To the converted atheists: What do you miss from believing ?

[humanino]

Oh, I certainly agree. It's a moot point, but say I had the option of choosing one or the other, I think I'd take afterlife.

What makes the all point of your life is that it is limited in time. If life were eternal, there would be no point in doing anything anyway.

 

[end3r7]

What makes the all point of your life is that it is limited in time. If life were eternal, there would be no point in doing anything anyway.

I disagree with that about as much as I disagree with the other extreme argument ("if this is it, then there is no point", etc).

I said afterlife though, not eternal life (although the argument still holds). And there is somewhat of an underlying assumption that with an afterlife, at least in most religious, I'd know more about the universe. Not sure how it works, since I think it's nonsense personally, but yea...

 

[Hurkyl]

The null hypothesis should be there is no such thing as god. If you want to say there is a god, then you need to prove it.

Correct, in the case where someone wishes to prove the existence of God. However...

I don't see why the atheist has to 'disprove' god.

When asserting this, the null hypothesis should be that there is such thing as god, and if you want to say there isn't a god, then you need to prove it.

That should be the accepted fact until shown otherwise.

You are making a classic argument from ignorance. You are asserting that your belief is true on the grounds that nobody has proven it false.

 

[Cyrus]

Correct, in the case where someone wishes to prove the existence of God. However...


When asserting this, the null hypothesis should be that there is such thing as god, and if you want to say there isn't a god, then you need to prove it.


You are making a classic argument from ignorance. You are asserting that your belief is true on the grounds that nobody has proven it false.

Huh? No. When you are proving god, you don't make its existence the null. You never make the null hypothesis what your trying to show. Thats the very first thing they teach you in stat 101.

I.e. if you want to prove god, you cannot say god exists is the null, god does not exist is the alternative.

Also, I take issue with your use of the word 'my beleif' There is no 'belief' required in my thinking; however, there is in yours. And that is a key difference.

 

[Evo]

Ok, I'm trying to cook.

Everyone stop and take a breath. Everyone needs to respect another's personal beliefs. I don't want to see religion bashing by the non-religious. It seems in this thread the ones that are religious are more self restrained than the non-religious.

And yes, the onus of proof is on the one making the claim that something exists, it is not on the one that is being told it exists.

 

[end3r7]

Ok, I'm trying to cook.

Everyone stop and take a breath. Everyone needs to respect another's personal beliefs. I don't want to see religion bashing by the non-religious. It seems in this thread the ones that are religious are most self restrained than the non-religious.

If people would stick to the topic we wouldn't have that problem. =/

I personally I find it hard to believe that there is not one thing from religious doctrine that people didn't wish it were true. Otherwise we would have a lot mroe atheists...

 

[turbo]

People, there is no cogent argument that can be made that god exists, and there is no cogent argument that can be made that god does not exist. The "dichotomy" between theist and atheist is a false one and it is not logically supportable. Both views elevate the possible existence of a god to an ultimate "value" and while the camps support opposite views, they both elevate the concept of a god's existence to exactly the same level. Catch a clue, people!

 

[Evo]

If people would stick to the topic we wouldn't have that problem. =/

I personally I find it hard to believe that there is not one thing from religious doctrine that people didn't wish it were true. Otherwise we would have a lot mroe atheists...

It's the fear of the unknown that traps a lot of people. Superstition is very powerful.

 

[Cyrus]

If people would stick to the topic we wouldn't have that problem. =/

I personally I find it hard to believe that there is not one thing from religious doctrine that people didn't wish it were true. Otherwise we would have a lot mroe atheists...

Well, you have to realize that a lot of people are born into religion. Why do you think people in the ME are all muslim and not budists? The are raised being taught such and such is true, and they are told if they question it, its a sign of a 'weakening' of their fath.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I'm, however, surprised at the number of people who said they could care less about having an eternal afterlife. I wonder how many of those opinions are genuine.

I don't know if you can chalk it up to my history of depression or what, but I don't see a reason to fear death. I'd like there to be a final "rest" of sorts, where you can just sit back and relax because you are done.

None of this "Okay, you passed the test. Now you can do whatever, forever." I can't imagine eternal consciousness. It just seems so unbearable.

 

[B. Elliott]

I was originally not going to post in this thread, that was until I started reading the responses.

I also dropped religion at a young age, which was approximately around my 5th grade year in Elementary school. The only thing that I somewhat miss is the assurance of an afterlife.

