Expressing Atheism

[Monsieur OUXX]

Reading Platoon, Pascal, Descartes, Marx, etc.  will help you understand why religion is bad for health

(with the exception of Blaise Pascal of course...or Descartes. But hay, they lived a long time ago, so just stick to more modern people...like those in this forum-subject.   : )

If you mean by that that they both believed in God, it didn't prevent them from paradoxally giving the arguments for not believing in God (everybody but them saw how logical their philosophies were, and in total opposition with the idea of the existence of a God).

I'm quite astonished by this kind of sentence : "stick to more modern people"  Reading here "new" formulations of what has already been said by these geniuses centuries ago (but in a poorer version, since none of us is able to present the problematic in a clear and clever way, as they did) won't help.

[Misj']

Hi,

It might be advised to start with the post scriptum first, but it is not a necessity. Also, I apologize if the tone of this post is considered hostile...this was not my intention, but I can understand if through these words I sound like I'm attacking certain members on this forum (including, but not limited to, Monsieur OUXX to whom I addressed this post).

If you mean by that that they both believed in God, it didn't prevent them from paradoxally giving the arguments for not believing in God (everybody but them saw how logical their philosophies were, and in total opposition with the idea of the existence of a God).

Pascal expressed doubts about religion (mainly because he wanted to return to the basis of Christian faith rather than stay within falsities caused by taking texts out of context and incorporating heathen traditions that had become part of the Catholic church of his days...based on this he wrote his lettres provinciales which were convicted by Rome; to which he reacted in several other writings (including calling the order of the Jesuits and the inquisition 'the two scourges of the truth)) and about his relationship with God.

Reading these doubts outside of the context (outside of Pascal's life) indeed would lead to a false conclusion, that these were arguments for not believing in God. However, within the context of their lives, these words lead to completely different conclusions (Pascal's writing can - and has been - even compared to the psalms, in which a similar stress is expressed (pressure/stress is coincidentally the unit named after Pascal...and at the same time a perfect description of his life and search for God. There was continuously stress and doubts; which felt to him as a weakness, but in reality was his strength)).

This 'stripping' Pascal's words out of their context was already done in the age of enlightenment, and has been done ever since. The conclusions derived from this stripping, however, are products of both lack of understanding and lack of knowledge. In contrast, Pascal himself understood the context in which these words were said, and he had the knowledge to understand them...consequently, they did not weaken but strengthen his faith in and relationship with God.

The truth is not, that everybody but them saw how logical their philosophies were, and in total opposition with the idea of the existence of a God, but that many did (and still do) not see that by logic these philosophies led to their relationships with God.

I'm quite astonished by this kind of sentence : "stick to more modern people"  Reading here "new" formulations of what has already been said by these geniuses centuries ago (but in a poorer version, since none of us is able to present the problematic in a clear and clever way, as they did) won't help.

I feel your own words to be the argument for mine. Because these 'poorer versions' are caused by this lack of knowledge and understanding. That is why they are poorer. But since only these poorer versions (and not the originals when truly understood) lead to the conclusion that God is only an idea and that you should not believe in Him, I would still have to advise anyone who wants to come to that conclusion to stick with these poorer versions (the irony that I find in what I wrote above is described and summarized in the emoticon ( : ) at the end of the quoted sentence; without going into the details that I wrote in this post, it expressed the same thoughts).



Misj'

Ps. These words I wrote here are independent of whether I agree with Pascal or not. They are based on the knowledge that he was a genious; and that honour and respect demands of me that I cannot let a misinterpreted version of him be used to 'proof' those things that he himself disagreed with; especially since he is dead and cannot defend himself. They are also written - as much as reasonably possible - based on the understanding of his ideas rather than my own (or anyone else's). I would express in the same manner if it regarded - for example - Stephen Gould.

[lo_res_man]

It would be the greatest arrogance on our parts to think we in this modern age, have discovered all wisdom.

[Cyrus]

Well, I don't want to offend everyone but personally I strictly dislike atheism. In my opinion, it gives no hope to the people who experience troubles and tragedies. And, as I suppose, most atheists suffer from thanatophobia.

[Adamski]

As an athiest I can tell you resolutly that I do not fear my own death in any way, and when I have experienced troubles or tragedies I have found hope in friends and family, tangible things that I can touch and see and talk to. Seeing as you have dug this thread up, would you like to elaborate as to why you believe what you have just stated, and whether you'd be open to reviewing your opinions if faced with conflicting accounts? They are rather sweeping generalisations after all.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Cyrus - still digging old threads, eh? At any rate, I take it that you prefer a hope that comes with belief in a God that gives us no sign of his existence, no answer to prayers, and in fact no reason at all to believe in him. Logically and sensorially speaking.

Atheists do have hope - to suggest otherwise is to believe that only an invisible God, whose existence is debatable, can give hope. That reduces human beings a lot, which might be why the church has insisted so much on it in its dark past. However, instead of hoping "God will help me in my time of need", they hope "I can do this, and I have the help of my friends, and I have the strength to pull through".

It's like a Mac. If you believe in God, everything's easy. But if you want a PC (atheist), you'll find things are just not that simple... but you ARE in control of everything you like, and all responsibility falls on YOU.

Hmm, I quite like this metaphor.

EDIT - Just looked up "thanatophobia" (fear of death). Heck, yeah, I fear death, don't you? I fear it now and I hope there'll be a time when I'm ready to accept my inpending death. Until then, though, there's a lot I still have to do. What's that have to do with religion?

At any rate, logically shouldn't it be religious people who fear death and thus have to make fantasies about a paradise and an afterlife?

[space boy]

Why can't some people just stick to the definition of atheist instead of tacking various disorders to a lack of belief in deities.

