What Does Atheism Have To Offer?

[seer]

Try not to be any more idiotic than you can help, eh?

Ok, it may not be easy though... But my point is, it is not just christians that vie for power or try to influence the laws of the land.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, again - if everything the atheist is, loves, or cares about, dies. That everything he does - no matter how noble, ends in dust, as all humanity, with it's works, will one day end in dust - then where is the hope? I mean anyone can ascribe temporal, subjective meaning to life - but that too dies...

I already answered the question. Most people find hope in life, children, beauty and wonder of nature. Everybody is not going to find hope your way just because you say so. You have offered nothing to justify your reasons for hope other than your assertions, just like Frank Sinatra in 'Do it my way.'

[Tanakh Keeper]

I just don't see any down side in believing in myth, if it helps one survive and cope better. I don't see any compelling argument for unbelief, even if atheism is true.

Christianity creates feelings of guilt and fear.

[seer]

I already answered the question. Most people find hope in life, children, beauty and wonder of nature. Everybody is not going to find hope your way just because you say so. You have offered nothing to justify your reasons for hope other than your assertions, just like Frank Sinatra in 'Do it my way.'

And childern, nature, beauty all ends. All ends in dust. I already agreed that people can mke up their own temporal, subjective purpose or meaning. No hope beyond the grave.

BTW shuny, don't you believe in the afterlife?

[Kane]

First Chris, I did not even suggest that myth belief would induce peace and joy in every life - my faith certainly does. Second, you are asking the wrong question - it is not how miserable the man is with Christ, but how miserable he would have been without faith. He may have been much worse.

You're right: you didn't imply that. But so what? I made account for that when I mentioned that there are some who are peaceful and joyful. Surely you read what I wrote?

No, in this case the myth would have to last a life time for it to have the desired effect. Why go from the hope of belief to the hoplessness of unbelief - kind of defeats the whole purpose. But again, what's the big deal if we carry these irrational, crutch-beliefs to death - so what? What standard of truth have we violtated?

First, why would the 'myth' have to last a lifetime to fulfill its potential?

Second, who says unbelief is hopeless? You? Based on what, exactly?

Third, yes indeed! What standard of truth have we validated? I'm very curious about your answer to that one.

So what - if it helps them cope.

Would you say the same of Ted Bundy? He held some well-expressed irrational beliefs about the nature of reality. It helped him cope. He was a master at his particular coping mechanism. Is he therefore justified in holding on to his irrationality if it helps him cope? Is this a crutch you would advocate?

So your rationality depends on my opinion? And remember a man can be rational in one area of life but not in another. So no, I do not know if you are rational. But you claimed to be rational, perhaps you can offer an objective standard for said rationality....

The point of my questions was to cause you to realise that our exchange, so far, has been premised on an assumed rationality on both our parts. The fact that we are disagreeing is not a proof of our irrationality, but rather a proof of our rationality. Communication does not happen without some measure of rationality.

On a linguistic level, however, if you can define what God is, we might be able to make a case for the rationality of said being. As it is, the notion of God is irrational and a good deal of talk about God is subsequently irrational. This gives rise to the question of the rationality of theism, overall.

But again, faith in a god/afterlife, whether rational or not, brings millions, if not billions, of people purpose, joy, a reason to get up in the morning and most importantly hope. Again, I see not downside...

This is all well and fine. But 'hope' is a non-rational thing. It is an emotion, an anticipation. It is not rational by its very nature.

[technomage]

Ok, it may not be easy though...

You have one argument--and you keep repeating it. "Atheism is meaningless."

You've had it demonstrated over and over that your argument is false--that atheists can and do find meaning in life. But you keep coming back to that same argument, as if you were too stupid to understand the rebuttals, or (more likely) considered the rebuttals to be so contrary to your views that you rejected them out of hand. You've even, IIRC, blatantly accused atheists of actually agreeing with you in their hearts, as if you knew more about what was going on in their head than they did.

This is precisely what I mean by my earlier criticism of you: you don't care what people think. The only thing you care about is winning the argument. Pity you're too incompetent to even understand what is being argued.

But my point is, it is not just christians that vie for power or try to influence the laws of the land.

Considering that you repeatedly refuse to consider the points of others, do you realize just how little concern I have for your point?

Christians fear that they're losing control of the country? Considering what a bang-up job you folks have done of screwing it, your fellow Christians, and us non-christians, I think even you can see why the thought amuses me no end.

[seer]

You're right: you didn't imply that. But so what? I made account for that when I mentioned that there are some who are peaceful and joyful. Surely you read what I wrote?

I was questioning your other claim, that many people of faith are basically miserable - well maybe they would be even worse without faith. You can't qualify these things.

First, why would the 'myth' have to last a lifetime to fulfill its potential?

If your belief included God and an afterlife, wouldn't you have to carry that to your end for it to be effective?

Second, who says unbelief is hopeless? You? Based on what, exactly?

Ok, everything you love, everything you worked for and your very life, ends in dust - where exactly is the hope in that?

Third, yes indeed! What standard of truth have we validated? I'm very curious about your answer to that one.

Not sure what you mean - I mean there would be no objective standard of truth that we would be morally obligated to.

Would you say the same of Ted Bundy? He held some well-expressed irrational beliefs about the nature of reality. It helped him cope. He was a master at his particular coping mechanism. Is he therefore justified in holding on to his irrationality if it helps him cope? Is this a crutch you would advocate?

Nope, I wouldn't - but I don't think my opinion would sway him. But really - all those people he killed would die anyway. We all die - only the means are different.

