"I don't know, so I'm an athiest libertarian"

catefrances

inlet13 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and how is my conviction not tactically smart?

It isn't tactically smart. It's like betting on something with the risk being your afterlife and with absolutely no reward what-so-ever. Clearly, you don't think afterlife exists. You may or may not be right. But, if you are right, a fervent believer in God will end up in the same exact place as you, in the dirt. So, in a sense, it doesn't get you anything by declaring your atheism. If they are right, however, it may get them something and you nothing, or worse you some form of distance from God. Or, who knows.. you may both exist just fine in an after life. Who knows.... but, my point stands... there's nothing to be lost by believing in God... there's a lot to be lost by not believing.

To me, atheism is not tactically smart.

declaring my atheism isnt suppose to get me anything. and its not a tactic. and you dont seem to get it. i cant just decide to believe just in case.. there is no just in case. for me, this life is all we get. why do believers think theyre owed a reward after death?

inlet13

catefrances wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and how is my conviction not tactically smart?

It isn't tactically smart. It's like betting on something with the risk being your afterlife and with absolutely no reward what-so-ever. Clearly, you don't think afterlife exists. You may or may not be right. But, if you are right, a fervent believer in God will end up in the same exact place as you, in the dirt. So, in a sense, it doesn't get you anything by declaring your atheism. If they are right, however, it may get them something and you nothing, or worse you some form of distance from God. Or, who knows.. you may both exist just fine in an after life. Who knows.... but, my point stands... there's nothing to be lost by believing in God... there's a lot to be lost by not believing.

To me, atheism is not tactically smart.

declaring my atheism isnt suppose to get me anything. and its not a tactic. and you dont seem to get it. i cant just decide to believe just in case.. there is no just in case. for me, this life is all we get. why do believers think theyre owed a reward after death?

I know it's not supposed to "get you anything", I understand that all to well. I also understand it's not a tactic for you. And finally, I actually do get it.

I'm not saying you need to decide just in case. My point is I actually think deep inside each and every atheist there's a slight bit of doubt that they are wrong. To me, that slight bit of doubt should override the definitive declaration of belief in no God... #1 It's not definitive and #2 there's potential consequences.

But, to each his or her own. You asked me to spell it out and I did. I think atheists are screaming for attention, basically. No offense. Otherwise, they'd be agnostic.

catefrances

inlet13 wrote:

I know it's not supposed to "get you anything", I understand that all to well. I also understand it's not a tactic for you. And finally, I actually do get it.

I'm not saying you need to decide just in case. My point is I actually think deep inside each and every atheist there's a slight bit of doubt that they are wrong. To me, that slight bit of doubt should override the definitive declaration of belief in no God... #1 It's not definitive and #2 there's potential consequences.

But, to each his or her own. You asked me to spell it out and I did. I think atheists are screaming for attention, basically. No offense. Otherwise, they'd be agnostic.

im glad you spelled it our for me. it needed to be done. thank you.

there is zero doubt in my mind when it comes to the non existence of God... if there was, id be an agnostic. and because of that zero doubt i am an atheist. i am not screaming out for attention. if i was id probably take offense at your (not so)veiled derogation. i dont need attention... nor do i want it. as i said, i cant just choose to believe.

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

It isn't tactically smart. It's like betting on something with the risk being your afterlife and with absolutely no reward what-so-ever. Clearly, you don't think afterlife exists. You may or may not be right. But, if you are right, a fervent believer in God will end up in the same exact place as you, in the dirt. So, in a sense, it doesn't get you anything by declaring your atheism. If they are right, however, it may get them something and you nothing, or worse you some form of distance from God. Or, who knows.. you may both exist just fine in an after life. Who knows.... but, my point stands... there's nothing to be lost by believing in God... there's a lot to be lost by not believing.

To me, atheism is not tactically smart.

