The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[Dondi]

It dawned on me why athiests have such a easy time (and fun time) refuting anyone who has a belief in God.

The athiests require no proof of God, they just have to believe He doesn't exist. Yes, they can just sit back and watch those theists try to prove God somehow.

But in the end, athiests won't be able to prove that they are right. Why? Because is there is no God, and we just turn to dust, no one will be around for them to say, "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, I told you so!" We'll be non-existent. Of course, it works both ways, for the theists won't be able to say to the athiests, "Gee, you were right all the time! Golly, let's play basketball."

 

[wil]

The ball is definetely in the theist court. I've been kicked out of evilbible.com thrice in discussions. One thing about athiests is they are fundamentalists, literalists, and are intolerant of any theist who has an appreciaton for the various levels of understanding in scripture. They focus on contradictions, homophobia, stoning, genocide they find in the books...

I found discussion with them fun and enlightening, the owner/operator/moderator though is intolerant of anyone like me.

 

[17th Angel]

*Softly chuckles*

It simply makes more sense that once we die that is it.... I think when discussing with JW's about it they said "Well doesn't it seem wrong that we die?? When something live longer than us? Doesn't it seem that death is wrong? The animals they are not bothered about death because they are supposed to die and they live on insticnts" I couldn't help but laugh... It isn't that they are supposed to die and we are supposed to live forever. We simply just have more intelligence than the animals they don't have the thoughts of "oh but I want to go to disney land before I die...." and so on.

Not believing in god, doesn't mean I have to proove a thing. When I am dead I am dead thats it my corpse is rotting for the maggots... there is your proof... I think it also is supported by logic. When I die I go back to what I came from nothing rest.... Hmm seems reasonable... OR When I die I become a floaty being floating all over the place like casper the friendly ghost.... lol suuuure you do... *get the medicine boys*

The other thing is, end of the day the bible is just a freaking book. If I made a book now and say some stuff about this guy called I dunno... Tony and he came from mars and up on mars there is a special race of five eyed squids... and they control and made the universe, and the writtings in the book were inspired by the grande court of mars squids... Would you believe that? Of course not... And when I look at your bible that is what it seems like to me... a fairy tale.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

You know, 17th, I can't believe you've been a member of this forum for a whole year and still post up this sort of stuff. You must have noticed by now that not all of us believe in life after death. And surely you must know that the Bible is not the only holy book, and that the Bilble is actually a compilation of many different books and stories put together from thousands of years in different civilisations.

If you haven't twigged this level of understanding yet, you haven't even begun.

Try making a list of all the things that really make your life worth while. Then tick off all those that can be measured scientifically (friends, music, poetry...)

All religion is an attempt to grasp those elusive qualities that make our lives and our societies different from a 16-valve engine. If we were left with only the obvious, life would be unliveable.

 

[Paladin]

There is a column in my favorite local paper called the "Freethinkers" a column dedicated to atheism and the refutation of theistic claims. Now as a fan of philosophy and logic I can appreciate a good argument but what passes for syllogism and well thought out argument in that column is usually sophomoric at best. It is my contention that the only logical ( and I speak about a linear logic here) stance would have to be agnostic.
If we posit different levels of intelligence, understanding of abstract concepts, or levels of consciousness there will always be those who eschew the mystic experience whether they be theists, atheists, or non-theists.
If I could I would invite another inside my zazen to be with me when I touch more subtle realms of awareness but this is not possible, therefore I have no proof such realms exist.
And isn't arguing just a waste of time for a seeker anyway? Unless of course it is done for the pure sport of it

Peace

 

[17th Angel]

You know, 17th, I can't believe you've been a member of this forum for a whole year and still post up this sort of stuff. You must have noticed by now that not all of us believe in life after death. And surely you must know that the Bible is not the only holy book, and that the Bilble is actually a compilation of many different books and stories put together from thousands of years in different civilisations.

If you haven't twigged this level of understanding yet, you haven't even begun.

Try making a list of all the things that really make your life worth while. Then tick off all those that can be measured scientifically (friends, music, poetry...)

All religion is an attempt to grasp those elusive qualities that make our lives and our societies different from a 16-valve engine. If we were left with only the obvious, life would be unliveable.

I have been registered to this forum for over a year yes… I have spent in total say a month here. Dondi talks of religion in regard his own faith Christianity so I use the bible here for example. Indeed there are many more…. Books, that are connected to other religions. Make a list of things that make my life worthwhile? And remove things that are scientifically measured? What do you mean? Elaborate a little. Also religion is the not so obvious? And without religion are you stating life is pointless?

 

[cavalier]

To quote Junior Soprano, this "is like the old woman with the Virginia Ham, crying foul 'cause she's got no bread."

In all honesty Dondi, I don't see why this bothers you. You've found God, live it up big guy. One minute spent frustrated over the "easy time" atheists have, is one minute less you have to glorify God.

