Boy, I disagree completely. As an atheist, I realize I’ve got only one trip on this big merry-go-round, and I’m going to get the most out of it that I can. I can’t imagine why you would have a pathetic world view - this world is full of wonderful, amazing stuff. Yes, there are very many people for whom life truly sucks, but my being religious wouldn’t help them.
Your point reminds me of someone who would watch The Truman Show and argue that Truman was so much happier before he found out what his world really was.
If you have never tried anything else, then I would agree that hardcore atheism is pretty close-minded.
I have never met a mature devout person who did not also have their doubts. We all wrestle with doubt; it is the nature of being human. There is nothing wrong with doubt, unless you are lazy and don’t turn it into inquiry. Doubt should lead to a search for truth, and then more truth. There is always more to learn, and so faith looks for it.
Before any doubt crept in, wasn’t he? If he remained truly unaware of the real world, yeah, I believe he’s much happier. And I’m not arguing that it’s better for him, only that he feels happier. In the same way, I’m not saying it’s better to be a theist, only that it would be so much easier to digest. If you’re a person who has a strong need for meaning (like me), theism instantly fills that need with doctrine that you are supposed to take in simply by faith. With atheism/pantheism, you create your purpose, you examine your own life, you find your own meaning. I submit, this is harder, more frustrating and ultimately, less rewarding than just blindly believing some dogma.
1,6 == God. 2,3 == No God (but you don’t make it clear). 4 misses the point. 5 doesn’t make sense, but it counts as No God.
Well, you’missed the point, which wasn’t about what nuance to believe in. You stated there were more than two (infinite) possibilities. It’s not a matter of “Even if”. Either god exists or it doesn’t. It’s a logical fallacy to think otherwise.
I always hear that theists do doubt God at some time... but how much did they even attempt to beleive the world has no ryhme or reason ? I know I haven't seen any sign of God/gods... but I haven't been looking for it much. If God suddenly did appear I might even like the idea of there being something supernatural... I doubt the opposite is true.
Well, if SD posters are anything to go by, I couldn’t countenance atheism because it obviously goes along with name-calling, smugness, and general close-mindedness. Actually, it’s remarkably similar to the charicature of religion that gets portrayed:
Religion: Believe or you are damned.
Atheism: Actively disbelieve or you are stupid (the equivalent of damnation if “rational thought” is the highest endeavor).
Oddly enough, it still sounds like a “Fundamentalist Baptist Missouri Synod of 1867” arguing with a “Fundamentalist Baptist Missouri Synod of 1904”.
Care to give an example. I’ve been browsing here for some time now, and I have yet to see an atheist poster exhort others to actively disbelieve, ditto for calling people stupid for not disbelieving.
Again, what is being argued here is whether a belief system is “right” or “wrong”.
To argue such using logic (there is or there isn’t a god), is to fall into an endless
trap, one that fundamentalists rule and can’t wait to get you into.
Why do they? Because it is a classic logic trap they win using any number of deceptive tactics.
An old adage (relatively old, that is) goes “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”
Those who claim there is a real god (meaning those who are literalists and who don’t ‘get’ the concept of metaphors) need to provide this extraordinary evidence.
But they can’t. They resort to mentioned deceptive tactics (most, granted, not trying to be intentionally deceptive), which blossom into lovely flowers of anger and war on both parties parts.
In short, the original argument is a faulty one, doomed from the beginning.
Yet, people have been killing eachother for centuries about it.
Here’s a little nitpick. I’ve seen several times in this thread the phrase “close minded.” It should be “closed-minded.” Your mind is not “close,” it’s closed. Maybe this annoys me so much because my mom-in-law always puts (the similar) “suppose to” in her emails, but it drives me batty.
Well knock me down with a feather. That dictionary.com link looks like the “close-minded” is preferred, although I can’t imagine why, except for its simply being an idiom. It also gives the pronunciation of “close” with the s sound, not z, indicating to me that your mind is near, not far. So if I’m not close-minded, am I far-minded?
I think the world seems chaotic to most people at some time or another. You don’t have to try; it comes up and hits you in the face at some point, usually right around the time your life is falling apart. You only have to look around this board to see that some people decide that their faith is meaningless and go down a different path. Then, some atheists decide that God is calling them and they’d better listen.
Sooner or later every person of faith has to decide for themselves. (Then they have to keep on doing that, over and over.) It is an individual thing; you can’t say “no theists have tried to believe this or that,” it doesn’t make sense to do that. For myself, I strongly believe that the universe has purpose and order, and I feel that I have had experiences that led to and confirmed that belief. I have not always felt that way.
If god was that concerned, I’d imagine he’d have made himself known rather than relying on faith. It’s much easier to get people to do “his work” if they know who they’re working for.