My parents were not religious but my grandfather was, and he was also the one who influenced me the most, religious wise. He really wanted me to go to church with him, so I did to appease him. Leading up to my 4th and 5th grade year I started to get into Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy pretty heavily, eventually reading every single related book that was in our school library. The point where I lost interest in being religious was when I realized that writings within the Bible, or any religious books for that matter, were either omitted or added over time due to agendas of the 'rulers' of the time. That point got me wondering, 'what if the entire religion it's self was based off of religious/political agendas of the time?'. I don't know if it was due to my deductive reasoning starting to fully develop at the time, or if it was simply due to the numerous unrelated books that all correlated into a big picture that contradicted what I was reading from just that one and only book. I also believe that for some reason, my own mortality 'hit me' at a very early age... around age 4 or 5. I still remember the day as if it was yesterday. Over time from reading the books that I mentioned, I seemed to naturally let go of my fears of death... realizing that there is nothing I can do to stop it and that it is a completely natural process. It is a cycle that has been happening for millions of years and will continue to do so indefinitely (relatively).

Straight to the point, I lost interest in needing an afterlife to be satisfied with my limited time here.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am just sharing my opinion. I would be glad if you cared to share yours. Do you have anything to reproach me with ?

No reproachment was intended. I was going to use the word 'individual', but changed it to 'humanino' because that sounded more poetic!

I certainly do not intend to teach or impose whatsoever to anybody. The only claim I made strongly here which I think everybody should agree on, is that there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god/"any kind of strange unobservable thing that one has decided to believe on".

I disagree with that statement only to the extent that many people do not consider god to be unobservable and claim to interact with such a being, either directly (by seeing, hearing, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., by reading the written word or following the instructions of such a being).

 

[Cyrus]

People, there is no cogent argument that can be made that god exists, and there is no cogent argument that can be made that god does not exist. The "dichotomy" between theist and atheist is a false one and it is not logically supportable. Both views elevate the possible existence of a god to an ultimate "value" and while the camps support opposite views, the both elevate the concept of a god's existence to exactly the same level. Catch a clue, people!

So, I take it that there is also a big spaghetti monster god living under my bed too. Based on your logical reasoning, you can't prove that wrong either. Catch a clue, people!

Its nice how you argued yourself into a circle.

 

[mattmns]

I am agnostic, and I agree with turbo-1.

 

[humanino]

So, I take it that there is also a big spaghetti monster god living under my bed too. Based on your logical reasoning, you can't prove that wrong either.

But really Cyrus, if you assume that the big spaghetti disappears when you try to see it, there is just no way to know. This is not a scientific question. This does not challenge our scientific understanding, it is just irrational. This is fine.

No reproachment was intended. I was going to use the word 'individual', but changed it to 'humanino' because that sounded more poetic!

Oh, that reliefs me. Really

I disagree with that statement only to the extent that many people do not consider god to be unobservable and claim to interact with such a being, either directly (by seeing, hearing, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., by reading the written word or following the instructions of such a being).

Thanks for the precision. That is true.

Well, you have to realize that a lot of people are born into religion. Why do you think people in the ME are all muslim and not budists? The are raised being taught such and such is true, and they are told if they question it, its a sign of a 'weakening' of their fath.

That is probably a significant part of what actually happens, social (pavlov) conditioning. But that can not account for the whole, as there are religious people raised outside society for instance (among others). And may therefore miss an important point. As Evo points out, we mainly get "trapped by fear of the unknown". Other way to say it, until you get a scientific explanation, you rely on religion.

Be aware that this is not a matter of stupidity : great minds during centuries have attributed things that were not understood yet (or not even now) as evidences of religious beliefs.

The question

I said afterlife though, not eternal life (although the argument still holds). And there is somewhat of an underlying assumption that with an afterlife, at least in most religious, I'd know more about the universe. Not sure how it works, since I think it's nonsense personally, but yea...

has many aspects. Many people we have already shown interest in the social aspects. I guess you are interested in the individiual aspects, and you should clarify that.

 

[Poop-Loops]

and there is no cogent argument that can be made that god does not exist.

There doesn't have to be. The onus of proof is on the believer, not me to DISPROVE god.

I see no reason for a god.

