What do Atheists Want?

[Nimos]

Well do you value the quality of life that you have now? This world is nothing but pain and suffering for many people. So for you, the life for many suffering people is of little value and the life of billionaires is of great value. I find this an important contrast to how believing people view the world as opposed to unbelieving people. I think Theists would want to exist after death, being with those whom they exist with on Earth. Family, friends, like-minded individuals, and of course a loving God. Is this what you would value too?

Well it could very well be, haven't really given it lot of thought what a perfect afterlife would be like. But one thing is absolutely certain, such thing as money wouldn't be there.

The idea of an afterlife is way more complicated than simply saying that it is good, one thing might be considered good for one person and not another. Meaning one person might really like a specific person to be there in their afterlife, but what if that person doesn't return that feeling. How would you solve that? And the issues gets a lot more complicated as you dive deeper into this idea.

What does people look like? as they do now or as you remember them? or does everyone look as if they are 20 years old? are they simply spirit/ghost like creatures.

 

[Nimos]

So how do you deal with a death of a loved one. Is there no pleasure in believing that you will see them again?

How do I deal with it, is probably very different from how a believer in an afterlife does it. I believe that when people die that they are gone forever and the way I deal with that, is through the memory of them and thinking about them and the joy they added to my and other peoples lives.

So, no I have no pleasure in believing that I will see them again, ever. Because I don't think I will.

 

[Nimos]

Well, all fair and well. But if you are one of those who know what the world/the universe/reality/everything is in a positive metaphysical/ontological sense in effect and as true, you face the same problem as with an afterlife or God.

Not sure I understand what you mean, can you clarify it?

 

[blü 2]

Where is your proof of this statement?

The constant assertion in the Abrahamic religions that God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect (and omnipresent and so on). (Of course, if God is omnipotent then [he] can make [him]self omniscient and perfect with one snap of those all-powerful fingers, though I've never figured out how God can know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.)

But yes, if God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, then [he]'s fallible, finite, bounded, just another voice, another actor, another tough guy, one more opinion that each of us is free to judge and decide for ourselves.

The scriptures you shared do not sufficiently give us answer to determine that God has decided everything for us. If he is perfect, than he must also perfectly love his creations for that is how we too feel and exist.

Or perfectly hate them. Or be perfectly indifferent concerning them. Or be running them through some perfectly devised experiment for purposes of [his] own ─ [he] IS an alien species, after all.

Can you love a robot you created and programmed to hate you? God didn't create robots. He created Humans that are programmed to think for themselves and determine their own outcome and hopefully decide to live as God lives. Free Agency is essential for God's Love to exist and therefore he choose not to prove his Omnipotence or Omniscience. I cannot think of anyway around that except to be in your state of unbelief which I believe doesn't sufficiently answer much.

I say again: IF God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect THEN before [he] created the universe [he] had already perfectly foreseen EVERYTHING without exception that would ever happen as a result of [his] action, and intended exactly that and nothing else, and no one, nothing, can deviate from what [he] perfectly foresaw even by the width of a quark.

If [he]'s not omnipotent omniscient perfect then [he]'s just another player.

And of course if [he] doesn't have objective existence then [he]'s just a facet of evolved human psychology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You choose to not believe something because it fulfills a want.

You've got it backwards. Theism fills a need. Atheism says I don't have those needs. I am fine with the idea that I may be mortal and my consciousness extinguished forever on death, that there may be nobody looking over me or answering my prayers, that life may have no more purpose than what we give it, etc.. That's an attitude and understanding one achieves if he matures outside of religion. Such a person will find no value in religion or god beliefs. If one is still in religion, it must be meeting some need he has that the secular humanist does not have.

And critical thinkers don't choose what to believe.

When Atheist join religious forums they want attention.

That's not correct. I explained in an earlier post on this thread what I'm here for. Did you see this? "Another of the benefits to being here is the ability to see a spectrum of religious and humanist thinkers to get a sense of what effect religion has on believers according to the religion, and how the believers compare to the irreligious intellectually and morally - that is, what benefit or harm does the religious life confer on the faithful. The insight I gleaned there is that a little religion mainstream is probably harmless, but that the more zealous the theist, the more it negatively impacts him."

As I said, I consider this experience a great opportunity to see what kinds of people the religions are producing. Are they intelligent? Are they good people? I'm still adding data points.

because a "flying spaghetti monster" is an insult to my intelligence! ... So, why is mankind so evil according to atheism? At least Christians have a decent answer with a historical theme...Satan, the fall of man, the plan of redemption, and the future restoration of this sinful planet and its inhabitants back to the original perfection that Lucifer corrupted!

Your intelligence is insulted by Pastafarianism? That's a risky comment to tell a skeptic. Look at what you DO believe. I don't really see much difference.

