mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Do you know what happens when we die? I don't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do Atheists Want?
- Thread starter Jacob Samuelson
- Start date
Do you know what happens when we die? I don't.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It matters, if you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs.
It matters, if you care about holding as much true beliefs as possible and the least false beliefs possible.
I'm very willing to look at any evidence.
The reason I am an atheist, is because no such evidence is forthcoming.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Correcting your misconceptions about atheists / atheism, is by itself already enough of a reason to answer your question.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You are aware of the difference between justified true beliefs and evidence. The former is philosophy and the latter evidence, but that is methodological naturalism.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. Meaning they are different answers to different questions.
One pertaining to knowledge and the other to beliefs.
The extreme vast majority of atheist I know, both on- and offline as well as personally or not, are agnostic atheists.
Even Richard Dawkins, who theists like to hold up as the "radical atheist leader" for some reason, literally states he is agnostic about gods.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I actually do NOT "want" to live forever.
It would strip life of its value imo.
The reason why life (or anything else) is valueable, is because it is finite.
It is so with everything.
Nobody would watch a movie that doesn't end.
Gold or diamonds wouldn't be worth anything if there was an infinite supply of it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is an absolute claim. That is not rational according to a scientific world view. Could you try to live up to your claims of being rational?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Im definitely not an expert on these two and what they thought an didn't, but watched some quick introduction videos on them and don't really see how they disagree with what I said, so if you think they are, could you explain that. Because im not going to spend several month looking into theseWell, I am not a metaphysical solipsist either. But I am a somewhat of methodological skeptic and solipsist. To me the world is as knowledge goes the human experience and that is not just science and objectivity or even rationality.
As for objective reality you might want to check 2 skeptics on that: David Hume and Immanuel Kant. There is a reason, why we have methodological naturalism.
As for the apple and all of the rest of what in practice is objective reality, that is not all of the world
So no, the world is not just an apple and you are not a we. Neither am I and we don't have to agree on everything.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Sorry, I didn't realise that it had to be unique.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
When I was a teen, I transitioned from organized religion; Catholic, to becoming spiritual, with spiritual meaning more choices for me to learn other religious and secular POV's. The main reason for this transition was to have more flexibility in the secular world for money and babes.
If you believe in God, via the various main religions of the world, there are many things you will need to sacrifice. This may be the high road, leading to some long term advantage, but is makes life harder in the short term, especially for young people. It requires more will power, than the easier path of of the secular world that allows one to follow impulses and secular group think and fads.
My change to the status of spiritual was to make it easier to follow a path that was easier and more spontaneous, so I could have more fun options. All my justification using rational arguments, were there to convince myself by convincing others, this was also the high road; cool kids.
If you sincerely believe in God from any religion, there is much more responsibility in life. But if you can break that bond, you can have can have an easier life via relative morality. But the low road was not all fun and games, but had consequences. Often the Atheists will feel the need to kill religion, to justify themselves, since as long as people choose that higher road, you cannot fully justify the low road, as a high road. There is only one high road and both cannot be that.
Later in life, I reach a low point in the low road and started to climb back up to the high road, that required more will power. Life now is smooth sailing even with limited outward things. The high road gives you a longer range view of things since one lives in the heights. The low road only allow you to see in front of you which makes it harder to gain perspective and an open mind.
In retrospect, the high and low road differ by a time element, within our brain, that helps to govern our types of choices. The low road is based on short term thinking; live for the moment. The high road often requires sacrificing short term impulses, so one can plan longer term; eternity. How the brain's clock is set will impact how you look at the world.
As an example, say you go to college where there is lots of work and lots of parties. Some students plan their college years based on graduating high up with honors to get a good job. This requires long term plan. Others, are more impulsive and live for the fraternity parties. This uses shorter term thinking to make one available for any change in party status. Others, like myself tried to find a balance of long term and short term thinking. I shortened my view from the needs eternity, while also being more impulsive but not fully that way; middle road. But I started to drift to shorter and shorter time; low point on the low road, until it was appropriate to increase my time perspective.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, that is your high road. I found another that doesn't involve your God. Yes, there is a low road, but there is not just one high road.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
When it comes to our actual reality, they are (as they should) the only ones valid. Any claim that is not supported by scientific methods should not be valid (for determining our reality that is).
God is not a relevant concept in the eyes of an Atheist. Worshiping or admiring, BTW, should also not be relevant to those who do believe.
Not really
Not accurate, as God is not an actual entity for them. It will be like saying Atheist will love having a conversation with harry potter (which might be true, but has got nothing to do with the fact of being an atheist).
Why do you assume God judges you?
It is you who (should) judge yourself.
What sentencing? Why should God hear you? you are already known to it.
