Hey Agnostics & Atheists: Do you ever worry?

[Zafran]

Faith would not be enough for me to be here, obviously is factual that I had ancestors.

How do you know thats a fact - did you see your ancestor times 1000?

 

[CosmicPathos]

As an atheist, I take the view that:
For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove. There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun. Yet, we both realize that it this is not true. And that's where atheism is different to religion.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

lots of arrogance here as you equate your atheism as being something of "growing up." I guess you try to find solace in thinking you are grown up.

 

[SpaceTime]

I apologies if I came over arrogant. Not my intention. I just meant that we as human beings are in a constant state of growth in all aspects.

Again, I apologies if I came over arrogant, not my intention!

 

[IAmZamzam]

For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove.

If you were really sincere about that then you would be a pure agnostic, not an atheist. You can't have it both ways.

There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun.

There's no proof that no fewer than 90% of atheists in the world are completely incapable of not callously speaking in childish analogies about subjects they know theists to take very seriously either, but it always seems to be confirmed by experience. Much less absurd things than giant pikachus have turned out to be true without being quite provable: the only reason pikachus and Santa Claus and flying spaghetti monsters are such common idioms is pure prejudiced condescension. You simply can’t help backhanding us every chance you get. Grow up already!

EDIT: I made this post at the same time as your last, so in light of it you can overlook this last paragraph but I don't want to erase it since it expresses a terrible fact about a very common trend. It's not about you and me.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true.

I would call that pop psychology if I didn’t think the term too complimentary. I don’t find the universe the least bit scary. Empty space and all that isn’t the least bit intimidating: after all, it is up there and we’re down here. You are the one mistaking mood for truth. A caveman-like sense of intimidation at vastness (even if it is there for someone) is not the same thing as a logical fact. If anything, it’s the opposite.

But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count.

And yet I would bet my life that if I did tell you what experiences of my own confirm my beliefs you’d just brush them off as anecdotal evidence.

Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

You sound like you’re reassuring yourself much more than us: “It’s not so bad…” It’s too easy for a human being to think they’re being brutally honest with themselves about something they would otherwise be too afraid of when in fact the whole thing is not self-honesty at all but itself done out of fear, even if it’s a different fear altogether: are you sure that hasn’t happened to you? Is the existence of truth really predicated on the existence of tangibility and provability to you? So the existence of numbers is bogus, and unprovable scientific or philosophical notions can’t be true? Do you really think truth is contingent on anything but itself when it is the quintessence of everything?

 

[SpaceTime]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Doing work and this at the same time, is not something easy!

 

[Zafran]

As an atheist, I take the view that:
For us to be honest, we have to look at what we see and what we can prove. There is no proof for the notion that heaven or hell doesn't exist. But there is also no evidence for the notion that there isn't a giant pikachu lurking behind our Sun. Yet, we both realize that it this is not true. And that's where atheism is different to religion.

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

Atheism is meaningless just as your Picachu example is -

Prophets have came, revelations have been shown - signs are all over the place if you cant see them then its your own problem

 

[gmcbroom]

The problem with atheisism is that it's stark cold and doesn't generate hope. The various religions on the other hand do bring hope. It's a matter of faith versus empirical data. So if it can be scientifically explained or empirically proven; Atheism can say, see here's our proof. Versus the religious communities that have to rely on either sacred scripture or relics as physical proof. I would include miracles but miracles can't be scientifically duplicated they become a matter of faith. That is why it's difficult for some to believe.
peace be with you.
gmcbroom

 

[IAmZamzam]

It's a matter of faith versus empirical data. So if it can be scientifically explained or empirically proven.

I think it's more about the existence of other kinds of data than empirical or scientific ones, and the complete denial of this by most atheists.

 

[Zafran]

The problem with atheisism is that it's stark cold and doesn't generate hope. The various religions on the other hand do bring hope. It's a matter of faith versus empirical data. So if it can be scientifically explained or empirically proven; Atheism can say, see here's our proof. Versus the religious communities that have to rely on either sacred scripture or relics as physical proof. I would include miracles but miracles can't be scientifically duplicated they become a matter of faith. That is why it's difficult for some to believe.
peace be with you.
gmcbroom

Not quite many things are believed to be true even through there is very little empircal data - besides science tells us about what the the physical world is made of - it gives very little meaning to it - thats where religion or philosophy comes in.

atheism is just a denial nothing more - in itself it has nothing to offer to the world.