But, if you like, we can explain the problem of evil the way you do - by blaming the Antipasto rather than Lucifer. Our Savory, born of extra virgin olive oil, delivered by Little Caesarian (in 30 minutes or less), cast out of the Olive Garden as foretold in the book of Romanos, was snagged by a giant twirling fork and placed on a plate by the Antipasto, where he was hurled onto a wall, stuck, and dried for our sins and salivation. Cheese's Crust, how grated thou art! May there be pizza on earth and gouda will toward men!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe in a God that does reason with people. We give him the title of Righteous Judge for a reason. He will hear out your side to the sentencing and based on whether He feels you have had sufficient evidence or not will judge you as fairly as possible, better so, than any person could fathom in today's judicial systems.

I've already answered this, but I have one more thing to say (or ask): What evidence do you have to support your statement above? Has God "heard you out?" When (and how) has He reasoned with you? How is it you know that He is a "Righteous Judge?" Have you been party to one of His judgements?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No.
I believe The Fall are the best band that has ever been.
I used to believe in God until I was about 14/15 then started to have doubts.
Not sure what 'passive' disbelief is? I don't fight over it?

Passive disbelief implies genuine indifference to the existence or non existence of God. Active disbelief implies a position which defines itself in opposition to religion.

For example, I am quite indifferent to The Fall. I don’t actively dislike them and I wouldn’t try to tell you you’re wrong to do so. That’s passive as opposed active disbelief in the veracity of your claim on their behalf.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure I understand what you mean, can you clarify it?

Say, do you know that the world is natural and not supernatural?

 

[Altfish]

Passive disbelief implies genuine indifference to the existence or non existence of God. Active disbelief implies a position which defines itself in opposition to religion.

For example, I am quite indifferent to The Fall. I don’t actively dislike them and I wouldn’t try to tell you you’re wrong to do so. That’s passive as opposed active disbelief in the veracity of your claim on their behalf.

Well, I'm in between those two options, I'm indifferent to the religion ... until it starts to have an effect on me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I'm in between those two options, I'm indifferent to the religion ... until it starts to have an effect on me.

But that is not a unique feature of religion. In short it is a feature of you being Wrong and I am Right. That is not limited to religion.

 

[Nimos]

Say, do you know that the world is natural and not supernatural?

No, but I don't see any good reasons to think that it is supernatural rather than natural.

If anyone think otherwise, I would be interested in hearing their argument for why that is the case and a demonstration of the supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but I don't see any good reasons to think that it is supernatural rather than natural.

If anyone think otherwise, I would be interested in hearing their argument for why that is the case and a demonstration of the supernatural.

No, do you think/believe, it is natural or do you know, have evidence and so on?

 

[Nimos]

No, do you think/believe, it is natural or do you know, have evidence and so on?

Well if we define the natural world as meaning that things exist as a result of nature and however physical laws work, then yes I would say that we appear to be living in a natural reality where things follow certain natural laws. Whether these laws are a result of something supernatural I don't know, but I see no reason to assume they are, unless someone clearly define what they mean by them being supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well if we define the natural world as meaning that things exist as a result of nature and however physical laws work, then yes I would say that we appear to be living in a natural reality where things follow certain natural laws. Whether these laws are a result of something supernatural I don't know, but I see no reason to assume they are, unless someone clearly define what they mean by them being supernatural.

Yeah, that is not certain everything can done as per physical and with natural laws. Natural laws is cognitive in part and it is not certain that of the world is in effect objective, rational and with evidence.
In fact the world is currently right now not that, because we have no theory of everything and there are these limits to science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

If you treat the world as natural, it doesn't follow that is physical or that all can be done as positive with (scientific) natural laws. That doesn't mean that world is supernatural. It just means that there is a limit to what we can explain with science and do with science.
Your position is in effect to simple, and again it doesn't mean that the world is supernatural. So don't claim, I claim that.

 

[Nimos]

Yeah, that is not certain everything can done as per physical and with natural laws. Natural laws is cognitive in part and it is not certain that of the world is in effect objective, rational and with evidence.
In fact the world is currently right now not that, because we have no theory of everything and there are these limits to science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

If you treat the world as natural, it doesn't follow that is physical or that all can be done as positive with (scientific) natural laws. That doesn't mean that world is supernatural. It just means that there is a limit to what we can explain with science and do with science.
Your position is in effect to simple, and again it doesn't mean that the world is supernatural. So don't claim, I claim that.

Sure we currently have limits within our knowledge and some things we never know for certain. But still from what we do know about the Universe we live in and that reality, meaning how we perceive it. I see little to no reason to treat it as if it were not, unless someone can put forward tangible evidence for why that is not the case.

And in my opinion, that requires, first and foremost a clear definition of what supernatural is and is suppose to look like. If we can't do that, then we have no reason to assume that it is even supernatural to begin with, rather than just us not currently having that knowledge, which we might obtain later if at all possible.

I don't see any reason to complicate it. If someone think there is something supernatural, nothing prevents them from putting it forward as an idea and try to demonstrate it. Being speculative about alternatives is fine, but that is what they are in my opinion, speculative.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure we currently have limits within our knowledge and some things we never know for certain. But still from what we do know about the Universe we live in and that reality, meaning how we perceive it. I see little to no reason to treat it as if it were not, unless someone can put forward tangible evidence for why that is not the case.