The tactic is useless as there are an infinite amount of possibilities. It's a one in infinity shot. Even if you hit the one in infinity shot god would just turn out to be a prick if it denied you an "afterlife" for just coming to a logical conclusion.

satansbed

I am an atheist but do not deny there some slight possiblity of there being some sort of god, however there is no evidence of there being a personal god, aboslutly none, just because things are unexplained doesn't mean that there has to be a god to explain them. the only sort of "god" i think there is a possiblilty of existing is some sort of force that led to the creation of everything, but this force isn't personal, can't have a consience, and has no power to impact the univerise that has been created. god can't be a person, it has tot be a force, it can't think, it's like gravity. this is the only possible "god" that logicly could exist, and it is only a god if you think of "god" as the creator,

it's sometimes a bit shit, but most often i find it more comforting to look at the evidence and realise that I am the only force in control of my own life.

inlet13

markin ball wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

It isn't tactically smart. It's like betting on something with the risk being your afterlife and with absolutely no reward what-so-ever. Clearly, you don't think afterlife exists. You may or may not be right. But, if you are right, a fervent believer in God will end up in the same exact place as you, in the dirt. So, in a sense, it doesn't get you anything by declaring your atheism. If they are right, however, it may get them something and you nothing, or worse you some form of distance from God. Or, who knows.. you may both exist just fine in an after life. Who knows.... but, my point stands... there's nothing to be lost by believing in God... there's a lot to be lost by not believing.

To me, atheism is not tactically smart.

The tactic is useless as there are an infinite amount of possibilities. It's a one in infinity shot. Even if you hit the one in infinity shot god would just turn out to be a prick if it denied you an "afterlife" for just coming to a logical conclusion.

I don't agree about the "God being a prick if he denied you an afterlife part". Think about it this way, by declaring your atheism, you are making a choice to distance yourself from God in the present world, which could impact you in the afterlife. To me, the afterlife is us all being reunited in a sense. It's something we actually long for in the present world, but it's obviously impossible here because of time. Your definitive choice now (in time) that you don't want to be part of that in the afterlife is your choice alone, not God's. He have us free will. I, by no means am saying an atheist can't change his or her mind on their deathbed. I'm also not saying I'm 100% right. But, this is what I believe. I believe we are choosing right now what we want in our afterlife, because I, like most humans, believe in some sort of afterlife.

I do think atheism is tactically a silly approach because there's absolutely no reward for being right, all the risk in world and no atheist is 100% certain in their belief.

inlet13

satansbed wrote:

I am an atheist but do not deny there some slight possiblity of there being some sort of god, however there is no evidence of there being a personal god, aboslutly none, just because things are unexplained doesn't mean that there has to be a god to explain them. the only sort of "god" i think there is a possiblilty of existing is some sort of force that led to the creation of everything, but this force isn't personal, can't have a consience, and has no power to impact the univerise that has been created. god can't be a person, it has tot be a force, it can't think, it's like gravity. this is the only possible "god" that logicly could exist, and it is only a god if you think of "god" as the creator,

it's sometimes a bit shit, but most often i find it more comforting to look at the evidence and realise that I am the only force in control of my own life.

See, I think you aren't an atheist then.

This is what my first post was all about. People think they are atheists but don't really know what the term means.

P.S. I don't think your points above are incompatible with many organized religion's view on God. I agree, it's rather elementary to think that God is a person who sits up in the clouds and has a white beard. Even the judgment day is a bit elementary to me. In my opinion, we're deciding our judgment right now... that's why near death experiences always involve flashbacks (a review of our life) and a white light (us rejoining God). Once again, to me, it's US who decide our afterlife... not God. Because, to me, we're already a part of God outside of time. The problem is thinking of "timeless" is both scary and vacant to a human on earth.

satansbed

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

I am an atheist but do not deny there some slight possiblity of there being some sort of god, however there is no evidence of there being a personal god, aboslutly none, just because things are unexplained doesn't mean that there has to be a god to explain them. the only sort of "god" i think there is a possiblilty of existing is some sort of force that led to the creation of everything, but this force isn't personal, can't have a consience, and has no power to impact the univerise that has been created. god can't be a person, it has tot be a force, it can't think, it's like gravity. this is the only possible "god" that logicly could exist, and it is only a god if you think of "god" as the creator,

it's sometimes a bit shit, but most often i find it more comforting to look at the evidence and realise that I am the only force in control of my own life.

