What drives you to live as an atheist?

[dsayers]

I'm not talking about a deity.

Topic title: What drives you to live as an atheist? Like it or not, the (in)validity of a deity is foundational.

 

I have yet to understand how the man's question was disingenuous.  How can you read the sincerity or lack thereof?

Imagine the question was "What drives you to live as if 2+2=4?" HOW can you take such a question seriously? Even the phrase "what drives you" has a deterministic flavor to it and/or takes away the agency of the person being asked.

 

All I see is your atheistic bias

Projection. My last post touched on the ways in which YOUR bias has steered your participation. What would a "bias towards 2+2=4" look like? Are you saying that I have a bias towards the truth? Are you saying that you don't? Because remember than every time you make an objective claim--such as this one--you are also saying that truth is preferable to falsehood.

 

Save me the dry analysis of what you think my intent is.

YOU weren't the topic of discussion. This personalization is further proof that your reaction is emotional and this is not a conversation.

[neeeel]

I sense a sort of fascistic political correctness from you and the rest in this whole exchange.  Any implication that there is such a thing as theism or people who believe in that nonsense is not to be tolerated. I get it, I get it. Lighten up, Francis.

 

 

 

incorrect. Its the insinuation that atheists are lying/cowards/hiding head in sand that has annoyed me. the op, and you , have asked leading or loaded questions from the start.

 

 

So you get round to answering the question and all I get is four words.  Can you elaborate? Why fear? Why Sadness? Why regret? Why worry?  Fear of pain I can understand. Fear of death is strange. It's like fear of deep sleep. Why?

Sadness I can understand. We all cling to a certain extent. Maybe you have dependents?  Regret? I'm seriously interested in what you would have to regret.

Maybe it's just a touchy subject? I don't know. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. Maybe you feel shy about opening up to a complete stranger. I can respect that.

 

 

Why is fear of death strange? you will be no more. Thats pretty scary stuff. 

regret as in, I want more, I could have done more, I could do more , etc

[Jaeger]

Here's what happened. Let's recap. I read the original question and then read all the replies. I noticed nobody answered his question. I got a barrage of replies explaining why the question didn't matter. I rephrased the question in a secular manner giving multiple examples. Some replied that one of my examples was theistically biased and ignored the rest. One person gave me a four word answer: sadness, fear, worry, regret.

Your question is still biased based on that one example.  You may get a better response if you ask the question without any preconceived assumptions about atheists.  

I will not be able to answer your question either as I'm not an atheist.  I am curious though if the original question resonated with you because you feel the same way as the original poster?  Are you questioning your faith?  Not saying it's conscious but unconscious?

 

I sense a sort of fascistic political correctness from you and the rest in this whole exchange.  Any implication that there is such a thing as theism or people who believe in that nonsense is not to be tolerated. I get it, I get it. Lighten up, Francis.

There is a lot of push back on this forum.  You will be questioned on everything, not just religion.  It is meant to help you on your path to self knowledge.

[shirgall]

There is a lot of push back on this forum.  You will be questioned on everything, not just religion.  It is meant to help you on your path to self knowledge.

 

Indeed, one should imagine that "How do you know?" and "Compared to what?" and "Show your work," is implicitly asked of every poster.

[dsayers]

Indeed, one should imagine that "How do you know?" and "Compared to what?" and "Show your work," is implicitly asked of every poster.

Also "Why is this important to you?"

[vahleeb]

Oh wow! What a beautiful misunderstanding! I read dangerous instead of disingenuous and you read methinks as meth. I was actually quoting Shakespeare.

 

Let me rephrase the original question or maybe simply ask my own:  Assuming one believes in complete annihilation at death, no soul transmigration, no afterlife, etc. what kind of result does the contemplation of one's personal death bring? Does it bring sadness? Sobriety? Does one avoid the thought due to a tendency towards obsessive morbidity?   Is it a genuinely meaningless venture to even contemplate it?  Does one think of one's own progeny and the continuation of one's bloodline? The species in general?  I remember reading Ingmar Bergman's  thoughts on the subject. His early films dealt with the 'religious' question but later in life he dropped such notions and became an atheist. He said something like "Now I think of death as closing my eyes and entering an infinite dreamless sleep and that brings me great comfort."  I may not have the quote perfect but that was the gist of it. 

