Are you an atheist, but not an arsehole to religious people?

Anung Un Rama wrote:I dont see why people cant find comfort in the fact that there is nothing after this. I dont like the idea of being judged and forced to live forever after death. I like the idea of this part of exsistance being all we have and that we should make the most of it. I dont want there to be anything after i die.

I don't know about that, I'm bloody terrified of death. Well, maybe not not terrified (if I was I wouldn't really take any risks at all) but definitely fearful. Nothing wrong with this as far as I see it; I think it's good to be mortally afraid of death. Death is to be feared and avoided when possible. The only people who really accept death are those who have already pretty much given up on living (the terminally ill and very elderly).

If someone invents some kind of drug or procedure that allows me to dramatically extent my life when I would be the first to sign up, but I'm not going to go putting my faith in some wishy washy crap about an afterlife.

I must say that a great deal of people in this thread are exposing themselves as being hard-of-thought in their arguments. Just don't comment on something if you don't understand it, please. Science and logic are so often misunderstood/manipulated by those seeking to justify their already held opinions, which contradicts the very essence of science. Science draws a conclusion from the evidence rather than searching for evidence to suit a conclusion. You should really talk to the Government about getting some benefits.

Lucien wrote:Logically then there is much more reason for Christians continuing life en masse than there is Atheists doing the same. If you knew you would die at the end of today and started building a house, what'd be the point in that? If a Christian 'knew' he'd be judged on how much he could build in one day, he absolutely [even if his view turns out to be wrong] would be at least justified in attempting to build something similar.

Christ almighty (sic).

I'm actually with RZA on this one.

Lucien wrote:
Mind Crime wrote:
Lucien wrote:It makes no sense to say the reason of living is living anymore than it makes sense to say the reason for breathing is breathing or the reason for sleeping is sleeping. Atheists no doubt agree in the end one day everyone will perish correct? So there isn't exactly a greater reason or greater purpose as religious types [wrong or right] at least believe they have.

Yes it does make sense. Breathing is breathing and sleeping is sleeping, but living is a hell of a lot more than just being alive. Living is experiencing things and enjoying yourself (as well as not experiencing things and not enjoying yourself!). Yes, atheists believe that in the end everyone will perish, how does this prove that there is no reason to live?

Christians have a child thinking that at the very end, there'll be some paradise.

A lot of Atheists believe as you said, in the end everyone will perish.

Logically then there is much more reason for Christians continuing life en masse than there is Atheists doing the same. If you knew you would die at the end of today and started building a house, what'd be the point in that? If a Christian 'knew' he'd be judged on how much he could build in one day, he absolutely [even if his view turns out to be wrong] would be at least justified in attempting to build something similar.

Jesus Christ.

No, Christians don't have children because of an apparant eventual paradise, even if they think they do. Christians and for that matter most people who choose to have children do so for purposes of passing on genes, so in a way ensuring that part of you doesn't permanently perish. This is instinctual. Logically this makes far more sense than your ludicrous attempt, which isn't logical in the slightest.

Lucien wrote:Christians have a child thinking that at the very end, there'll be some paradise.

A lot of Atheists believe as you said, in the end everyone will perish.

Logically then there is much more reason for Christians continuing life en masse than there is Atheists doing the same.

No there isn't! Why should there only be a reason to live if you're working towards something after it's all over? I'm afraid you're completely wrong here. Do you believe there is no logic in having a game of football down the park with your friends? There's nothing in it for you when it's all over and you will have completely wasted a couple of hours by having a good time. Do you think there is only logic in having a good time (such as playing a sport or game) if there are holy rewards to be attained if you have a good time the way you are told you have to? I could assert that there is less logic to be had by Christians breeding Christian children, as they are to lead a lesser life than those who don't live theirs by the rules of a very old and flawed book.

Lucien wrote:Logically then there is much more reason for Christians continuing life en masse than there is Atheists doing the same.

I couldn't disagree more, I believe the point of my life is to live it, because no-one knows what will happen at the end.

In response to Lucien: When thinking of all in the natural Universe, I wonder why some dream of Heaven; and in understanding what Mankind has achieved over the millennia, I question the allure of prayer to the Divine. The Earth is our Paradise, and Man needs no help from God to do great things.

Whilst I forget who wrote that, the quote is both memorable and fairly appropriate. The point of life, in my opinion as an Atheist, is to enjoy it. Do things that please you. Have fun -- there's something in this world for everyone.

Karlprof wrote:Whilst I forget who wrote that, the quote is both memorable and fairly appropriate. The point of life, in my opinion as an Atheist, is to enjoy it. Do things that please you. Have fun -- there's something in this world for everyone.

That's how I roll, except I don't call myself an Atheist, I prefer not labelling in such a way.

Lucien wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Lucien wrote:I'm aware the view is broad, hence my careful choice of words. 'A lot of Atheists'

That's still a hell of an assumption, I would say the vast majority of atheists can be inspired by the natural world and, occasionally, by the achievements of humanity and very, very few would have such a bleak outlook as you try and paint onto them.