See, I think you aren't an atheist then.

This is what my first post was all about. People think they are atheists but don't really know what the term means.

P.S. I don't think your points above are incompatible with many organized religion's view on God. I agree, it's rather elementary to think that God is a person who sits up in the clouds and has a white beard. Even the judgment day is a bit elementary to me. In my opinion, we're deciding our judgment right now... that's why near death experiences always involve flashbacks (a review of our life) and a white light (us rejoining God). Once again, to me, it's US who decide our afterlife... not God. Because, to me, we're already a part of God outside of time. The problem is thinking of "timeless" is both scary and vacant to a human on earth.

i would disagree with this firstly because not all people who expierence near death expierences see this and there could and are many other explanations for what people see and feel with near death expierences, for example it could be the brain firing of information as it dies.

secondly i most definatly am an athiest because my definition of athiesm is the rejection of a belief in a deity. that doesn't mean i think it is impossible that one exists, just as i see it there is no evidence for a deity to exist, and in fact there is evidence that for me points away from a deity existing.

thirdly i think my points above where incompatible with organised religion, because all* organised religion is based on a communication with god, which under my hypothysis could not happen.

*all that i have expierence of or heard of to my memory.

Jason P

After spending the last few years observing the cosmos, I don't quite understand how someone can be 100% positive that God does or does not exist. There is so much that is unknown in the universe.

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

markin ball wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

It isn't tactically smart. It's like betting on something with the risk being your afterlife and with absolutely no reward what-so-ever. Clearly, you don't think afterlife exists. You may or may not be right. But, if you are right, a fervent believer in God will end up in the same exact place as you, in the dirt. So, in a sense, it doesn't get you anything by declaring your atheism. If they are right, however, it may get them something and you nothing, or worse you some form of distance from God. Or, who knows.. you may both exist just fine in an after life. Who knows.... but, my point stands... there's nothing to be lost by believing in God... there's a lot to be lost by not believing.

To me, atheism is not tactically smart.

The tactic is useless as there are an infinite amount of possibilities. It's a one in infinity shot. Even if you hit the one in infinity shot god would just turn out to be a prick if it denied you an "afterlife" for just coming to a logical conclusion.

I don't agree about the "God being a prick if he denied you an afterlife part". Think about it this way, by declaring your atheism, you are making a choice to distance yourself from God in the present world, which could impact you in the afterlife. To me, the afterlife is us all being reunited in a sense. It's something we actually long for in the present world, but it's obviously impossible here because of time. Your definitive choice now (in time) that you don't want to be part of that in the afterlife is your choice alone, not God's. He have us free will. I, by no means am saying an atheist can't change his or her mind on their deathbed. I'm also not saying I'm 100% right. But, this is what I believe. I believe we are choosing right now what we want in our afterlife, because I, like most humans, believe in some sort of afterlife.

I do think atheism is tactically a silly approach because there's absolutely no reward for being right, all the risk in world and no atheist is 100% certain in their belief.

I get all that, I really do, but your beliefs are based on enormous assumptions, especially that the god you are worshiping is the supreme being. This is what I refereed to as being the 1 in infinity shot. So that's why I say your chance is really no better than the atheist denying any god altogether. Another big assumptions in your post that is highly debatable is the concept of free will.

And yes, even if what you believe is true, god would be a major super prick if he gave you reasoning, logic, free will, and the enormous imperfections of the human condition, and then denied you an afterlife in the end because you couldn't get it all sorted out on earth.