 

Hey junglecat,

 

I can only speak from personal experience. The realisation and acceptance of my own finality was a trying time from a psychological standpoint. Many a sleepless night accompanied it. I had long abandoned the church at this point but I was still clinging onto the ideas of soul, of energy conservation, of one big bowl of energy where we get to integrate once we die, the usual dribble. I can't say that I was even actively preoccupied with theism at this point, in life. One day, around noon, I just came to the immovable realisation that I will die someday and that it will be for real. From there, logic kind of took over and as I accepted the immovability of the fact that I will die, I found all the little cobwebs that I had around the subject about death not being final, just faded away. Two days later I had the best sleep of my adult life. I guess if I were to characterise it, it was a sobering experience since the acceptance of the fact made me see things much clearer. However I can't say that it was morbid or saddening before or after, and the thing is that once I've accepted it, I found I haven't given it much thought since. Personally I think we all go through the five stages of dying (DABDA) ever since we first see death on the horizon. Atheists, I have found, get to the final A with a lot more life to live than others, and I think that's an overall positive.

 

Progeny, bloodline and the species have never been part of my thoughts, but I guess I'm also no Bergman either.

 

As far as the original poster and my obvious avoidance of the question, it all had to do with the fact that he was a 13-year old boy, who wasn't even looking for the answer himself, but was looking for talking points to take back to his priest, which is something I felt should be discouraged if the boy is ever to evolve into a free thinker at all.

[junglecat]

incorrect. Its the insinuation that atheists are lying/cowards/hiding head in sand that has annoyed me. the op, and you , have asked leading or loaded questions from the start.

 

 

 

Why is fear of death strange? you will be no more. Thats pretty scary stuff. 

regret as in, I want more, I could have done more, I could do more , etc

alpha male would say your emotion shows that this is not a conversation.  What do you think?

Hey junglecat,

 

I can only speak from personal experience. The realisation and acceptance of my own finality was a trying time from a psychological standpoint. Many a sleepless night accompanied it. I had long abandoned the church at this point but I was still clinging onto the ideas of soul, of energy conservation, of one big bowl of energy where we get to integrate once we die, the usual dribble. I can't say that I was even actively preoccupied with theism at this point, in life. One day, around noon, I just came to the immovable realisation that I will die someday and that it will be for real. From there, logic kind of took over and as I accepted the immovability of the fact that I will die, I found all the little cobwebs that I had around the subject about death not being final, just faded away. Two days later I had the best sleep of my adult life. I guess if I were to characterise it, it was a sobering experience since the acceptance of the fact made me see things much clearer. However I can't say that it was morbid or saddening before or after, and the thing is that once I've accepted it, I found I haven't given it much thought since. Personally I think we all go through the five stages of dying (DABDA) ever since we first see death on the horizon. Atheists, I have found, get to the final A with a lot more life to live than others, and I think that's an overall positive.

 

Progeny, bloodline and the species have never been part of my thoughts, but I guess I'm also no Bergman either.

 

As far as the original poster and my obvious avoidance of the question, it all had to do with the fact that he was a 13-year old boy, who wasn't even looking for the answer himself, but was looking for talking points to take back to his priest, which is something I felt should be discouraged if the boy is ever to evolve into a free thinker at all.

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Your question is still biased based on that one example.  You may get a better response if you ask the question without any preconceived assumptions about atheists.  

I will not be able to answer your question either as I'm not an atheist.  I am curious though if the original question resonated with you because you feel the same way as the original poster?  Are you questioning your faith?  Not saying it's conscious but unconscious?

 

There is a lot of push back on this forum.  You will be questioned on everything, not just religion.  It is meant to help you on your path to self knowledge.

Everyone's question is biased. That just means it's coming from a particular point of view. I really didn't have any preconceived notions about atheists. I was simply putting a question out there with multiple examples. I figure when someone engages in a conversation they can give me their individual views. I would expect the same courtesy. I would say I am a Christian but I disagree radically about what many Christians believe. When people respond to me as a Christian I don't expect them to know what I think before I tell them but often they think they do and dismiss me before we even engage in conversation.

 

I'm asking the question because I am interested in the differences in human thought.  I am first of all questioning your faith, your trust in what you believe, whether that's a belief in an ideology, a rationale, a philosophy, whatever. Through understanding what others think I can better understand what I think. I am a great lover of diversity. Biological, cultural, philosophical, etc.

 

I'm just fine with 'push back' but if it's only avoidance then I don't see how it will help my self knowledge.

[neeeel]

alpha male would say your emotion shows that this is not a conversation.  What do you think?