 

[SpaceTime]

Firstly. I would like to thank Yahya sulaiman for his greatly constructed post. Good work!
Secondly, I didn't mean to sound arrogant or condescending, at all. So I apologize for that.
Thirdly, let's get this going:

If you were really sincere about that then you would be a pure agnostic, not an atheist. You can't have it both ways.

I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.
But I still don't see how your argument disproves my point of needing to find quantitative and substantive evidence before forging preconceived notions about the universe and the human condition.

There's no proof that no fewer than 90% of atheists in the world are completely incapable of not callously speaking in childish analogies about subjects they know theists to take very seriously either, but it always seems to be confirmed by experience. Much less absurd things than giant pikachus have turned out to be true without being quite provable: the only reason pikachus and Santa Claus and flying spaghetti monsters are such common idioms is pure prejudiced condescension. You simply can’t help backhanding us every chance you get. Grow up already!

There was not a single iota of mal intent in my remark above. Perhaps it would seem less aggressive if I framed it otherwise. The reason it sounds so callous to all of us here, is because we are realizing the ridiculousness of a Pikachu powering up the Sun,we can all agree that it is ridiculous. This is not to say that the notion of their being a heaven or hell, is ridiculous, but it is as equally improbable, and that is the point that we're trying to make. The improbability, that there is a hell right beneath our feet, or a heaven, where a man can have as many wives beautiful wives as desirable. This is to say, that the onus, is on the ones making the claim. In the same way, that you'd expect me to bring evidence of extra terrestrials, if I came in here and told you that I believed aliens had spoken to me. Because everything we've learned so far, tells us that there are no E.T on our planet currently. And a book written long ago, would not suffice in this, for you.

would call that pop psychology if I didn’t think the term too complimentary. I don’t find the universe the least bit scary. Empty space and all that isn’t the least bit intimidating: after all, it is up there and we’re down here. You are the one mistaking mood for truth. A caveman-like sense of intimidation at vastness (even if it is there for someone) is not the same thing as a logical fact. If anything, it’s the opposite.

So, the fact that there is no universal, immediate, tangible judge to rectify the wrongs in the universe and on planet earth, where bad things happen ( rape, murder etc.) is not true and is only based on mood? Is it not true that if someone is murdered, the sky stays the same? When a child is raped, the birds continue to sing their beautiful songs?
The indifference of the universe is what is scary to a lot of people. Not the vacuum.

You sound like you’re reassuring yourself much more than us: “It’s not so bad…” It’s too easy for a human being to think they’re being brutally honest with themselves about something they would otherwise be too afraid of when in fact the whole thing is not self-honesty at all but itself done out of fear, even if it’s a different fear altogether: are you sure that hasn’t happened to you? Is the existence of truth really predicated on the existence of tangibility and provability to you? So the existence of numbers is bogus, and unprovable scientific or philosophical notions can’t be true? Do you really think truth is contingent on anything but itself when it is the quintessence of everything?

I love this notion of atheists/agnostics automatically having to fear things. I don't fear things, sure I fear pain, dying, hunger etc. But I don't fear things that have no submissive evidence to them. That's as if I were to ask you whether you feared a place where Muslims go, if they weren't atheists, a place consisting of doing things you don't like, like watching Transformers, or Twilight 24/7! You wouldn't, because there is not a single shred of evidence for it, regardless of the many philosophical gymnastics taken to support it *( which I doubt philosophy would have a hard time debunking in and of itself).


Also, I'm greatful to be hear. You guys are by far the most intelligent bunch I have conversed with!

Assalaamu aleikum!