That's a hell of an assumption too [joke]. You're really saying I shouldn't assume something when right after you did. What we're bickering about is the use of words and personal opinions which is useless. I said 'a lot of' but what is the measuring stick for 'a lot of Atheists'? A few thousand? 80% of them... Had I said some Atheists, or a number of Atheists it still makes no difference as no number has been presented.

Stop nitpicking and respond to my posts if you're going to reply at all. You are summing up all that is wrong with the theistic view of atheists.

Anyway, I think Mind Crime said it best with his football post, 'human meaning' is meaningless in any wider sense, on a human scale we apply meaning to all sorts of - in the grand scheme of things - trivial activities.

Transsexual Blackout wrote:While I'm not religious, I do think atheists miss the point.

Err, what atheists, and what point?

Corazon de Leon

Threads like this make me smile, it's always page after page of people going round in circles and saying the same things, post after post. One side will never really hear what the other side has to say, they're just that incompatible.

Corazon wrote:Threads like this make me smile, it's always page after page of people going round in circles and saying the same things, post after post. One side will never really hear what the other side has to say, they're just that incompatible.

Much like science and religion.

Beans wrote:
Corazon wrote:Threads like this make me smile, it's always page after page of people going round in circles and saying the same things, post after post. One side will never really hear what the other side has to say, they're just that incompatible.

Much like science and religion.

That is essentially what this boils down to. :fp:

Corazon de Leon

Charles Manson wrote:
Beans wrote:
Corazon wrote:Threads like this make me smile, it's always page after page of people going round in circles and saying the same things, post after post. One side will never really hear what the other side has to say, they're just that incompatible.

Much like science and religion.

That is essentially what this boils down to.

That's also what I was referring to. :lol:

Lucien wrote:
Mind Crime wrote:
Lucien wrote:Christians have a child thinking that at the very end, there'll be some paradise.

A lot of Atheists believe as you said, in the end everyone will perish.

Logically then there is much more reason for Christians continuing life en masse than there is Atheists doing the same.

No there isn't! Why should there only be a reason to live if you're working towards something after it's all over? I'm afraid you're completely wrong here. Do you believe there is no logic in having a game of football down the park with your friends? There's nothing in it for you when it's all over and you will have completely wasted a couple of hours by having a good time. Do you think there is only logic in having a good time (such as playing a sport or game) if there are holy rewards to be attained if you have a good time the way you are told you have to? I could assert that there is less logic to be had by Christians breeding Christian children, as they are to lead a lesser life than those who don't live theirs by the rules of a very old and flawed book.

I want people to do whatever they want and enjoy it, I said that before. You can make of life what you will. What do I think life should be about? Enjoying my life and trying to ensure I do the best things I can. It just figures to me that the best way to be is to be happy and kind, but not bring life in the way many do who think 'I want something else to enjoy this'. Not only can people not ensure their offspring will have a good life, they are also ensuring wars will continue, murder, rape, famine etc. I see the darker side only because I don't think balanced with the good side, life continuation is worth it. Had I been alive in Roman times I'd have said the same, and the result, our life since then is what'd I'd have expected. Billions of heartbreaking stories through war, disease and human greed. Traded for your good moments to me... not worth it.

But that's my opinion, no more or less than an average Christian, Agnostic, Atheistic viewpoint, and I'm always open to learning and finding out more.

I'm not exactly drunk but I'm a little worse for wear so I'll reply to this tomorrow

.

Clarkman wrote:Skarjo, do you follow Ayer with that version of the Verification principle or some other Wittgensteinian Logical Positivism?

Not as an asbsolute; all ideas are subject to review. But certainly I believe arguments that can verified with evidence are more convincing than ones that cannot, and arguments that set themselves up to be unverifiable by their own logic are practically useless.

As for atheism painting a dull or bleak view of the world; the exact opposite is true. I find the world so unbelievably beautiful precisely because there is no God. I think this world, any world in fact, would be rendered instantly bland and dull if God was to be real. In fact, a world this frequently terrible is, under God's watchful eye, an abomination. Without a God, it's just another wonderful mess we refuse to get ourselves out of; such is our adorable fallibility.

Skarjo wrote:
Clarkman wrote:Skarjo, do you follow Ayer with that version of the Verification principle or some other Wittgensteinian Logical Positivism?

Not as an asbsolute; all ideas are subject to review. But certainly I believe arguments that can verified with evidence are more convincing than ones that cannot, and arguments that set themselves up to be unverifiable by their own logic are practically useless.

As for atheism painting a dull or bleak view of the world; the exact opposite is true. I find the world so unbelievably beautiful precisely because there is no God. I think this world, any world in fact, would be rendered instantly bland and dull if God was to be real. In fact, a world this frequently terrible is, under God's watchful eye, an abomination. Without a God, it's just another wonderful mess we refuse to get ourselves out of; such is our adorable fallibility.

Like all Logical and epistemological theories they both have different crippling weaknesses and overwhelming advantages. Shame I cant remember any of them from my Philosophy degree anymore. And I only finished it 6 months ago :lol:

I'm agnostic, more on the side of Atheism. I do argue with people about religion, but it's always a good debate, not just criticising people for thinking differently.

Lucien wrote:

Winckle wrote:
Lucien wrote:

Are you an atheist, but not an arsehole to religious people?

Who is online

Affiliates