 

I have no idea what this means or what you are trying to say

[Jaeger]

alpha male would say your emotion shows that this is not a conversation.  What do you think?

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Everyone's question is biased. That just means it's coming from a particular point of view. I really didn't have any preconceived notions about atheists. I was simply putting a question out there with multiple examples. I figure when someone engages in a conversation they can give me their individual views. I would expect the same courtesy. I would say I am a Christian but I disagree radically about what many Christians believe. When people respond to me as a Christian I don't expect them to know what I think before I tell them but often they think they do and dismiss me before we even engage in conversation.

 

I'm asking the question because I am interested in the differences in human thought.  I am first of all questioning your faith, your trust in what you believe, whether that's a belief in an ideology, a rationale, a philosophy, whatever. Through understanding what others think I can better understand what I think. I am a great lover of diversity. Biological, cultural, philosophical, etc.

 

I'm just fine with 'push back' but if it's only avoidance then I don't see how it will help my self knowledge.

 

I agree we are all biased.  It shows up even when we try not to show it.  There are reasons why we ask the things we ask.  Someone will answer your question once they know why you are really asking it.  You stated last it was because you're interested in the differences in human thought.  That will beg the question why are you interested in differences in human thought?  Which leads us to what you said "Through understanding what others think I can better understand what I think."  That leads to the next question what do you think?  What is your view on the purpose of life?  How did you come to that conclusion?  Do you think that conclusion was influenced by others in your life such as parents, spouse/partner, religious leaders, friends and/or family?

 

I'm glad you question my faith.  I question my faith all the time.  There are days I'm steadfast in my belief in God and others I'm on the verge of becoming an atheist.  If I were to become an atheist I would know longer believe in a divine purpose in life but it wouldn't mean that there aren't any other purposes to life.  My wife,  my eight wonderful kids, someday my grandchildren to mention a few.  There would be a multitude of reasons to want to live.   I would want to live a most prosperous and joyful a life so that I could leave my children with a legacy that they would be proud of.  In fact these are the same reason I want to live even as a believer.  My main purpose in life is to be a peaceful parent, follow the NAP and push the cause of liberty anyway I can.

[dsayers]

Everyone's question is biased.

It's stunning how many things are wrong with just these four words. What question? This isn't a topic where everybody provides a question. Are you trying to say that every question everybody asks is biased? If so, there's TONS of projection in that claim. Questions are meant to solicit answers. If a question is biased, then you know it's meant to be a manipulative statement also--or perhaps only. Also, this sentence is an appeal to population. Additionally, it is an assertion and a false one at that. Unless you count "truth is preferable to falsehood" as a "bias." But we've already covered that. Well, I did. You've avoided my coverage of it despite putting forth avoidance as a standard for uselessness for others while here exempting yourself. Which is another red flag for lack of integrity.

 

I really didn't have any preconceived notions about atheists.

This is false. Unless this was the first time you ever heard the word, you've formed thoughts and opinions. To claim otherwise would be in stark contradiction to your previous claim that every question is biased. I imagine what's happened is that you have preconceived thoughts about the word preconceived. As if it is inherently problematic, shameful, or undesirable. When in fact it can only be problematic for those who reject truth, their own capacity for error, their own biases, etc. Very telling.

 

I was simply putting a question out there with multiple examples.

Your use of the word "simply" is poisoning the well and manipulative. It's like when people say something hurtful and their victim stands up for themselves, the bully then says, "I was simply kidding. Geez!" Essentially jockeying for an artificially elevated position a second time. It's quite sophisticated abusive behavior and that's not a compliment. The idea that's trying to be implanted here by end running scrutiny and/or people's defenses is that you're completely innocent. Nevermind the fact that this assertion is FALSE. In truth, your first participation in the thread was spent looking down your nose at all former participants, complete with a closing remark that put the entire forums' user base beneath you.

 

You disgust me.

 

I am first of all questioning your faith, your trust in what you believe

I think this is the flaw you are engaging in that is paramount: Speaking/thinking/behaving as if "faith" or "belief" have any bearing on reality. "What do you believe 2+2 equals?" The answer will always be irrelevant because that is not how the proper methodology for arriving at the answer to a math problem. This is why your bias is to assume that theists and atheists are just people who disagree and in turn, why you cannot identify how the titular question is dangerous. *snicker*

 

I'm just fine with 'push back' but if it's only avoidance then I don't see how it will help my self knowledge.

Left in only as evidence (see avoidance above).

