Atheism

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Aedes

It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to accept that the existence of God is true to those who believe. And that's a much more socially sophisticated viewpoint than assuming that theists are duped morons because they believe in magic and miracles.

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm a theist, but I do not go around demanding that people believe in God. They shouldn't necessarily believe in God, just as I shouldn't necessarily be an atheist. The question is an intellectual exercise - nothing more.

And, hey! Not all of us believe in magic and miracles.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm a theist, but I do not go around demanding that people believe in God. They shouldn't necessarily believe in God, just as I shouldn't necessarily be an atheist. The question is an intellectual exercise - nothing more.

It probably is more, considering the passion it provokes in many people.

And, hey! Not all of us believe in magic and miracles.

Knowing you as well as I do, I'd opine that your beliefs (and knowledge) are not exactly in the center of the theistic bell curve. How many other Christians in the world do you think could accurately spell the word "gnostic" if asked?

Originally Posted by jknilinux

but according to atheists, aren't we just products of chance, whose only goal is survival and reproduction?

Whoa, where is that written down?

1) Evolution is NOT a product of mere chance -- that is one of the grossest (and commonest) misconceptions made by creationists who have never studied the subject
2) We have far more complex tasks in life than survival and reproduction
3) We do not need the things we do the be justified by the cosmos, or to persist for eternity, for them to be important to us
4) Atheism is not synonymous with evolutionary biology; nor is evolution mutually exclusive with theism

If you're atheist, then any and all work we do for the common good just forestalls the species' inevitable extinction

Man, you'd better pick up some Camus to get answers to this. In brief, lack of ultimate meaning makes us completely and totally free to find our own meaning. For someone who is weakened, who lacks internal resources, lack of ultimate meaning is horrific. But for most of us, overcoming this so-called existential crisis is exhilierating, liberating, it allows our life to be our own.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Knowing you as well as I do, I'd opine that your beliefs (and knowledge) are not exactly in the center of the theistic bell curve. How many other Christians in the world do you think could accurately spell the word "gnostic" if asked?

Well, yeah I'm a bit odd, and you're right, most Christians lack any familiarity with gnosticism.

But at the same time, except when I my understanding of some source is confused and awkward (which is often), nothing I say is new or revolutionary. These ideas have an origin. I may put information together in my own way, but nothing I say is original. There must be others who are at least somewhere in the same ballpark. Other theists, not to mention atheists and agnostics.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

2: Well, it's different from keeping garlic in your pocket because:
a: The big one: if Garlic charms don't work, you can spend your time better on something else. If religion is false, then there's nothing better you could spend your time on that has any consequence anyway.
b: Garlic charms can be easily disproven, religion cannot.
c: Garlic charms do not cause infinite happiness if they work.

It still contains that "what if" motive. Think of everyone who said "The only thing you *must* do in life is ________". Think of the thousands of myths out there that tell us we should do <this> or <that>. Now, for anything that someone comes up with, as the one-key to salvation, should we do them all, just in case?

And yes, a great many of them are very different. Many conflict, many don't. It just strikes me as a bit silly to do something that strikes an individual as worthless, "just in case". There are probabilities and likelyhoods, rationale and perceived truth. One has to weight the likelyhood with the expected benefits or likely benefits; and I suppose that it's in this way that belief is a deeply person, richly individualized concept. These are, of course, just my feelings since you asked

In any case, one should be absolutely honest with themselves, as I'm sure you'd agree. I really work hard to be very honest with myself - even if its uncomfortable. I believe accepting and working to understand the happy and sad of our conditions is an inextricable part of the human condition.

Thanks for the exchange. Cheers!

[xris]

Its very hard being dishonest with yourself but i do try to kid myself ,sometimes i am realy impressed with myself...Do believers try to convince others so that it helps convince themselves?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by xris

Its very hard being dishonest with yourself but i do try to kid myself ,sometimes i am realy impressed with myself...Do believers try to convince others so that it helps convince themselves?

Well, every believer has his/her own reason for why they share their beliefs. Many religions encourage sharing the faith, so some do it out of a sense of obligation. Some do have their doubts, and they find security in numbers and being reassured. Others are quite content to be relatively alone in their view, relish their seclusion, as it were. Even most of those do enjoy discovering that another shares their view. Sometimes it's just nice to have someone to relate to.

[xris]

thanks for gently telling me i was wrong...yes we do need kindred souls...

[jgweed]

Confining our discussion for the moment to Christianity, we must acknowledge the existence of a variety of belief-systems (dogma) espoused by the different sects, and even within one particular sect (Roman Catholicism for example) a even greater variety of individual interpretations ( for example, the continuing conversation about the language of the Mass).

This being so, it seems just as true to acknowledge that the command or desire to proselytize, and the strength of it, are open to the same varieties of motivations. Amongst the more enthusiastic sects, the motivations are just as complex, I would suggest, as the reasons for falling in love, or for voting Republican in other spheres of activity in the live of a person.

As with many things, the more we simplify our conceptions, the further we get from reality, and the more apt we are to make false assumptions about the unity of a class or universal concept. Even in philosophical discourse, we are sometimes led astray by remarking on the striking similarity of the components of a general definition, but in so doing ignore the ordinarily unremarked nuances of its synonyms that can often trip up our thinking when the differences are understood.

[ciceronianus]

Originally Posted by Aedes

It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to accept that the existence of God is true to those who believe. And that's a much more socially sophisticated viewpoint than assuming that theists are duped morons because they believe in magic and miracles.

Well, I personally have a problem with the proposition "X is true to those who believe in X." However, I deplore those atheists who consider theists idiots.

What concerns me about what it appears underlies the belief of some theists, like Kung for example,(and I see this as a motivating factor in the writings of others who have recently been taking on Dawkins, Hitchens et al) is that it is based on the assumption that if there is no God, there is no reason to live, or be moral, and no basis on which to believe in or "assent" to reality, and no "justification" for it. I am not aware of any basis for this assumption, nor have I encountered, yet, any explanation of it. Any takers?

[Icon]

That's an absurd theory. I believe in no God and don't need to in order to be a polite, moral, and quite functional (living) human being. Without God we are left with the fact that, by pure chance or some other method, we came to be. Regardless of how we got here, we are here. If God does not exist then it is that we have come to be by other means and, because we are here, we live and breath and share a reality. To say that a lack of God is a lack of justification for reality is one of the most closed minded ideas I've ever heard. I think this is my biggest problem with theist ideals. They take this idea of magical beings and apply it as the only possible answer for everything. Anyone who has ever studied history would know that there is never one answer. There is always a myriad of answers which lead to the same conclusion.