God doesn't feel.
It seems (to me) like an odd idea that God judges people.
It will be similar to judging your baby for acting like you taught him.
No.
For me it was to try and understand the theistic POV and try to make my POV to others.
I think people who judge others without understanding their POV are doing wrong for themselves and the other.
No. They want to live peacefully without someone telling them they will burn in hell for it.
Same as above
Yep. So far this is how life seems to work (although some exceptions are suggested when it comes to the animals kingdom).
At the bottom line, Atheists (at least the ones I know), couldn't care less how you live your life... believer, non believer.
What atheists fear most, is that even today, there are countries, groups and individuals, that reject our entire scientific knowledge and base their decisions on things that are not true.
Such methodologies, lead to a very undesired abusive behaviors that are justified by ideas that have no base in reality.
"Religion is the source of all evil", doesn't relate to God itself, rather the abusive power people have using the idea of God.
If someone say that God is with him and others believe him, it makes this man a VERY dangerous man regardless of what he does with it.
Our day to day decisions, when it comes to others, must only be based on measurable and proof-able ideas.
Every wrong doing, in the entire of our human history, is based on ideas that had no scientific backup what so ever.
Many times, leaders twisted and used the ignorance of their believers to manipulate scientific ideas into monstrosities (like Hitler as an example).
At the end of it, If leaders will only act based on validated and proven information, humans life will be much much better (regardless of the question if God exists or not).
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then I am not an atheist, but you don't decide that. As for the rest in some cases we seem to disagree on what truth is and what that has to do with science. And don't get me started on caring.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Yes. Obviously I do not.
I wasn't stating what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who doesn't accept the idea of one god.
In that case, You are either an atheist or not.
I couldn't care less if you are or not
Ok. Interesting. How do you perceive true and false? and how do you demonstrate it to others?
If you can't demonstrate it to others, it means, scientifically wise, it is not yet true (although it might be proven as such in the future).
Every atheist I've met (don't disregard this as you did before please), thinks science is the best way to measure objective (or cumulative) truth.
No worries... I won't
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes. Obviously I do not.
I wasn't stating what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who doesn't accept the idea of one god.
In that case, You are either an atheist or not.
I couldn't care less if you are or not
Ok. Interesting. How do you perceive true and false? and how do you demonstrate it to others?
If you can't demonstrate it to others, it means, scientifically wise, it is not yet true (although it might be proven as such in the future).
Every atheist I've met (don't disregard this as you did before please), thinks science is the best way to measure objective (or cumulative) truth.
No worries... I won't
Well, to me science is about not about truth. It is an open ended methodology that only at minimum assumes methodological naturalism and some form of objectiveness but not necessarily only an empirical one.
But I am from a culture where we have more than one sub-set of science and what you call science is just a sub-set of science.
Last edited:
There is no virtue in imposing irrational rules on oneself or in following them. I don't see a high road there.
Disagree. Just more rules. Like the orthodox Jews with the rules for the sabbath and dietary law. These may give one a sense of history or community and this satisfaction, but that helps oneself, not others, and it wouldn't do that for most people. Imagine somebody telling you that you are taking the low road and the easy way for not obeying these rules, that you are just looking for the easy, hedonistic, devil-may-care life eating whatever you want because you lack the discipline to do better. You'd tell them what I'm telling you here.
My story is the same, but it involves me tunneling out of Christianity. That was very difficult, such is the power of indoctrination. If you are offering that as evidence of high and low roads, I'd say that you have it backward.
Atheism isn't for the weak. It's easier to believe in a god than not because being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence. It takes strength of character to acknowledge that consciousness may end with death, that nobody is looking over us or answering prayer, that man is just another animal, and the like. Have you ever done any of that? I have.
And nothing closes a mind like faith. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." Ham is telling you that faith has closed his mind to evidence.
So is William Lane Craig: "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right"
Here's a bit more:
“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
“When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris
Do you really think that any of these people see further? I don't. This is the low road to me.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
If they adhere to virtuous conduct, atheists and agnostics are also capable of spiritual development and enlightenment, as per eastern religious philosophy.
I have created a thread in this regard...
Swami Satchidananda on virtuous conduct being synonymous with meditation...
There is a teaching by the female enlightened master Anandamayi Ma in this regard...
I have created a thread in this regard...
Swami Satchidananda on virtuous conduct being synonymous with meditation...
There is a teaching by the female enlightened master Anandamayi Ma in this regard...
Jacob Samuelson
Active Member
Actual Reality? How is that not a subjective statement?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
They want to convert people... the same as most religions do.
Jacob Samuelson
Active Member
So are you saying the longer you live, the less valuable you are? If that is the case, I should be able to buy the Mona Lisa for $1.