 

I have no idea what this means or what you are trying to say

He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot.

 

Oh shit, that's what I just did!

[junglecat]

He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot.

 

Oh shit, that's what I just did!

I'm sorry you took such great offense.  I hope we can work out our differences and you can work them out with your father as well!

 

Thank you for the corrections. You're right. It's not only questions that invariably come from a particular perspective, it's also any declarative statement.

 

Also, I did have the preconceived notion that all atheists do not believe in gods using the modern definition of gods. I should say that I had no preconceived notions about the moral character of atheists. Most of my good friends are atheists.

 

I promise to never use the word 'simply' again around you.  I didn't know it would trigger you so violently!

 

About your response to my use of the word 'faith' and 'belief'-  Did you really not understand what I was saying or are you telling me that your words are meaningless, that you don't believe what you are saying? If that's the case, why should I take you seriously?

[junglecat]

I agree we are all biased.  It shows up even when we try not to show it.  There are reasons why we ask the things we ask.  Someone will answer your question once they know why you are really asking it.  You stated last it was because you're interested in the differences in human thought.  That will beg the question why are you interested in differences in human thought?  Which leads us to what you said "Through understanding what others think I can better understand what I think."  That leads to the next question what do you think?  What is your view on the purpose of life?  How did you come to that conclusion?  Do you think that conclusion was influenced by others in your life such as parents, spouse/partner, religious leaders, friends and/or family?

 

I'm glad you question my faith.  I question my faith all the time.  There are days I'm steadfast in my belief in God and others I'm on the verge of becoming an atheist.  If I were to become an atheist I would know longer believe in a divine purpose in life but it wouldn't mean that there aren't any other purposes to life.  My wife,  my eight wonderful kids, someday my grandchildren to mention a few.  There would be a multitude of reasons to want to live.   I would want to live a most prosperous and joyful a life so that I could leave my children with a legacy that they would be proud of.  In fact these are the same reason I want to live even as a believer.  My main purpose in life is to be a peaceful parent, follow the NAP and push the cause of liberty anyway I can.

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response. 

 

I understand your line of questioning. Why do I want to explore the world around me? The physical world, the world of thought? Because I have a mind. Why do you have a mind? Beats me.

 

I don't know what you mean by belief in a divine purpose, or divinity itself. I can't be sure anyway. It might not be a terrible thing to lose, depending on how you define the words. They may just be a phantom. Especially if the belief in the divinity wouldn't change a thing about your reason for living.

 

For me, divinity of Christ stands in stark contrast and contradiction to belief in the divinity of the god of this world, the one that brings order through violence. 

[Des]

 Why live 

Because it's fun. You type and read words here because you get enjoyment from doing that. Same applies to most of what you choose to do.

Stay alive because you can reasonably expect some enjoyment or fun tomorrow. Try to make the world better so that it keeps you alive longer, for more days of enjoyment. Supposing you knew that some day in the future you would be alive, but unable to enjoy chocolate. Would you stop enjoying chocolate today in advance of that day? If so, why?

[dsayers]

I didn't know it would trigger you so violently!

You think exposing manipulation like this is the initiation of the use of force?! Is this false accusation what you meant by working out differences?

[junglecat]

You think exposing manipulation like this is the initiation of the use of force?! Is this false accusation what you meant by working out differences?

I'm using 'trigger' in the modern euphemistic sense.  I am not manipulating you. I believe it was Shirgall who pointed out that one can never know for certain another's intent. You seem to think you are the exception to the rule.

[dsayers]

Deflecting by personalizing is further indication of lack of integrity. I don't care what your intent was; I know that you didn't claim violence where none was present for the sake of being honest. Your every post with regards to me is pointing a finger at me to deflect from being responsible for your own words.

[junglecat]

Deflecting by personalizing is further indication of lack of integrity. I don't care what your intent was; I know that you didn't claim violence where none was present for the sake of being honest. Your every post with regards to me is pointing a finger at me to deflect from being responsible for your own words.

All this because I used the word "simply".  It's really not worth it.

[shirgall]

All this because I used the word "simply".  It's really not worth it.

 

I'm betting it's because you used the word "violently", actually.

[junglecat]

I'm betting it's because you used the word "violently", actually.

I'm sure he understood that in context I wasn't calling him violent. That's just a figure of speech.

[Maciej Bembnista]

"He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot.



Oh shit, that's what I just did!"

 

 

I'm sure he understood that in context I wasn't calling him violent. That's just a figure of speech.