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

I am an atheist but do not deny there some slight possiblity of there being some sort of god, however there is no evidence of there being a personal god, aboslutly none, just because things are unexplained doesn't mean that there has to be a god to explain them. the only sort of "god" i think there is a possiblilty of existing is some sort of force that led to the creation of everything, but this force isn't personal, can't have a consience, and has no power to impact the univerise that has been created. god can't be a person, it has tot be a force, it can't think, it's like gravity. this is the only possible "god" that logicly could exist, and it is only a god if you think of "god" as the creator,

it's sometimes a bit shit, but most often i find it more comforting to look at the evidence and realise that I am the only force in control of my own life.

See, I think you aren't an atheist then.

This is what my first post was all about. People think they are atheists but don't really know what the term means.

P.S. I don't think your points above are incompatible with many organized religion's view on God. I agree, it's rather elementary to think that God is a person who sits up in the clouds and has a white beard. Even the judgment day is a bit elementary to me. In my opinion, we're deciding our judgment right now... that's why near death experiences always involve flashbacks (a review of our life) and a white light (us rejoining God). Once again, to me, it's US who decide our afterlife... not God. Because, to me, we're already a part of God outside of time. The problem is thinking of "timeless" is both scary and vacant to a human on earth.

Ginormous assumptions. You have no idea what mechanisms cause the flashbacks or the white light. Even if all the people in the world have the same experience it certainly does not mean that god is involved. Everybody breathes, too. Could just be an ordinary, mechanical function of the brain, or any other possibility for that matter.

blueandwhite

Honestly, I don't know how anybody can call themselves an atheist and say they are uncertain about anything. Atheism is the certainty that there is no god. As an agnostic I view Atheists and Theists as being cut from the same cloth. Their certainty in an absurd question screams arrogance to me. Atheists and Theists both claim that Agnostics are fence sitters (and usually dump on them for it), but this is a short-sighted definition of Agnosticism which is fueled by the need for both Theists and Atheists to be correct.

As an Agnostic I find the very question of god to be absurd. It is an improvable concept and as such, it is not worth consideration beyond academic banter IMO. In my experience, both Atheists and Theists claim victory over their opponents by pointing out that the other side can provide no certainty in support of their position. Of course both Theists and Atheists are quick dump on Agnostics for failing to play what many Agnostics simply consider to be a rather pointless game. As I see it, Agnosticism is not about indecision. It is simply understanding that a human being will never have sufficient understanding to answer an absurd proposition.

Atheists and Theists simply take opposite positions without supporting evidence.

Soulfire42

Inlet13 strikes me as a person who needs to look into Pascal's wager and come to an understanding of why it's a pretty lacking reason for faith.

As has been said by others before, we're all atheist about the overwhelming majority of gods that have ever been dreamt up. Atheists really just add one more god to the list that aren't believed in than believers and it is always that last one that pisses people off. Christians don't believe in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, etc. and it's quite easy for them to do so. They can see the absurdity in believing in those gods and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support their existence. But they have the damnedest of a time seeing the absurdities of their own beliefs and how it too is a product of a particular time, a particular place, full of contradictions, full of superstition and supernatural.

Inlet13, isn't it a bad tactic to not believe in Allah in just the same manner as you view it a good tactic to believe in Jesus? Or isn't it an equally bad tactic to not believe in Thor just in case he is actually real and would be very upset that you'd not believe in him? Do you secretly fear that you might be wrong about Thor's existence and that he may reject you upon your death? I'd be inclined to say that most atheists feel the same way about your God's wrath and hellfire as you do about Thor's wrath. When atheists speak of certainty, they do it in the same context as lack of belief in Thor. They don't expect to be held to the most absurd extremes of proof. As a wise person once said... the invisible and the nonexistant look very much alike. And they're both pretty damn hard to disprove with 100% certainty. Disproving an angel over a person's shoulder is pretty hard to do with 100% certainty, but an invisible elephant over their shoulder is just as hard to disprove as well. Don't expect absolute levels of certainty when people declare atheism. They are speaking of having an extremely high degree of confidence, not an absurd level of certainty.

satansbed

blueandwhite wrote:

Honestly, I don't know how anybody can call themselves an atheist and say they are uncertain about anything.