As far as fear of death: Of course I fear my own death. That's called self preservation instinct. Comes in handy. Though I must admit, it gets in the way if you're planning to blow yourself up in the name of your imaginary friend.

[voh]

I'm an atheist and I don't fear death. It's inevitable, so fearing it seems quite stupid to me. Also, I have hopes and dreams, and I have things that I can get support from when bad things happen, it's just not God. And I don't mind, because I've found I'm strong enough to handle said bad things, and I've yet to achieve many of the things I hope to do.

Also, I strictly dislike religious people who lump atheists together and get all "I'm fairly sure they have disorder [y]'. Cyrus, you obviously have no idea what it's like to be an atheist, and using difficult words isn't going to make you seem knowing either.

Atheists aren't afraid of death. People are. There's religious people who are terrified of it, and atheists. There's even buddhists who fear it. It's a human thing. Not a "what belief do you have" thing.

[LimpingFish]

I fear death. It has little to do with my agnosticism. I fear my own death and the death of those close to me. Who doesn't? But I fear it because it means an end to living, not because of what may or may not lie beyond.

I'm sure theists fear death also, perhaps for many different reasons. Perhaps simply because they, like myself, quite like being alive.

[lo_res_man]

Yes most of us tend to fear that state of being. Wether there is an afterlife or not will probebly be debated till the stars grow cold and the universe itself draws to a close. If there is a hell, which I really don't know one way or other, I think it would be total sensory deprivation not pitchforks and hellfire. If there IS a god or gods or at least someone I can say hi to, I hope I get the choice of skimming through the cosmos on th endless wings of night seen all the things in the universe I have always wanted to see, the ultimate cosmonaut

[Caleb]

@Everybody: Recommended reading: C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity"
http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

This man started out as an atheist too. He is a master logician and states the Christian  position well. (though I do not agree with him on some of his doctrine, but he was a thinker, not a theologian.)

[evenwolf]

Cyrus, are you implying that you do not fear your own death?   Neither do hundreds of teenagers who commit suicide under the impression that there is an afterlife where they get a second chance.


I put the "delusional" hat on those without fear of death.   Thank you very much.

[Khris]

Also recommended: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
Took me three days and is one of the best books I've ever read.

So Cyrus, you "suppose" that most atheists are afraid of their death? Really.
(I'll consider his dig-up the act of a troll until he gets back here.)

[Cyrus]

Speaking theoretically, I'm not afraid of death but if I had to face any danger I would be. Now about my opinion on atheism... The problem is that atheists don't believe in life after death, so it would be much more horrible for them than for religious people.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Oh yeah. It's much more horrible to believe that what we have while alive is all that we have than to believe we might spend an eternity in *anywhere*. Paradise or not, an eternity is a hell of a long time. And I WOULD be afraid of death if I knew that what I did in 80 years (unless I die earlier) dictated my whole life afterwards.

[Khris]

Cyrus, where's the logic?

Think of an ordinary door.

Person A believes that there's a room behind the door that contains either huge amounts of gold or a raving beast, dependent on how they lead their life. Plus, this decision is made by an omnipotent, mind-reading being who will punish even the most trivial sins (by todays standards).

Person B believes that there's nothing behind the door, just a wall or an empty room.

Who's likely to be more afraid of having to open said door?

[Cyrus]

Eternity may seem scary counting on what we feel, see and think here, on Earth. But that's absolutely alternative form of being, and even burning in Hell is better than disappearing FOREVER. So your comparison is not right, if we find a wall we may turn away and return, but in this case we can't.
I would like to touch one more aspect of that discussion: suicide in the name of Afterlife. I'm not among these crazy fellows, and no one true believer is. Absolutely EVERY TRUE religion (it means "not sectant and not wrongly interpreted") strictly forbiddens it.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

even burning in Hell is better than disappearing FOREVER

You base your generalisms in personal opinions? So-long pretensed objectivism.

Also, the guys who kill themselves are much truer believers than the rest of us - they honestly believe they're doing the right thing and going to a better place. It's true for them. Considering the large amount of existing religions, I don't think it's possible to talk about a TRUE religion. Even putting apart the religions we know, my personal religion is linked with evolution of the human being, of the human society, of life, the universe and everything. I have no bible, and my masses are performed every day my bettering myself. Does that mean my religion is not a true religion? But it does for me what all those stories do for other believers, doesn't it? It helps me try to become a better person.

[Cyrus]

Killing yourself is very egoistic, it's a real tragedy for the nearest people of such fellows. About the true religions... It's not a simple question... Maybe every religion that helps people become better can be called true. But I can't think of any situation when atheism may be helpful in such way.

[Khris]

Come on, burning in hell for eternity is better than not feeling anything because one ceases to exist?
I'll remind you when you are diagnosed with incurable cancer and must choose between a clean, quick death and having to suffer from massive pain and nausea for months while virtually being tied to a hospital bed (this is just another analogy that ignores everything after dying).

And if we find a wall, me may not turn away and return, that's the whole point of the previous analogy.

And since you brought it up:
-I'm free of sin, looking forward to an eternity in paradise, but I'm not allowed to kill myself to get there sooner? Even though my earthly live is infinitely shorter, which rids it of all relevance?
-Absolutely "EVERY TRUE religion" started out as a sect once.

It's sad that your way of arguing is so predictable.
It lacks any aspect of rational reasoning, exactly what I expected from a brain-washed "believer" who got indoctrinated by their parents/upbringing/etc.

Edit:
I just read your latest post. I knew it.
Being an atheist automatically prevents one from becoming "better"? What complete, utter nonsense. Jesus Christ.

Your "arguments" have absolutely nothing to back them up. You're just repeating what you were taught.
They are like a huge house of cards; a single, weak, rational blow anywhere brings them down.