and Stalin both brutally rejected all forms of religion in favor of their own state religion. When atheists come into power, people are treated like germs because to an atheist, that is all people are - a collection of cells and germs. I’d say that’s a radical, very ‘religious’, world-view.
Not to mention, atheists are also ingenious propagandists.

I think what you are saying is “theists good, atheists bad”?

You are wrong concerning atheism being rooted in faith and having a clear dogma, but there’s no point in explaining this to you because this is a dogmatically held belief of yours.

The rest of your paragraph is courting the boundaries of hate speech and doesn’t deserve a reply.

Are you interested in truth or not?

Oddly enough, you should ask yourself the same question. Given the way you purport yourself, I don’t get the impression that you are so much interested in establishing what the truth is, as opposed to hopping on your soapbox to blame atheism for everything you consider wrong with this world.

In my experience, atheists tell one-sided history, and they tell one-sided science. Just about every claim that atheists made against religion when it began to dawn in Europe are now scientifically erroneous

To put it bluntly, this is bigotted nonsense.

So why be an athiest? Obviously, its not about truth - its about the power to choose, especially the power to doubt.

Free will, remember? That thing that your alleged god gave us? That atheists exercise?

 

[AnAtheist]

UnknownCloud:

It is a religion because it is rooted in faith and has a clear dogma.

:yawn:

Hitler and Stalin both brutally rejected all forms of religion in favor of their own state religion.

Hitler was not an atheist and neither did he supress religion as Stalin did. I agree that socialism and fascism both show all the signs of a religion (blind faith in dogma, organised worship of their leaders, …), but Hitler believed in supernatural powers. Atheists by defintion do not.

Are you interested in truth or not? You seem easily satisfied by the scientific status quo. And you are certainly wrong about First Principles and facts - you either haven’t explored them or you deny thier relavence.

Sure I am, and no I am not satisfied with the status quo. Therefore I have studied physics and cosmology for years, so I do know the facts. Fact is, that the earth is not shielded by a canopy of water. Facts is that it does not have pillars, that it does not rest on a giant tortoise, that it is not flat, that the sun does not ride the bellows of the earth by night in a chariot. And whatever else religions have come up with…

To think that people believe in God just because He satisfies the ‘unknown’ is just plain silly.

Quite right. I was just arguing against the prima causa argument. People believe in gods for various reasons - fear of death, because their parent told them to, …

Atheism is a complete historical failure - that is why it secures its power in universities now, becuase every other attempt in human dealings has utterly failed, and its educational involvement will soon as well.

Well, I have news for ya, if there is no purpose to life then anything is permissable.

Is it? So what “purpose” has an afterlife?

Therefore, to what advantage is it to be an atheist over anything else? There wouldn’t be - not at all. So why be an athiest? Obviously, its not about truth - its about the power to choose, especially the power to doubt. Other than that, atheism serves no purpose at all because its only proper end is death - as even the most powerful of atheists have demonstrated.

Of course atheism serves no purpose. I am not an atheist, because it is so funny to be one or it serves me so well. I came - through carefull consideration and observation, no matter how strongly you deny that - to the conclusion, that a god does not exists. Period. People, who do that, are called atheists. It has nothing to do with desire, purpose, defiance - and it all about truth. You interpret the facts differently, therefore you make different conclusions, thus believing in a different truth.

 

[AnAtheist]

wolpertinger:

Deists are true minimalist theists. There is really no decisive argument to support their belief, but since their god is devoid of attributes, there is not much to argue about.

I’m not sure what you mean with ‘blurry god image of agnostics’, unless you mean that there are as simple and strong arguments in favor of agnosticism that are largely independent of the definition of exactly what god is.

Agnostics do not make assumptions on their god’s attributes, because for them they are not perceivable. Deists state, their god has no attributes. In both cases there no attributes exposed to the believer. Therefore is difference between both positions is rather slim. Both have an unspecified (what called blurry) image of their god, one is intrinsic the other comes from epistemology.

 

[wolpertinger]

AnAtheist:

Agnostics do not make assumptions on their god’s attributes, because for them they are not perceivable. Deists state, their god has no attributes. In both cases there no attributes exposed to the believer. Therefore is difference between both positions is rather slim.

I wouldn’t call the difference between Deists and agnostics slim, but okay. I see what you mean…

 

[UnknownCloud]

By: wolpertinger

I think what you are saying is “theists good, atheists bad”?

You are wrong concerning atheism being rooted in faith and having a clear dogma, but there’s no point in explaining this to you because this is a dogmatically held belief of yours.