Atheism is the certainty that there is no god

. As an agnostic I view Atheists and Theists as being cut from the same cloth. Their certainty in an absurd question screams arrogance to me. Atheists and Theists both claim that Agnostics are fence sitters (and usually dump on them for it), but this is a short-sighted definition of Agnosticism which is fueled by the need for both Theists and Atheists to be correct.

As an Agnostic I find the very question of god to be absurd. It is an improvable concept and as such, it is not worth consideration beyond academic banter IMO. In my experience, both Atheists and Theists claim victory over their opponents by pointing out that the other side can provide no certainty in support of their position. Of course both Theists and Atheists are quick dump on Agnostics for failing to play what many Agnostics simply consider to be a rather pointless game. As I see it, Agnosticism is not about indecision. It is simply understanding that a human being will never have sufficient understanding to answer an absurd proposition.

Atheists and Theists simply take opposite positions without supporting evidence.

while i agree with an awful lot you say i disagree with your starting assumption. i think most athiest's say there probably is no god. and then live their life as if there is no god. i find your type of agnostism very close to my type of atheism. as mine is the rejection in the belief of a personal god and religion, beyond that it doesn't matter

inlet13

Soulfire42 wrote:

Inlet13 strikes me as a person who needs to look into Pascal's wager and come to an understanding of why it's a pretty lacking reason for faith.

I don't claim it's the best reason for faith. Instead, I say if that's last resort and you have the ability to reason without preexisting prejudice, than you most likely would choose to believe or at least choose to be agnostic. Because there are risks to not believing, most likely greater risks for all out rejection.... and potential benefits to believing. The same can't be true for declaring an atheist belief because in so doing you're declaring an absolute certainty in no God.

Soulfire42 wrote:

As has been said by others before, we're all atheist about the overwhelming majority of gods that have ever been dreamt up. Atheists really just add one more god to the list that aren't believed in than believers and it is always that last one that pisses people off. Christians don't believe in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, etc. and it's quite easy for them to do so. They can see the absurdity in believing in those gods and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support their existence. But they have the damnedest of a time seeing the absurdities of their own beliefs and how it too is a product of a particular time, a particular place, full of contradictions, full of superstition and supernatural.

Your point on "atheists adding one more God" to the list doesn't make any sense. They, as you should be aware, don't believe in God.

You are quite condescending to the 90+% of human kind that believe in some sort of higher power. The last two sentences are particularly douche-like.

Soulfire42 wrote:

Inlet13, isn't it a bad tactic to not believe in Allah in just the same manner as you view it a good tactic to believe in Jesus? Or isn't it an equally bad tactic to not believe in Thor just in case he is actually real and would be very upset that you'd not believe in him? Do you secretly fear that you might be wrong about Thor's existence and that he may reject you upon your death? I'd be inclined to say that most atheists feel the same way about your God's wrath and hellfire as you do about Thor's wrath. When atheists speak of certainty, they do it in the same context as lack of belief in Thor. They don't expect to be held to the most absurd extremes of proof. As a wise person once said... the invisible and the nonexistant look very much alike. And they're both pretty damn hard to disprove with 100% certainty. Disproving an angel over a person's shoulder is pretty hard to do with 100% certainty, but an invisible elephant over their shoulder is just as hard to disprove as well. Don't expect absolute levels of certainty when people declare atheism. They are speaking of having an extremely high degree of confidence, not an absurd level of certainty.

First, I think you should really do yourself a favor and read a bit on the subject of religion so you don't sound so ignorant. The Muslim God and the Christian God (and the Jewish God) are not different. In fact, they are the same exact God that spoke to Abraham, which spawned all three religions. Only someone who is clueless to what well over half the world's population believes, would be that ignorant.

Second, you clearly have a Thor fetish. I'm not going to go too much into Thor, because I clearly don't know as much about this Nordic god as you do. However, I will say that those who believed in a higher power (via gods like Thor - if there are any today I have no clue) or via (monotheistic God, like Christians, Muslims and Jews) or others who believe in some sort of other higher power, are putting faith in something greater than themselves and may be rewarded for doing so.