 

[turbo]

The theists and the atheists are both arguing insupportable concepts. Unfortunately, BOTH of these camps elevate the concept of a god to a level that is paramount. One view says that god is supreme, and the other says that the existence of a supreme god is wrong. Where is the view-point of the people who say that "we don't know if any god exists, nor if that god has any powers?" I won't say that agnosticism is the only logical refuge for intelligent persons, but I have felt that way for over 40 years.

 

[Cyrus]

But really Cyrus, if you assume that the big spaghetti disappears when you try to see it, there is just no way to know. This is not a scientific question. This does not challenge our scientific understanding, it is just irrational. This is fine.

Then the spaghetti monster is pure BS! And THATS the main problem with Turbo-1's line of thinking. Any thing, no matter how stupid, is by default true because hey, you can't disprove it. Its a silly line of reasoning that leads to know where.

Ex 2. Blue elephant. There is a blue elephant on turbo-1s shoulder. Its too small to be seen by any instrument that manking will EVER devise. This is obviously a load of crap, but according to this circular logic, I can't say its not true.

It should be obvious there is something fundamentally wrong with this logic.

 

[end3r7]

The question has many aspects. Many people we have already shown interest in the social aspects. I guess you are interested in the individiual aspects, and you should clarify that.

I don't want to soudn rude, but I must confess I have no clue what you meant by that. But I think this might help:

I'd like an afterlife as described by most religious for two reasons

1) The most important -- I get to be with people I like for eternity. And I myself exist for eternity. I like existing, I like that my friends and family exist.

2) I have more time to find things out. Or have it shown to me.

I obviously don't believe in afterlife, but when I was religious (I'm a little skpetical whether I ever truly believed in afterlife or just never thought about it) I still intensely lived the now.

 

[Poop-Loops]

The theists and the atheists are both arguing insupportable concepts. Unfortunately, BOTH of these camps elevate the concept of a god to a level that is paramount. One view says that god is supreme, and the other says that the existence of a supreme god is wrong. Where is the view-point of the people who say that "we don't know if any god exists, nor if that god has any powers?" I won't say that agnosticism is the only logical refuge for intelligent persons, but I have felt that way for over 40 years.

Looks like you've been wrong for 40 years, then.

Atheists aren't saying "God is bad" or anything like that. They are saying there is no evidence for God, therefore no point in believing in one.

Do you "believe" in something like String Theory or Quantum Loop Gravity? You'd be a fool to. You have to wait and see where it goes and look at the evidence. You don't say "Well I can't say one way or the other, therefore both views are equally valid."

 

[humanino]

Then the spaghetti monster is pure BS! And THATS the main problem with Turbo-1's line of thinking. Any thing, no matter how stupid, is by default true because hey, you can't disprove it. Its a silly line of reasoning that leads to know where.

Take spin for instance. Before it was found, very intelligent people like Pauli would claim out loud that this is simple BS.

What is it good for ? You spaghetti monster is useless to you. It might fear a kid. It is good to explain the kid that there is no spaghetti monster. The kid believes in Santa. This is good. It makes the kid thinks he should act according to Santa, that is his parents. This is manipulation, in the interest of the kid himself.

Now, when it comes to grown up adults, we will come against all sorts of social difficulties if we consider religious manipulations. This is very interesting by its own, but not what the OP is interested in (correct me if I am wrong).

Why do individual sometimes choose irrationality, even possibly against their own good ?

 

[turbo]

Then the spaghetti monster is pure BS! And THATS the main problem with Turbo-1's line of thinking. Any thing, no matter how stupid, is by default true because hey, you can't disprove it. Its a silly line of reasoning that leads to know where.

Ex 2. Blue elephant. There is a blue elephant on turbo-1s shoulder. Its too small to be seen by any instrument that manking will EVER devise. This is obviously a load of crap, but according to this circular logic, I can't say its not true.

It should be obvious there is something fundamentally wrong with this logic.

if you think that ANYTHING that cannot be disproven is logically permissible, then perhaps you need some more years at school, perhaps with a minor (at a minimum) in logic.

 

[Gokul43201]

The theists and the atheists are both arguing insupportable concepts.

No turbo. Atheists only argue that they shall not believe in any insupportable constructs.

 

[Cyrus]

Take spin for instance. Before it was found, very intelligent people like Pauli would claim out loud that this is simple BS.

What is it good for ? You spaghetti monster is useless to you. It might fear a kid. It is good to explain the kid that there is no spaghetti monster. The kid believes in Santa. This is good. It makes the kid thinks he should act according to Santa, that is his parents. This is manipulation, in the interest of the kid himself.