 

[dsayers]

Your every post with regards to me is pointing a finger at me to deflect from being responsible for your own words.

Even after pointing this out, you continue to do so.

 

I'm also very familiar with your most recent tactic of speaking with ambiguity so that when it turns out people aren't psychic, you get to hold it against them that you didn't communicate clearly. I am so sorry that this level of manipulation was modeled for you and that you've normalized it. If somebody isn't a rapist, saying that they've raped is not okay. "It's a figure of speech," doesn't get you off the hook.

[junglecat]

Even after pointing this out, you continue to do so.

 

I'm also very familiar with your most recent tactic of speaking with ambiguity so that when it turns out people aren't psychic, you get to hold it against them that you didn't communicate clearly. I am so sorry that this level of manipulation was modeled for you and that you've normalized it. If somebody isn't a rapist, saying that they've raped is not okay. "It's a figure of speech," doesn't get you off the hook.

I feel the exact same way!

"He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot.

 

 

 

Oh shit, that's what I just did!"

 

I know. You hit the nail on the head.

[objectivist101]

I have become increasingly interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. This philosophy begins with one absolute, that existence, exists. I live my life in accordance with this premise, that reality is an absolute. Therefore, I cannot believe in a man who lives in the sky who will eventually judge me on how well I've completed the ethical obstacle course of life. I do believe religion is a powerful thing that drives the common man to act morally, and brings communities together (excluding Islam). I don't mean to say I am above such a thing, but I would much rather explore moralities that different philosophers have to offer rather than blindly follow a religion which can become corrupt quickly (and has presently). 

 

Oscar Wilde said "But then in the Church they don't think. A bishop keeps on saying at the age of eighty what he was told to say when he was a boy of eighteen."

 

[neeeel]

I have become increasingly interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. This philosophy begins with one absolute, that existence, exists. I live my life in accordance with this premise, that reality is an absolute. Therefore, I cannot believe in a man who lives in the sky who will eventually judge me on how well I've completed the ethical obstacle course of life. I do believe religion is a powerful thing that drives the common man to act morally, and brings communities together (excluding Islam). I don't mean to say I am above such a thing, but I would much rather explore moralities that different philosophers have to offer rather than blindly follow a religion which can become corrupt quickly (and has presently). 

 

Oscar Wilde said "But then in the Church they don't think. A bishop keeps on saying at the age of eighty what he was told to say when he was a boy of eighteen."

 

 

your conclusion

 

C) I cannot believe in a man who lives in the sky who will eventually judge me on how well I've completed the ethical obstacle course of life

 

does not follow logically from your premise

 

P) reality is an absolute

 

 

That is, your premise says nothing about your conclusion, theres no deductive step to get from P to C

[junglecat]

"He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot.

 

 

 

Oh shit, that's what I just did!"

 

It's a double standard criticism. Nobody criticized Shirgall when he pretended to speak for alpha male in saying

"I'm betting it's because you used the word "violently", actually."

Why speak for him? Why bet on what he thinks. Why not just ask?

[dsayers]

I do believe religion is a powerful thing that drives the common man to act morally

Why do you believe this? Skewing the line between fantasy and reality in the mind of one's child is a violation of their voluntarily created obligation to protect and nurture that child, which is immoral. The damage I've suffered in my own life due to religiosity stunting my development as a mature, sexual creature might very well have effects that last my entire life. Also, saying that you can whip somebody into not murdering (for example) does nothing to acknowledge that you can also teach somebody to not murder without whipping them.

 

Nobody criticized Shirgall when he pretended to speak for alpha male in saying

"I'm betting it's because you used the word "violently", actually."

shirgall wasn't pretending to speak for anybody. He was demonstrating a grasp of punctuation and basic comprehension skills. EVERYBODY who read that (and wasn't clouded with pre-conceived notions and bias) understood that this was what was being communicated because the punctuation and words explicated it.

[junglecat]

Why do you believe this? Skewing the line between fantasy and reality in the mind of one's child is a violation of their voluntarily created obligation to protect and nurture that child, which is immoral. The damage I've suffered in my own life due to religiosity stunting my development as a mature, sexual creature might very well have effects that last my entire life. Also, saying that you can whip somebody into not murdering (for example) does nothing to acknowledge that you can also teach somebody to not murder without whipping them.

 

shirgall wasn't pretending to speak for anybody. He was demonstrating a grasp of punctuation and basic comprehension skills. EVERYBODY who read that (and wasn't clouded with pre-conceived notions and bias) understood that this was what was being communicated because the punctuation and words explicated it.