And in my opinion, that requires, first and foremost a clear definition of what supernatural is and is suppose to look like. If we can't do that, then we have no reason to assume that it is even supernatural to begin with, rather than just us not currently having that knowledge, which we might obtain later if at all possible.

I don't see any reason to complicate it. If someone think there is something supernatural, nothing prevents them from putting it forward as an idea and try to demonstrate it. Being speculative about alternatives is fine, but that is what they are in my opinion, speculative.

Well, we are playing "knowledge". If you mean by that justified true belief, it has never been done in recorded human history. If you mean a first person cognitive axiomatic system of assumptions then yes. But some claims of, what knowledge is, are no different that claims of the supernatural. Neither stand up to skepticism and critical thinking.
So if in the end evidence works for you in your opinion, I agree. But if you have ever indirectly claim you have knowledge of what objective reality is other than being independent of the mind, I disagree.
Now you can state your opinion all you like, but please don't speak for a we that is not there.

I doubt your position as much as I doubt the supernatural one and in the end it is different opinions including mine and they hold no authority over a we. So please don't do what some theists do.

 

[Nimos]

Well, we are playing "knowledge". If you mean by that justified true belief, it has never been done in recorded human history. If you mean a first person cognitive axiomatic system of assumptions then yes. But some claims of, what knowledge is, are no different that claims of the supernatural. Neither stand up to skepticism and critical thinking.
So if in the end evidence works for you in your opinion, I agree. But if you have ever indirectly claim you have knowledge of what objective reality is other than being independent of the mind, I disagree.
Now you can state your opinion all you like, but please don't speak for a we that is not there.

I doubt your position as much as I doubt the supernatural one and in the end it is different opinions including mine and they hold no authority over a we. So please don't do what some theists do.

Well im not a solipsist, at least not a hardcore one or what to say.

I don't think it is particularly important whether we can demonstrate objective reality in that sense or not, because its an endless spiral of speculation and uncertainty.

But we can talk about reality as we can demonstrate it and agree on it. If everyone agree that an apple is an apple per the definition we use to describe it. Then that is objective reality enough for me. Asking whether or not that apple truly exist or even is an apple outside our own minds, is not important and I even think it fails anyway. Because if, not our mind, then whos mind are we talking about? And if we are a product of that mind, then there is no reason to assume that, that mind doesn't also exist in another. So it end up in a endless idea which to me is pointless and without any explanatory power anyway.

To simply keep it so when we are talking about objective reality, we are not talking absolute knowledge, I think that works fine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well im not a solipsist, at least not a hardcore one or what to say.

I don't think it is particularly important whether we can demonstrate objective reality in that sense or not, because its an endless spiral of speculation and uncertainty.

But we can talk about reality as we can demonstrate it and agree on it. If everyone agree that an apple is an apple per the definition we use to describe it. Then that is objective reality enough for me. Asking whether or not that apple truly exist or even is an apple outside our own minds, is not important and I even think it fails anyway. Because if, not our mind, then whos mind are we talking about? And if we are a product of that mind, then there is no reason to assume that, that mind doesn't also exist in another. So it end up in a endless idea which to me is pointless and without any explanatory power anyway.

To simply keep it so when we are talking about objective reality, we are not talking absolute knowledge, I think that works fine.

Well, 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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So how do you deal with a death of a loved one. Is there no pleasure in believing that you will see them again?

I've been to one funeral where most of the attendees were religious enough to be happy for the deceased and it was one of the creepiest experiences of my life.

In my experience, religious people still usually grieve the deaths of loved ones. Often, they have the extra burden of struggling to reconcile a good person's untimely death with their belief in a god that's supposedly all-good and has a divine plan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can imagine that to the Atheist, whether God exists or not, the mere reasoning behind the way He does things wouldn't be something they could worship or admire. I could see an Atheists conversation with God after death be something like this: "Could you blame me? You had built a world that had so much evil and death inside it, when you could have made it like _________.

Actually, it would be more like: "Could you blame me? You had built a world where you apparently went out of your way to make sure that it looked as if you had nothing to do with it. As if there wasn't even a 'you' to consider. "

Why do they even join this Religious Forum I wonder?

I like conversing with people that have beliefs opposite to mine.
That, and the "militant" in me opposes religiously inspired legislation and policy - on all levels.

Do they want to live forever being right? Or do they want to live forever feeling wronged?

Not quite sure what you are really asking here.

The truth is, whether you believe in God or not, you will die.

Sure. Not sure what the relevance is though.

I'm sorry for the spoiler alert to some of you. When that happens, will Atheists and Theists get what they want? I can only speak as a theist. What do Atheist think?

Death is inevitable. Whatever it is that I want, it won't really matter after I'm gone.
My wants are only relevant to me for as long as I am alive.