 

[JosephM]

It seems to me that the atheist can't help being what he is anymore than the Christian can help being what he is. Proof of God can not be obtained in words no more than the taste of sugar can be described to one who has never tasted. Perhaps the atheist sees through the shallowness and illusions of mens beliefs and subservience to myths and fairy tales and in doing so recognizes counterfeits. But in doing so, he fails to see the option of the genuine that has been counterfeited. Just some thoughts to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[17th Angel]

It seems to me that the atheist can't help being what he is anymore than the Christian can help being what he is. Proof of God can not be obtained in words no more than the taste of sugar can be described to one who has never tasted. Perhaps the atheist sees through the shallowness and illusions of mens beliefs and subservience to myths and fairy tales and in doing so recognizes counterfeits. But in doing so, he fails to see the option of the genuine that has been counterfeited. Just some thoughts to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

Nice...

 

[Snoopy]

It dawned on me why athiests have such a easy time (and fun time) refuting anyone who has a belief in God.

The athiests require no proof of God, they just have to believe He doesn't exist. Yes, they can just sit back and watch those theists try to prove God somehow.

But in the end, athiests won't be able to prove that they are right. Why? Because is there is no God, and we just turn to dust, no one will be around for them to say, "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, I told you so!" We'll be non-existent. Of course, it works both ways, for the theists won't be able to say to the athiests, "Gee, you were right all the time! Golly, let's play basketball."

Hi,

No I'm sorry but this isn't something that "works both ways." Let's remove the specifics of this particular argument/belief for a moment (theism/atheism) and focus on the proof principle in general.

If a person posits the existence of something (anything at all) then the ONUS is on this person to provide proof of its existence, if indeed the person feels that it is possible. The onus is NOT on anybody else to demonstrate that the thing does not exist. Any other approach is irrational and would mean the entire world's population could live in a fantasy world divorced from reality. I could, for example, claim that there are giant pink hamsters living on the moon. It is up to me to provide evidence of their existence. Every one else may say they do not exist but the onus is not on them to provide evidence that they do not exist since it is me that is making the claim for their existence and so it is up to me to provide the objectively assessable evidence. This is simple sound logic which applies to any proposition, whether it is for my lunar hamsters, gravity, evolution, deities, nirvana, salmon, Santa Claus, blue cheese, black swans or hell.

s.

 

[17th Angel]

Hi,

No I'm sorry but this isn't something that "works both ways." Let's remove the specifics of this particular argument/belief for a moment (theism/atheism) and focus on the proof principle in general.

If a person posits the existence of something (anything at all) then the ONUS is on this person to provide proof of its existence, if indeed the person feels that it is possible. The onus is NOT on anybody else to demonstrate that the thing does not exist. Any other approach is irrational and would mean the entire world's population could live in a fantasy world divorced from reality. I could, for example, claim that there are giant pink hamsters living on the moon. It is up to me to provide evidence of their existence. Every one else may say they do not exist but the onus is not on them to provide evidence that they do not exist since it is me that is making the claim for their existence and so it is up to me to provide the objectively assessable evidence. This is simple sound logic which applies to any proposition, whether it is for my lunar hamsters, gravity, evolution, deities, nirvana, salmon, Santa Claus, blue cheese, black swans or hell.

s.

Wow, that was a freaking good answer..... *gives nod of approval*

 

[Snoopy]

I have my moments!

s.

 

[Dondi]

Hi,

No I'm sorry but this isn't something that "works both ways." Let's remove the specifics of this particular argument/belief for a moment (theism/atheism) and focus on the proof principle in general.

If a person posits the existence of something (anything at all) then the ONUS is on this person to provide proof of its existence, if indeed the person feels that it is possible. The onus is NOT on anybody else to demonstrate that the thing does not exist. Any other approach is irrational and would mean the entire world's population could live in a fantasy world divorced from reality. I could, for example, claim that there are giant pink hamsters living on the moon. It is up to me to provide evidence of their existence. Every one else may say they do not exist but the onus is not on them to provide evidence that they do not exist since it is me that is making the claim for their existence and so it is up to me to provide the objectively assessable evidence. This is simple sound logic which applies to any proposition, whether it is for my lunar hamsters, gravity, evolution, deities, nirvana, salmon, Santa Claus, blue cheese, black swans or hell.

s.

You've actually made my point. The athiest doesn't have to prove anything. It is the thiest who holds the burden of proof. The only aspect of working both ways, if you re-read my OP, is that if there is no God, then athiests cannot say I told you so, but neither would thiests there to congradulate the athiest for being right, as we would be non-existent also.

In all honesty Dondi, I don't see why this bothers you. You've found God, live it up big guy. One minute spent frustrated over the "easy time" atheists have, is one minute less you have to glorify God.

Actually, it doesn't. I really don't have a problem with athiests. I'm just as comfortable in my theism as they are in their atheism, perhaps more so for I am hopeful that my life will continue. If I'm wrong, then I won't know it. If they are wrong, then they will. I know, I know, it sounds like Pascal wager. But what I wrote was merely an observation, not a complaint. Nor is it intended to be persuasive. I just wanted to see what people's response to this would be and I wasn't disappointed.