Thanks for chiming in. I don't believe you to be violent. I was not accusing you of violence. I said you were violently triggered. There's no point going on and on about it as it has nothing to do with the topic. Or maybe it does. I leave that up to you to explain.

[WorBlux]

If you believe that all of you memories, and everything that you ever worked for will just be destroyed for you, and everything will just go blank forever, what drives you to live? Without god what makes you strive even when your existence will just eventually just die out?

 

There is no you except in contrast to everything else.  Really you and everything else is one non-dual thing. Conscious life is a game  wherein this is forgotten for a little while.  You wake up never having gone to sleep, and death an eternal sleep, and living is what is done between. You can't not strive any more than you can't  not imagine a purple elephant right now.  Coming up with reason not to strive, or worrying about the meaning of it all,is in itself a sort of striving.  Life drives me to live, nothing else can.

[Libertus]

what drives you to live?

 

I'm not even sure what that means. Your language is so loaded with ambiguity and vagueness, and I don't mean to attack you. But can you try and communicate more clearly? I feel like I have to "unpack" your questions to discover hidden meaning. What does "drive" mean? I am alive. I also don't believe in a deity. Those are the facts. Nothing "drives" me, I'm not a car.

[objectivist101]

your conclusion

 

C) I cannot believe in a man who lives in the sky who will eventually judge me on how well I've completed the ethical obstacle course of life

 

does not follow logically from your premise

 

P) reality is an absolute

 

 

That is, your premise says nothing about your conclusion, theres no deductive step to get from P to C

Good point. What would you say the deductive steps are? I am only seventeen and still trying to figure out deductive reasoning and such. Could you please help me? Thank you  

[objectivist101]

Why do you believe this? Skewing the line between fantasy and reality in the mind of one's child is a violation of their voluntarily created obligation to protect and nurture that child, which is immoral. The damage I've suffered in my own life due to religiosity stunting my development as a mature, sexual creature might very well have effects that last my entire life. Also, saying that you can whip somebody into not murdering (for example) does nothing to acknowledge that you can also teach somebody to not murder without whipping them.

 

I would agree that some religions (Islam) does not do good. But, Christianity, a religion that has a morality system that values life, hard work, and loving one's family is a "powerful thing that will drive the common man to act morally." By the universality law, the world would prosper on these values. Many atheists hold values which are not so great, and many are more moral escape artists than anything else. I'm not saying all are, because that certainly is not my intention as an atheist, but if universality law was applied to the moral system of a lot of atheists, the world would not thrive. Also, people like religion. Not only because of a promise of a life after death, but they enjoy singing songs, they like the holidays, they like the sense of belonging and community. Also, throughout history, most civilizations begin with a common religion. That is why I've concluded that religion, or more specifically, Christianity, can be powerful and helpful for humanity.

[neeeel]

Good point. What would you say the deductive steps are? I am only seventeen and still trying to figure out deductive reasoning and such. Could you please help me? Thank you

 

 

there are none. The statement "reality is absolute" tells you nothing about what might or might not exist in that reality. 

[dsayers]

Christianity, a religion that has a morality system that values life, hard work, and loving one's family is a "powerful thing that will drive the common man to act morally."... they enjoy singing songs, they like the holidays, they like the sense of belonging and community.

Suppose all of this is true. None of this is predicated on believing a fairy tale. If you imagine you are satiated and therefore do not eat, you will die. Being able to accurately identify the world around you is paramount to survival.

 

"Do what I say for no reason other than I said so or I will set you on fire forever," is neither moral nor universifiable.

 

Many atheists hold values which are not so great,

Assertion. Even if it were true, what a person's values are do not matter so long as they are not stealing from, assaulting, raping, or murdering other moral actors.

 

Atheism is accepting that there is no deity. No (lack of) values logically follows. So even if what you said was true, it would be incidental. I would argue that understanding that our limits are the other people that are actually around us instead of perceived threats from the bogeyman would lead to a more peaceful society.

 

throughout history, most civilizations begin with a common religion. That is why I've concluded that religion, or more specifically, Christianity, can be powerful and helpful for humanity.

You cannot derive an ought from an is. Your methodology is flawed.

 

All you need to look at to know how helpful it's NOT is that it is almost exclusively perpetuated by being inflicted upon children who lack the mental fortitude (or perhaps just the freedom of survival) to reject it.