The point of my questions was to cause you to realise that our exchange, so far, has been premised on an assumed rationality on both our parts. The fact that we are disagreeing is not a proof of our irrationality, but rather a proof of our rationality. Communication does not happen without some measure of rationality.

Ok, I'll grant, for the moment, that you are rational.

On a linguistic level, however, if you can define what God is, we might be able to make a case for the rationality of said being. As it is, the notion of God is irrational and a good deal of talk about God is subsequently irrational. This gives rise to the question of the rationality of theism, overall.

No, that does not follow. Perhaps we do not have the "linguistic" ability to correctly define him - that would not bear on his existence or non-existence. But you know the attributes/character claimed for the Christian God - I haven't found them to be irrational. Without going to far off topic perhaps you could offer an example.

This is all well and fine. But 'hope' is a non-rational thing. It is an emotion, an anticipation. It is not rational by its very nature.

Again, that does not follow. Say there really was a God who offered an eternal life of bliss and you knew that you were headed for that life - that hope would be well founded - don't you think?

[seer]

You have one argument--and you keep repeating it. "Atheism is meaningless." You've had it demonstrated over and over that your argument is false--that atheists can and do find meaning in life.

Here is what Tassman, one of yours said: [i]I am OK with being a meaningless spec in this vast universe, a single transient spark which extinguishes itself after a fleeting moment. [/quote]

[technomage]

Here is what Tassman, one of yours said: [i]I am OK with being a meaningless spec in this vast universe, a single transient spark which extinguishes itself after a fleeting moment.

[/quote]

You yourself, if I am not mistaken, have frequently commented on Tassman's stupidity--yet you use him as the exemplar for atheism?

I'll notify Tassman that he's been elected the pope of Atheism--by you, the Prince of Morons.

[ENeGMA]

Correct, but I think my point is getting lost in all this. Perhaps I didn't choose the correct title. I just don't see any down side in believing in myth, if it helps one survive and cope better.

I don't either.

Like I said, I value the truth and being honest with myself, but if someone instead believed that "ignorance is bliss" then they've just chosen a different way to live.

Lots of people believe crazy things, from my perspective. I may not like it, but you know, different strokes for different folks, as long as their views don't harm me or, really, themselves.

I think it's unfortunate some of the things people do in the name of religion. But that's a small subset of the religious population. The others don't really bother me or trouble me.

I don't see any compelling argument for unbelief, even if atheism is true.

Well, then you're probably not a candidate for atheism.

[seer]

You yourself, if I am not mistaken, have frequently commented on Tassman's stupidity--yet you use him as the exemplar for atheism?

I'll notify Tassman that he's been elected the pope of Atheism--by you, the Prince of Morons.

T, I never even suggested that Tass was stupid. I don't call people stupid - I do not use name calling at all.

But how is he wrong?

[seer]

I don't either.

Like I said, I value the truth and being honest with myself, but if someone instead believed that "ignorance is bliss" then they've just chosen a different way to live.

Lots of people believe crazy things, from my perspective. I may not like it, but you know, different strokes for different folks, as long as their views don't harm me or, really, themselves.

I think it's unfortunate some of the things people do in the name of religion. But that's a small subset of the religious population. The others don't really bother me or trouble me.



Well, then you're probably not a candidate for atheism.

Ok...

[Whateverman]

In reality, external philosophies are being lumped under the "atheism" umbrella, and these things actually can/do provide stuff. For example: materialistic naturalism, secular humanism, political liberalism, etc. These are belief systems or philosophies, and even if you disagree with them, they provide frameworks upon which to base behavior.

So... if you're using the general definition of atheism (lack of belief), it should offer nothing, and this can not be considered a 'downside'. If you're using the larger umbrella term, then it offers foundations for morality, knowledge and science.
This is true as far as it goes. But isn't this just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, in the big picture? Let me quote myself: Ok, where is the hope for the atheist? Everything he is, loves, or cares about, dies. Everything he does - no matter how noble, ends in dust, as all humanity, with all it's works, will one day end in dust...

This is true as far as it goes. But isn't this just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, in the big picture? Let me quote myself: Ok, where is the hope for the atheist? Everything he is, loves, or cares about, dies. Everything he does - no matter how noble, ends in dust, as all humanity, with all it's works, will one day end in dust...

IRT the rearranging the deck chairs, the rearrangement happens only because you're demanding that an absence of belief supply/offer something. It does not and it can not - ever.

If atheism is ONLY a lack of belief, there's no rearrangement. A person's world view is made up of many philosophies & belief systems; the fact that an atheist (who merely lacks belief) says "murder is wrong" doesn't mean that the assertion comes from atheism. It actually comes from other areas of the atheists world view, such as secular humanism.

If atheism is a movement which makes positive assertions about morality and knowledge, it's a rearrangement, but a valid one.

A lack of belief never can and never will supply anything, and it provides little to no benefit. This is as it should be. Would you ask the same question if a person lacked belief in sasquatch?

[seer]

A lack of belief never can and never will supply anything, and it provides little to no benefit. This is as it should be. Would you ask the same question if a person lacked belief in sasquatch?

Unbelief in sasquatch would not have the moral ramifications that denying a Creator would.

[mossrose]

You yourself, if I am not mistaken, have frequently commented on Tassman's stupidity--yet you use him as the exemplar for atheism?

I'll notify Tassman that he's been elected the pope of Atheism--by you, the Prince of Morons.

You ought to try Christianity again, technomage.

Because the way I see you behaving here, you aren't any better than you say we are.