 

[CosmicPathos]

Firstly. I would like to thank Yahya sulaiman for his greatly constructed post. Good work!
Secondly, I didn't mean to sound arrogant or condescending, at all. So I apologize for that.
Thirdly, let's get this going:


I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.
But I still don't see how your argument disproves my point of needing to find quantitative and substantive evidence before forging preconceived notions about the universe and the human condition.


There was not a single iota of mal intent in my remark above. Perhaps it would seem less aggressive if I framed it otherwise. The reason it sounds so callous to all of us here, is because we are realizing the ridiculousness of a Pikachu powering up the Sun,we can all agree that it is ridiculous. This is not to say that the notion of their being a heaven or hell, is ridiculous, but it is as equally improbable, and that is the point that we're trying to make. The improbability, that there is a hell right beneath our feet, or a heaven, where a man can have as many wives beautiful wives as desirable. This is to say, that the onus, is on the ones making the claim. In the same way, that you'd expect me to bring evidence of extra terrestrials, if I came in here and told you that I believed aliens had spoken to me. Because everything we've learned so far, tells us that there are no E.T on our planet currently. And a book written long ago, would not suffice in this, for you.


So, the fact that there is no universal, immediate, tangible judge to rectify the wrongs in the universe and on planet earth, where bad things happen ( rape, murder etc.) is not true and is only based on mood? Is it not true that if someone is murdered, the sky stays the same? When a child is raped, the birds continue to sing their beautiful songs?
The indifference of the universe is what is scary to a lot of people. Not the vacuum.


I love this notion of atheists/agnostics automatically having to fear things. I don't fear things, sure I fear pain, dying, hunger etc. But I don't fear things that have no submissive evidence to them. That's as if I were to ask you whether you feared a place where Muslims go, if they weren't atheists, a place consisting of doing things you don't like, like watching Transformers, or Twilight 24/7! You wouldn't, because there is not a single shred of evidence for it, regardless of the many philosophical gymnastics taken to support it *( which I doubt philosophy would have a hard time debunking in and of itself).


Also, I'm greatful to be hear. You guys are by far the most intelligent bunch I have conversed with!

Assalaamu aleikum!

what religion were you born into? ex-Muslim? ex-Christian? ex- theistic Hindu?

 

[Ramadhan]

It is in our human nature to want solace, it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to blanket the truth that no one has come down to us, the universe is scary and eerie in its silence. So much so that we would believe things we know not to be rationally true. But it's part of growing up as a human being, that we need to set aside "I heard, from so and so" and look with our own eyes, this is the only thing we have, our own experiences are what count. Tangible and provable things are the only things that give us truth, and the truth isn't so bad, not bad at all. It is more beautiful than whatever we were taught.

The above is very subjective. You don't know what's in the hearts of theists and you don't know the reasons why theists believe.

using your line of reasoning, i could very well say the same thing about atheists:

Atheists do not want to believe that there is God because it gives them scary thoughts. The idea that we all will be resurrected after death to account for what we did in this world scare the s**** (i am censoring this myself) out of an atheist, so they want to console themselves and want solace by brushing off the thought that God exists.
They read books by atheists and "they heard from so and so" and they convince themselves that God does not exist.

 

[IAmZamzam]

SpaceTime, a great deal of your post is stuff I have already addressed in “Why I Am Not an Atheist”, it can’t be more than a few threads down on this “comparative religion” page. As for the rest:

Firstly. I would like to thank Yahya sulaiman for his greatly constructed post. Good work!

Uh, thank you…

I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

Then you need to change what it says in your profile at the side of your posts.

There was not a single iota of mal intent in my remark above.

What did I say about “mal intent”??

This is not to say that the notion of their being a heaven or hell, is ridiculous, but it is as equally improbable, and that is the point that we're trying to make. The improbability, that there is a hell right beneath our feet, or a heaven, where a man can have as many wives beautiful wives as desirable.

I wonder how many western non-Muslims have ever heard anything about our conception of heaven beyond the carnal parts? A very telling tendency. I would be very surprised if you could show me any hadith about hell being beneath our feet. I do know that what the Koran actually says is that heaven and hell are going to be brought about after God tears down and rebuilds the universe we currently have.