Third, it seems to me that atheists, like you demonstrated yourself, believe they are smarter than everyone else. Is it really absurd to have a belief in a higher power? Do you admit there are a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you are, yet still believe in God or a higher power of some sort? If so, why?

brianlux

blueandwhite wrote:

Honestly, I don't know how anybody can call themselves an atheist and say they are uncertain about anything. Atheism is the certainty that there is no god. As an agnostic I view Atheists and Theists as being cut from the same cloth. Their certainty in an absurd question screams arrogance to me. Atheists and Theists both claim that Agnostics are fence sitters (and usually dump on them for it), but this is a short-sighted definition of Agnosticism which is fueled by the need for both Theists and Atheists to be correct.

As an Agnostic I find the very question of god to be absurd. It is an improvable concept and as such, it is not worth consideration beyond academic banter IMO. In my experience, both Atheists and Theists claim victory over their opponents by pointing out that the other side can provide no certainty in support of their position. Of course both Theists and Atheists are quick dump on Agnostics for failing to play what many Agnostics simply consider to be a rather pointless game. As I see it, Agnosticism is not about indecision. It is simply understanding that a human being will never have sufficient understanding to answer an absurd proposition.

Atheists and Theists simply take opposite positions without supporting evidence.

These are good points and I would not try to argue them. I do see at least a few other possibilities.

For lack of a better term I'll call the first one “Phillipsists”. Writer J. B. Phillips wrote a book called Your God is to Small. Now true, Phillips was a theologian and therefore basically a “theist”, but the premise of his book is that as soon as you try to define “God” in human terms you’ve made God a human thing. To its furthest extreme, one would say that the divine cannot be described in human terms and is therefore something mysterious outside of religion or anti-religion-- call it The Great Mystery.

The other I would call Haydenist. (Say, that has a nice ironic ring to it.) Writer, activist Tom Hayden wrote a book called The Lost Gospel of the Earth. I n this book, Hayden seeks to renew our spiritual bond with the earth and shows how this is done in all religions, especially in the spiritual mythology of American Indians in particular and indigenous peoples in general. This again takes us beyond the realm of religion and anti-religion but at the same time encompasses them. The term “ecotheology” applies here quite well.

And then there is punk writer Zen priest Brad Warner who in his book Hardcore Zen hints at the answer to all of this thusly:

How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

The plumb tree in the garden!

The Waiting Trophy Man

I like this Quote:

"I think we have to be flexible. Any belief system that is inflexible, closed off to other belief systems, is profoundly unhealthy. I also think that if you look at life as a long line of evolutionary changes that started billions of years ago, from little things crawling in the mud, and then you realize where we’ve got to now, that is a remarkable set of circumstances. There is more magic in that, for me, than someone creating the planet in six days and taking a day off. When you realize how long humanity has taken to get to this point, it makes you respect another person’s life in a deeper and broader sense. I wouldn’t think of killing anybody because their lineage goes back to the primordial seas, not because there’s some eye in the sky, looking out for how many commandments you’re going to break."

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

Third, it seems to me that atheists, like you demonstrated yourself, believe they are smarter than everyone else. Is it really absurd to have a belief in a higher power? Do you admit there are a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you are, yet still believe in God or a higher power of some sort? If so, why?

Most people appear to believe from an emotional, conditional or psychological standpoint rather than from an intellectual one, I'd say.

satansbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdi_u1Ze ... re=related

Soulfire42

Grrr, I wrote a pretty huge message and hit send on it, but it looks like the internet gods (you know those invisible things which I should have to prove exist and that you shouldn't believe in even if I tell you that it is a good wager to believe in them rather than not to avoid hellish punishment) ate it. :( I was debating making the effort of taking the time to write it in the first place because I know that internet discussion tends to usually be pretty fruitless for all parties. Not sure I'll must up the will to try to retype another, but I may.