Now, when it comes to grown up adults, we will come against all sorts of social difficulties if we consider religious manipulations. This is very interesting by its own, but not what the OP is interested in (correct me if I am wrong).

Why do individual sometimes choose irrationality, even possibly against their own good ?

I don't see what your example with spin proves. Had spin never been found in a lab, it would remain to this day to be nothing but BS.

 

[end3r7]

Take spin for instance. Before it was found, very intelligent people like Pauli would claim out loud that this is simple BS.

What is it good for ? You spaghetti monster is useless to you. It might fear a kid. It is good to explain the kid that there is no spaghetti monster. The kid believes in Santa. This is good. It makes the kid thinks he should act according to Santa, that is his parents. This is manipulation, in the interest of the kid himself.

Now, when it comes to grown up adults, we will come against all sorts of social difficulties if we consider religious manipulations. This is very interesting by its own, but not what the OP is interested in (correct me if I am wrong).

Why do individual sometimes choose irrationality, even possibly against their own good ?

I don't think you are grasping his argument.

Take unicorns. Do you believe in unicorns? No, of course you don't. But technically you are an agnostic towards them --- you can't absolutely disprove their existence, but there is no tangible evidence for it.

The fallacy in the reasoning is purely statistical: because we can't disprove something, we need not assign it a 50% probability of existing.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think you are grasping his argument.

Take unicorns. Do you believe in unicorns? No, of course you don't. But technically you are an agnostic towards them --- you can't absolutely disprove their existence, but there is no tangible evidence for it.

The fallacy in the reasoning is purely statistical: because we can't disprove something, we need not assign it a 50% probability of existing.

Bingo, you got it. Well said.

 

[humanino]

I don't think you are grasping his argument.

The spin example was

• to try to calm down and cool the minds : let us not call each other names. Even bright people make mistakes
• To convey that sometimes, irrationality is good

 

[turbo]

No turbo. Atheists only argue that they shall not believe in any insupportable constructs.

That's not true. Atheists argue that there is no god. Theists argue that there is a god.

Agnostics argue (correctly, I believe) that we humans can never resolve such an argument.

 

[humanino]

Bingo, you got it. Well said.

I think I got that point for a while. I did take formal logic in school.

 

[humanino]

That's not true. Atheists argue that there is not god. Theists argue that there is a god.

Agnostics argue (correctly, I believe) that we humans can never resolve such an argument.

I think you are right, and that needed to be clarified for a while. Thank you.

 

[end3r7]

I disagree with turbo-1, simply because from a scientific stand point the Null-Hypothesis, in my view, should be non-existence of a deity.

Agnostics appear to think that the null-hypothesis is "sitting on the fence". I dunno, I just find that to be less scientific, but whatever.

We hardly accuse Christians of being atheists towards Zeus, for instance. In fact, for all purposes, any religious person is just as atheist as I am.

 

[humanino]

I disagree with turbo-1, simply because from a scientific stand point the Null-Hypothesis, in my view, should be non-existence of a deity.

But that does not work with an irrational person. We may all agree on that, amongst rational people, yet that does not change a bit the mind of religious integrist.

Another point that I want to stress is that, if you are confident in your moral values, irrationallity should not challenge your intellect and one should react calmly when confronted with it.

 

[end3r7]

Another point that I want to stress is that, if you are confident in your moral values, irrationallity should not challenge your intellect and one should react calmly when confronted with it.

?

I'm not sure if that was directed towards, but I'm pretty calm. I haven't had any caffeine today, and I just enjoyed a good cup of tea. =)

Besides, I like to think I'm a pretty respectful person...

 

[DavidWhitbeck]

Atheists argue that there is no god.

That's not true. An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in God. That is a subtle but important distinction to be made from believing that God doesn't exist. There is a dichotomy and it's built upon a simple tautology. Those that are not theists are not+theist = a+theist = atheist. It's a simple matter of language. The "atheists" that you describe are a proper subset of the entire set of atheists.

And I would like to add that agnostics are also atheists by definition, simply because they fail to share that positive belief that theists possess.

 

[Cyrus]

The spin example was

• to try to calm down and cool the minds : let us not call each other names. Even bright people make mistakes
• To convey that sometimes, irrationality is good

I don't think anyones calling anyone else names.