So, the fact that there is no universal, immediate, tangible judge to rectify the wrongs in the universe and on planet earth, where bad things happen ( rape, murder etc.) is not true and is only based on mood? Is it not true that if someone is murdered, the sky stays the same? When a child is raped, the birds continue to sing their beautiful songs?

Very nicely poetic but it doesn’t seem to mean anything, unless you’re saying that I alleged atheism itself to be only a mood, and I certainly did not.

The indifference of the universe is what is scary to a lot of people. Not the vacuum.

Unless you’re a pantheist or something I don’t see why that would be a problem, as the universe is itself on the whole inanimate and therefore it’s no more meaningful for it to be “indifferent” than it is for a chair or a gum wrapper to be “indifferent”.

I love this notion of atheists/agnostics automatically having to fear things.

Again you seem to put words in my mouth. It’s not automatic and I didn’t say it was. I just speculated as to whether there was really some fear or other with you in particular, and connected it to a universal tendency in human nature itself. I didn’t even say it was necessarily the case at all with you. I just want you to consider the possibility.

I don't fear things, sure I fear pain, dying, hunger etc. But I don't fear things that have no submissive evidence to them. That's as if I were to ask you whether you feared a place where Muslims go, if they weren't atheists, a place consisting of doing things you don't like, like watching Transformers, or Twilight 24/7!

I didn’t ask that at all!

One last thing: philosophy can’t debunk anything, or do anything else competent in any way. In order for that to happen philosophers themselves (minus maybe one or two exceptions here and there—in history, I mean) would have to be competent. There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best. Philosophy is the art of taking stupid declarations, dressing them up in smart-sounding language because otherwise everyone would see through them, and selling it to the gullible masses who assume that just because they find it hard to understand that means it’s the work of an intelligent mind.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The problem with atheisism is that it's stark cold and doesn't generate hope.

True. But it doesn't inhibit or prevent hope either. You don't need religion to have hope, or any of the other psychological benefits that come with religion. I do agree with you though that besides upbringing these psycholgoical benefits are a major cause of people becoming (or remaining) religious. I recommend "Amazing Conversions" by Bruce Hunsberger. They researched conversions and apostates and indeed did find that the vast majority of conversions happen following major life events and through emotional "connection" and most apostacy happens through stark cold reason (as you put it).

The various religions on the other hand do bring hope.

Amongst other things, some of them good (sense that justice will be served, sense of community, etc) and bad (I'll not list those here as to derail the thread).

 

[Pygoscelis]

There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best. Philosophy is the art of taking stupid declarations, dressing them up in smart-sounding language because otherwise everyone would see through them, and selling it to the gullible masses who assume that just because they find it hard to understand that means it’s the work of an intelligent mind.

And this is somehow different once the phisolophers/theologists introduce the idea of Gods and relgious dressing?

 

[IAmZamzam]

And this is somehow different once the phisolophers/theologists introduce the idea of Gods and relgious dressing?

Theologians are philosophers too, and they are perhaps just as prone to being full of it, but you can't just lump religion itself in with philosophy like that. They're two completely different things.

 

[Lynx]

One last thing: philosophy can’t debunk anything,

Really? That's a new one. Most criticisms of philosophy are that it can't find answers. I thought everyone agreed that at the very least philosophy was good at picking apart theories. Last time I checked critical reasoning is a field perfected by philosophers.

or do anything else competent in any way.

So since logic is a field of philosophy and has been worked on and advanced mostly by philosophers, logic must not be very competent. Interesting.

In order for that to happen philosophers themselves (minus maybe one or two exceptions here and there—in history, I mean) would have to be competent.

Which one or two do you have in mind? Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd? Also do you doubt the competency of the following men: Plato (the republic), Aristotle (everything), Descartes (geometry, meteorology, optics), Immanuel Kant (Critique of pure reason), David Hume (empiricism), Bertrand Russell (principa mathematica), W.V.O Quine (math, logic), Adam Smith (wealth of nations), Karl Marx (das kapital), Leibniz (calculus), Newton, John Locke (empiricism, liberalism), John Stuart Mill (economics, on liberty)?

There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best.