 

[Snoopy]

It dawned on me why athiests have such a easy time (and fun time) refuting anyone who has a belief in God.

The athiests require no proof of God, they just have to believe He doesn't exist. Yes, they can just sit back and watch those theists try to prove God somehow.

But in the end, athiests won't be able to prove that they are right. Why? Because is there is no God, and we just turn to dust, no one will be around for them to say, "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, I told you so!" We'll be non-existent. Of course, it works both ways, for the theists won't be able to say to the athiests, "Gee, you were right all the time! Golly, let's play basketball."

Hi,

Hmmmmm! I think your words that I've bolded were what led me to make my point, which I think remains: regarding the existence of God it is only the believer who has to provide any proof. As to winning any arguments post-death, that's a bit beyond my understanding!

I'm not being pedantic from a believer or non-believer POV, just trying to point out a central tenet of objective proof, if this is considered appropriate.

s.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Hi,

No I'm sorry but this isn't something that "works both ways." Let's remove the specifics of this particular argument/belief for a moment (theism/atheism) and focus on the proof principle in general.

If a person posits the existence of something (anything at all) then the ONUS is on this person to provide proof of its existence, if indeed the person feels that it is possible. The onus is NOT on anybody else to demonstrate that the thing does not exist. Any other approach is irrational and would mean the entire world's population could live in a fantasy world divorced from reality. I could, for example, claim that there are giant pink hamsters living on the moon. It is up to me to provide evidence of their existence. Every one else may say they do not exist but the onus is not on them to provide evidence that they do not exist since it is me that is making the claim for their existence and so it is up to me to provide the objectively assessable evidence. This is simple sound logic which applies to any proposition, whether it is for my lunar hamsters, gravity, evolution, deities, nirvana, salmon, Santa Claus, blue cheese, black swans or hell.

s.

Yes in principle. I am familiar with the impossibility to prove the non-existence of something. (The three letters WMD spring to mind.) But to say that theists are positing God as an optional extra is to be drawn into the atheist world view before you begin.

Theists view God an an indispensible part of life as we know it. You might as well debate the existence of your own head. The trouble is, such is the pervasiveness of post-enlightenment thinking that many religious believers can now only think of God as an add-on.

 

[Caimanson]

You've actually made my point. The athiest doesn't have to prove anything. It is the thiest who holds the burden of proof.

Don't think so, the atheist MUST prove that god does not exist, whether it matches god as described by any of the world religions is another matter.
I agree with Paladin, the only honest option is agnosticism if you really want to stand by the rules of logic and proof. Theism and atheism are both positions of faith and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm just as comfortable in my theism as they are in their atheism, perhaps more so for I am hopeful that my life will continue. If I'm wrong, then I won't know it. If they are wrong, then they will. I know, I know, it sounds like Pascal wager.

The other side of the coin, is that if god does not exist, you may restrict your choices in this life for nothing. In other words, what may you do differently if you know that this is the only life you've got?

And also: we may not live eternally, but god may still exist........

 

[wil]

Interesting comtemplation, if the atheist was wrong, there a number of people that could be right.

What are their odds?

Just because one is atheist does not mean they are not moral, compassionate, caring, philanthropic, loving individuals...so how would the various potential religions treat them?

What percentage of the world believes it wouldn't matter, that they would be judged on their works, or not judged at all?

What percentage of people believe in a vengeful G-d, who would penalize the atheist?

Then we have the issue of, of the vengeful G-d religions, which one do we choose as if we choose the wrong one, are we in the same position as one who didn't choose any of them?

So much for Pascal's wager...

 

[Snoopy]

Yes in principle. I am familiar with the impossibility to prove the non-existence of something. (The three letters WMD spring to mind.) But to say that theists are positing God as an optional extra is to be drawn into the atheist world view before you begin.

Theists view God an an indispensible part of life as we know it. You might as well debate the existence of your own head. The trouble is, such is the pervasiveness of post-enlightenment thinking that many religious believers can now only think of God as an add-on.

So the answer is a given before the question is investigated. My lunar hamsters are an indispensible part of my life; to say otherwise is to be drawn into the anti-lunar hamster world view before we begin.

s.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

So the answer is a given before the question is investigated. My lunar hamsters are an indispensible part of my life; to say otherwise is to be drawn into the anti-lunar hamster world view before we begin.
s.

Lunar hamsters are one thing; the colour red is another. And yet there are people who cannot see the colour red. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

 

[Jaiket]

It is my contention that the only logical ( and I speak about a linear logic here) stance would have to be agnostic.

I agree.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist (perhaps ignostic igtheist is a better description). I certainly do not know that the God concept (whatever it is to a given theist) is not an accurate reflection of reality. If it is a supernatural concept I submit that I cannot know (and neither can the theist), if it is some other more complicated or abstract concept then I simply accept that it is currently meaningless to me.