The rest of your paragraph is courting the boundaries of hate speech and doesn’t deserve a reply.

No that is not what I said. I am not wrong about atheism until you can prove me wrong. But that undercuts your position to do so. And there is no such thing as a ‘theist dogma’ of atheism - you don’t know what you’re talking about. The rest of my reply are historic facts and whether or not its ‘hate’ shouldn’t even be a concern of yours. My point is that atheists are dogmatic because they reject ‘dogmatism’ dogmatically and reject God dogmatically - and the historical record plainly proves this. Therefore, what is wrong is that atheists often describe their position to be ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ when such notions are obviously specious considering what atheisms actually believe and do.

Oddly enough, you should ask yourself the same question. Given the way you purport yourself, I don’t get the impression that you are so much interested in establishing what the truth is, as opposed to hopping on your soapbox to blame atheism for everything you consider wrong with this world.

Sin is what is wrong with the world and you are indirectly agreeing with me. Atheists believe the same thing, but they don’t call it sin, they call it ‘irrational’ - but it’s the same thing. Atheists reject religion because it is not rational - that is, they believe that religion is a human defect. According to their world view, this cannot be, since we can only be what ‘evolution’ dictates us to be - it is a self-defeating view to maintain.
If we have no real choice in the matter, then who cares? Atheism thus becomes no better or worse than other religions, thus, all opinions are equal because they all come from an uncontrollable source (like genes or chemicals or ‘evolution’).

To put it bluntly, this is bigotted nonsense.

A non-sequitur. does ‘in my experience…’ help at all with this? I gave real historic examples of atheists using error to supposedly defeat error. If atheists were wrong 100 years ago and were still able to maintain their ‘atheism’ as ‘rational’ then where does that leave them now? Same position. They are dogmatically indifferent, plain and simple. All I have to do is reject the existence of supernatural things and I become an atheist - facts, thruths, evidence and/or proof are not required. It’s just religion of negation.

Free will, remember? That thing that your alleged god gave us? That atheists exercise?

Exactly. Atheists deny the one thing that allows them to deny it. That is paradoxical, thus, irrational.

 

[UnknownCloud]

Hitler was not an atheist and neither did he supress religion as Stalin did. I agree that socialism and fascism both show all the signs of a religion (blind faith in dogma, organised worship of their leaders, …), but Hitler believed in supernatural powers. Atheists by defintion do not.

Are you making a claim here? * Atheists by definition do not?* I think you’re confused. Perhaps Hitler was a ‘true’ atheist, in that, he accepted detectable forces beyond science and thus logically concluded their existence. You see, you really have no idea what atheism is really supposed to maintain because it always changes, yet you feel you know enough to say ‘this is atheism, that is not…’. It seems to me you blindly believe what atheism is/is not!

Sure I am, and no I am not satisfied with the status quo. Therefore I have studied physics and cosmology for years, so I do know the facts. Fact is, that the earth is not shielded by a canopy of water. Facts is that it does not have pillars, that it does not rest on a giant tortoise, that it is not flat, that the sun does not ride the bellows of the earth by night in a chariot. And whatever else religions have come up with…

So…

You make two terrible errors here.

You place ALL religion on an equal plane - that is incorrect. That is a dogmatic interpretation of religion, a generalization that has no root premise. Faith does not always lead to error, yet here you seem to imply that. Without human faith in a rational universe, sceince would never have progressed. Science has had its share of fables as well, and many persist to this day. The FACT is, that you will die believing errors - so where does that leave your ‘atheism’? Just as meaningless as believing a fable.

You assume all myth is literal - that is incorrect. My study of world religion plainly shows that religions use myth to describe spiritual realities and qualities just like science uses the abstract to describe the mechanics of nature. One could easily point out that, for instance, there is not such thing as a straight line. But Mathematics depends on such abstractions in order to become clear to students. Myth is used the same way. Since the spiritual is not sensual, it must be explored via metaphore - via abstraction.

Is it? So what “purpose” has an afterlife?

How do you deny what you don’t know?

Of course atheism serves no purpose. I am not an atheist, because it is so funny to be one or it serves me so well. I came - through carefull consideration and observation, no matter how strongly you deny that - to the conclusion, that a god does not exists. Period. People, who do that, are called atheists. It has nothing to do with desire, purpose, defiance - and it all about truth. You interpret the facts differently, therefore you make different conclusions, thus believing in a different truth.