I am not sure how you can measure the intelligence of men and women long dead but your statement here is interesting since if you remove the philosophers from a textbook on the history of ideas, I am not sure how many 'geniuses' at all would be left to pick from.

Philosophy is the art of taking stupid declarations, dressing them up in smart-sounding language because otherwise everyone would see through them,

Philosophy is the application of rational argument to solve some problem that is considered to be in the realm of the 'philosophical'; these tend to be questions asking about the fundamental nature of abstract concepts such as (but not limited to) math, science, right and wrong, knowledge etc. Traditionally philosophical literature emphasizes 3 things: logical argument (to find truth), clarity (so people can understand) and conciseness (so the crucial aspects of an argument are open for target). Modern analytical philosophy is a testament to how seriously philosophers take these factors; however, some topics are very abstract and some philosophers find it difficult to effectively translate their ideas into words, which tends to result in what laymen call obscure or nonsensical writing (as you appear to be accusing philosophy of). I guess, true to its history, philosophy is an esoteric branch of study that deserves more appreciation than it usually boasts.

At least that's my take on it.

and selling it to the gullible masses who assume that just because they find it hard to understand that means it’s the work of an intelligent mind.

People do this with anything that sounds 'intelligent' so I don't see why you are picking on philosophy. If anything this happens least in philosophy as you don't really see people picking up copies of the Critique of Pure Reason (remember that scene in Superman 2 where Kitty is reading a copy of that book right before Lex Luthor walks in? heh)....But hey maybe that's just me; perhaps you live in an area where pop books aren't so pop.


As for the general thread:

No I don't get worried because if God exists he isn't going to send people to Hell for their beliefs because beliefs aren't moral actions (or actions at all); if he does end up sending people to hell for their beliefs then there ain't nothing I can do about it

 

[Zafran]

As for the general thread:

No I don't get worried because if God exists he isn't going to send people to Hell for their beliefs because beliefs aren't moral actions (or actions at all); if he does end up sending people to hell for their beliefs then there ain't nothing I can do about it

ofcourse beliefs are important they are the foundations for any moral actions - If your beliefs are not sound then your actions are not going to be as well. As the famous hadith says actions are Judged by Intentions.

"Actions are (judged) by motives (niyyah), so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration (hijrah) was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated." - Bukhari and muslim

 

[IAmZamzam]

Lynx, I am not interested in debating your philosophical apologetics. Everyone goes through the collegiate philosophy craze phase, and I'm sure you'll get over it within a couple of years like the rest of us. Suffice to say, I stand by everything I said, especially when it comes to people like Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell. These types are the most overrated minds in human history and their problem is precisely that they did not hold to their principles of logic and critical thinking, or at least did not apply them very competently. Flaunting or historically "advancing" the notion of a principle is not the same thing as exemplifying it. If you want a few examples I've already given them via a famous work of Bertrand Russell in another thread. Philosophy consists of 50% using intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual--sometimes I wonder how much of a difference there is between the two) language to dress up statements so rudimentary and already known to the reader and every two-year-old that without said language they would appear asinine, and 50% using intellectual language to dress up statements so blatantly contradictory to things every two-year-old knows that they would appear ludicrous were they said any other way. There's very little middle ground. One thing that does bear mention is your presumption that I would automatically rule Muslim philosophers as the sole exceptions. As a matter of fact, the only philosopher I can easily think of who wasn't abysmally full of it, Alan Watts, was an atheist.

 

[Trumble]

One last thing: philosophy can’t debunk anything, or do anything else competent in any way. In order for that to happen philosophers themselves (minus maybe one or two exceptions here and there—in history, I mean) would have to be competent. There has perhaps never been a greater intellectual tragedy than famous philosophers universally being considered geniuses when in reality their intelligence was average at the very, very, very best.

Hmmm... a good contender for the biggest load of pretentious cr*p ever posted to these forums. Plato? Aristotle? Descartes? Leibnitz? Kant? Mill? 'average' intelligence?! Virtually every other academic discipline is an offshot of philosophy.

Get outta here. Go read some philosophy rather than spouting nonsense about it.