YMMV, however I would have to say that neither mindset is as bad as the false dichotomy you’ve created. Simply not believing in god until she reveals herself or until you can obtain compelling evidence is most definately not a denial of god.
If you have compelling argumentation for the non-existence for an alleged version of the supernatural, then you are not being cynical nor negative. We know Santa Clause doesn’t exist because the grown-ups are the ones putting the gifts under the tree, and because to conduct his task, Santa would explode in a hellish fireball from the air friction created in his travel. Similarly, we could say that a god that is all-merciful and vengeful simply cannot exist because those two conditions, depending on how you define them, are mutually exclusive.
So you and your friend aren’t necessarily on opposite sides of the right/wrong question. Supposing there is some sort of god, if she has refused to provide compelling empirical evidence then there is no reason for you to believe. If she is happy giving you the same sort of evidence that is available for every other supernatural claim, though her theology is the only true one, then she should be happy if you worship some non-existent god. And if you choose to not believe in any theology until you obtain evidence that is as compelling as other invisible phenomena, you can’t see a magnetic field but you sure as heck can test for one, then she must be happy with your non-belief. None of this is negative or cynical. Doesn’t it seem more negative to say that my arbitrarily chosen god is real and everybody else’s are all fantasies of credulous minds?
I too disagree with you, in part. As an atheist, I’m quite comfortable with my view of the world. I see the beauty and wonder in it and find it amazing and really cool that it all just happened, without design or external control. In fact, I find that even more impressive than the idea that there is a god that created it all.
I do believe religious belief is based on myths, and if I was to make the pretense of believing, it would just be for show. There would be no truth in it.
I don’t appreciate the insinuation that being an atheist is being “blissfully unaware.” I’m quite aware of my place in the world, yes, although calling it a “scheme” also suggests an external controller, so I don’t think there is a “scheme” in the same way you do. My place in the world is that of a person who needs to live, and be part of the world. That’s it. The rest is gravy. You may think I’m “blissfully unaware,” but I suggest that you are trying to remain unaware of reality and your place in it, by clinging “tenuously to a pantheistic worldview so that I can make some sense of the world.” It sounds as though you don’t really believe, but feel you are required to, or that believing in god/s is the only way to be comfortable. I assure you, it’s not.
John Fowles in his Arista answered this question a number of years ago in a very personal manner:
If there is no god and I choose to be an Atheist it doesn’t matter what I do in the end.
If there is no god and I choose to be a Theist it still doesn’t matter what I do in the end.
If there is a god and I choose to believe in a god then in the end I’m in good shape.
But if there is a god and I’ve chosen to be an atheist, then I’m screwed.
Except, belief isn’t a conscious choice. If I don’t believe, I can’t just decide to believe “to be on the safe side.” I already don’t believe. Saying otherwise would just be a lie. So my answer to Fowles is:
If there is a god and I’ve chosen to be an atheist, I’m going to have to hope it’s a god that doesn’t care, as long as I’ve led a good life, and take my chances.
And that’s an honest belief that I have to live with.
I don’t think you understand. The insinuation of ‘blissful unawareness’ is with theism NOT atheism. And you’re right. I cling to my worldview right now, because I just can’t let go of the belief that everything has a “purpose”. I know it’s an irrational belief, one that I could possibly outgrow, but it is, nonetheless, powerful enough to override my rational mind. Again, I do not place any value judgements on theism or atheism except to say that I think it would be easier to feel happy with a theistic worldview. (Not that this ignorant bliss is in itself a greater good than seeing the truth.)
I think it depends on the type of atheism or theism you embrace.
A mindset accepting atheism after a rational and logical examination of the evidence for a god, or lack thereof, can’t be bad, and any god worthy of worship shouldn’t be upset by this. An atheism hewing to some theists beliefs that atheists just want to do anything without worrying about punishment would be wrong. (I’ve never met an atheist like this.)
A theist who believes for whatever reason, but who admits that he or she might be wrong, and does not attempt to force others into a belief, has a good mindset. A theist who believes absolutely, and limits the rights of all who do not believe, is evil. Alas, there are more of this kind of theist than the bad kind of atheist.
And hroeder, Fowle’s regurgitaton of Pascal’s wager has been refuted six ways from Sunday. In addition to the other responses, which of the many gods should one believe in? If another threatened worse punishment than Jehovah, would that be the best bet?
In the same way, I’m not saying it’s better to be a theist, only that it would be so much easier to digest. If you’re a person who has a strong need for meaning (like me), theism instantly fills that need with doctrine that you are supposed to take in simply by faith. With atheism/pantheism, you create your purpose, you examine your own life, you find your own meaning. I submit, this is harder, more frustrating and ultimately, less rewarding than just blindly believing some dogma.