This doesn’t make any sense. Now you’re assuming that theist believe in God because they ‘want’ to. That isn’t the case either. For many of us, it is plain ordinary fact. ‘God’ and ‘existence’ are inseperable and prove each other automatically. This can be explored rationally and I’d have to say that only Catholic Theology has enough intellectual merit to qualify with adequacy.
Finally, you’ve admitted all you need to actually. Interpretation of facts does in fact have a lot to do with our differences. So the question is, is this because of an uncontrollable evolutionary chemical process or do we have a choice in the matter?

 

[cyprian]

To Led and AnAtheist, why don’t you* want* to believe in God? I’m not being smart, just curious. I fell away from Catholicism and returned after 25 years. I’m 42, have 2 kids and own my own business(some backround). I never read the Bible or went to Mass (brought up Catholic, cathecised poorly in Cath schools blah blah blah), but Iwas literally zapped(I’ll spare the details), with the overriding feeling being that of coming to discern love. Do you too love, and where do you feel it comes from? Isn’t it harder, more work that is, not to love or believe in God?

 

[AnAtheist]

UnknownCloud:

Are you making a claim here? Atheists by definition do not? I think you’re confused. … You see, you really have no idea what atheism is really supposed to maintain because it always changes, yet you feel you know enough to say ‘this is atheism, that is not…’. It seems to me you blindly believe what atheism is/is not!

Hello! There is a clear definition, what the term atheism means. If someone believes in supernatural forces, he is not an atheist, no matter how you redefine that term. If someone believes in Osiris, you don’t call him Catholic, do you?

“a-” == Greek prefix == non-/not-
“theos” == Greek “god”
“-ism” == suffix that denotes a systematic approach to an issue

You place ALL religion on an equal plane - that is incorrect. That is a dogmatic interpretation of religion, a generalization that has no root premise.

All religions have one common basis -the belief in supernatural forces. On that basis I can treat them as equal.

This doesn’t make any sense. Now you’re assuming that theist believe in God because they ‘want’ to. That isn’t the case either. For many of us, it is plain ordinary fact.

Well, that’s ok.

 

[AnAtheist]

UnknownCloud:

And there is no such thing as a ‘theist dogma’ of atheism - you don’t know what you’re talking about.

A theist dogma perhaps not. But a christian one for sure: Romans 1:19 - 22, a clear dogmatic misconception about atheists.

 

[AnAtheist]

cyprian:

To Led and AnAtheist, why don’t you* want* to believe in God?

Ask yourself, why you do not want to believe in Odin. Your answer is probably my answer.
BTW, you cannot [insert arbitrary transitive verb here] something, that does not exist.

I never read the Bible

Well, I did. It was one of the stepstones towards atheism for me.

Do you too love, and where do you feel it comes from?

Sure I do, love is a human trait, it has evolved like anything else.

Isn’t it harder, more work that is, not to love or believe in God?

It is surely more work to figure out the answers to many question through ration and observation than to blindly follow a dogma. Regarding how much work it is not to love - I have no idea. You should ask someone who does not do that.

 

[wolpertinger]

UnknownCloud:

Are you making a claim here? Atheists by definition do not? I think you’re confused. … You see, you really have no idea what atheism is really supposed to maintain

And there you have it, “supposed to maintain”.

A member of a group that self-identifies with belief system X is likely to a different and more nuanced definition of X than an outsider would, particular if that outsider is a member of an incompatible belief system Y.

In just about every thread that refers to atheism, the theists here insist on using a definition of atheism that applies to a (small) subset of atheists only, but is the least favorable to atheists in general. Atheists themselves reject that definition for a good reason - it places a burden of proof on them that they don’t have.

In this case, it is very telling that UnknownCloud insists that AnAtheist agree to the label that misrepresents AA’s position.

 

[AnAtheist]

wolpertinger:

A member of a group that self-identifies with belief system X is likely to a different and more nuanced definition of X than an outsider would, particular if that outsider is a member of an incompatible belief system Y.

In just about every thread that refers to atheism, the theists here insist on using a definition of atheism that applies to a (small) subset of atheists only, but is the least favorable to atheists in general. Atheists themselves reject that definition for a good reason - it places a burden of proof on them that they don’t have.

Very well analysed.

The problem is, some things do appear very different from the outside than from the inside.

Contemplate on this for a minute: When a fundi protestant asks you, “why do Catholics worship Mary”, what do you feel?
Atheists feel the very same way when asked “why do you hate God?” or similar things in that manner.