I don't believe in Atheism

Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe in Atheism

Greetings all.

While responding to one of Fonzie's posts, I realized that I don't believe in Atheism. Saying that somehow puts Atheism on the same level as religion, which I find unacceptable.

I'd rather say I state that there are no gods because science supports this statement.

What do you think?

Any comments and links welcome.

BTW, if my topic covers old ground, I apologize. I'm relatively new to Atheism and since joining the RSS forums, I realized I still had a lot to learn.

Thanks all.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I've been active on atheist

I've been active on atheist boards for 10 years now. Believe me there is nothing new here. But it may be new to you.

Atheism is a religion like off is a tv channel. It is a position, nothing more. People can have a variety of reasons for saying "there is no god". I've met laymen atheists who hold the position but are not deep into study of theist arguments or science, those atheists I call easy pickings for slick snake oil theists.

I think if one is going to be more solid in their position, even outside the issue of religion on any topic, having a thorough study of the issue and a thorough study of the opposition's position give's one more solid ground to stand on.

Are there atheists who simply "believe" there is no god, yes. I would not call them well studied. The ones who study the history of religion and science don't have to merely believe, they have solid data to back up their position.

If one is going to debate theists you have to do it like one would play chess. You cant simply know what the pieces do, you have to know their strategy and have a strategy yourself.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
not believing in God a religion?

 FM,

Have you read this?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

 

After reading that do you think you are an atheist? Are you having just the issue with the -ism ?

 

The youtube guy nonStampCollector calls himself such because in the same way not collecting stamps is not a hobby, so not believing in god is not a religion. Religion carries with it a very large bag. It is not something so simple. There are so many associated things you have to accept. Quite a large agenda.  I know. I was there. Being a atheist allowed me to drop this painfully heavy large bag and relieved my aching back and I could stand up and go "hey, wow. Look at all that BS I dropped". 

I like nonStampCollector's videos. So if you haven't seen them before take a gander.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector

 

 

 

 

Here is one

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:Greetings

FMStereo wrote:

Greetings all.

While responding to one of Fonzie's posts, I realized that I don't believe in Atheism. 

I feel the same way.  Atheism isn't something to believe.  It simply is a word to describe someone who doesn't have a belief in a god.  Babies don't have to believe in atheism in order to be atheist, they are simply born as atheists.  I am fighting for a world where we no longer need the word atheism.  We only need the word atheism because theism exists.  As my son says... once religion is over we will just be "people" not atheist or theist.

Don't let the dishonest arguments from theists sway you into some position that pits you against atheism.  We need the word to help us unite with others like us.

 

Quote:

I'd rather say I state that there are no gods because science supports this statement.

Me too, but if someone asks if I'm an atheist, the answer is yes.  If you choose to respond with "there are no gods because science supports this statement" that seems perfectly normal to me.  Just don't forget you are in fact an atheist.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
My mistake

My mistake.....in reading my post you may think I'm rejecting the term: Atheist.

No, I'm stating the fact that Atheism is true. For me it makes more sense than saying I believe  in Atheism.

So....the point of my post is saying that this change of wording reflects my deeper understanding of Atheism and I'm wondering if anybody experienced any similar "shifts"?

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 So it is true whether I

 So it is true whether I happen to believe it or not?

Religion is unquestionably a belief. The bible makes that clear. You are shifting a way from that and not playing on their terms. I agree.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:My

FMStereo wrote:

My mistake.....in reading my post you may think I'm rejecting the term: Atheist.

No, I'm stating the fact that Atheism is true. For me it makes more sense than saying I believe  in Atheism.

You should just drop both of those.  Atheism is not true, and atheism is not a belief.  Atheist is simply a word to describe someone who doesn't have theism.  That's it.  It's not a belief and there is nothing about it that can be true or false.

Gods can't be proven therefore there is no reason to believe in a god.  The word that describes the person who makes the rational choice to abstain from god belief is an atheist.  

 

Quote:
So....the point of my post is saying that this change of wording reflects my deeper understanding of Atheism and I'm wondering if anybody experienced any similar "shifts"?

I've experienced shifts towards a focus to science and reason like you over the years.  But I separate the concepts.  I embrace science and reason.  That has nothing to do with my atheism though.

 

Atheism is just a word that describes what you are. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:Greetings

FMStereo wrote:
Greetings all.

While responding to one of Fonzie's posts, I realized that I don't believe in Atheism. Saying that somehow puts Atheism on the same level as religion, which I find unacceptable.

Depending on how you define atheism, saying you believe in atheism is, at best, redundant and, at worst, incoherent. We do not "believe in not believing in a god;" we simply "don't believe in a god." So, we don't believe in atheism, we are atheists.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Thanks

Sapient wrote:

I've experienced shifts towards a focus to science and reason like you over the years.  But I separate the concepts.  I embrace science and reason.  That has nothing to do with my atheism though.

 

Atheism is just a word that describes what you are. 

Thanks, Sapient.

Please clarify for me: What do you mean by: "But I separate the concepts." and "That has nothing to do with my atheism though."?

Is atheism a philosophical term for you or a "label"?

Regards,

FM

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Just a label.  My life

 Just a label.  My life philosophy has more to do with attempting to use science and rationality to make all my decisions and determine what it is I say.  Disregarding god is simply something that spawned as a result of being rational and thinking about god critically.  In other words, my philosophy of life is to be rational which is why I no longer believe in god.  The word that describes that person who no longer believes in a god is an atheist, so that's what I am.  

But I don't care about the word atheism.  It serves me one purpose, to unite with other atheists.  If the word atheist were to disappear, absolutely nothing about me would be different.  I would still approach the world in an attempt to be rational.  

Clearer?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Me taking offense to the

Me taking offense to the word atheist is like you taking offense that someone calls you a human.  Is being human a philosophy? Eye-wink

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:Is atheism a

FMStereo wrote:

Is atheism a philosophical term for you or a "label"?

It's an epithet; a derisive term.

It's not really a 'positive' label. It's a 'negative' label probably invented by theists themselves. An ad hominem.

Atheism has no 'content'.

Even theists are atheists. They don't believe the other god claims have met their burden of proof.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
OK

OK, thanks....It's clearer to me now. Just read "An Atheist Manifesto" by Sam Harris (post on RSS). Incidently, he touches on this very subject at the start of the manifesto.

Great piece of writing!


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: So it is

ex-minister wrote:

 So it is true whether I happen to believe it or not?

Religion is unquestionably a belief. The bible makes that clear. You are shifting a way from that and not playing on their terms. I agree.

I think he's hitting on something I think of as the difference between an a-theist and an anti-theist, the same way that there are dog people, and cat people, and some cat people who think dogs are stupid and people who own dogs are equally stupid (Hi!!!!).

That is, Atheism has become an "intrinsic part of their being" rather than "Shrug.  Don't care."

The Theist says "I know, and the answer is ... Ra!  Ra, Ra, Ra, goooooo Ra!!!"

The Agnostic says "I really just don't know.  Maybe, maybe not, I'm just not sure."

The Atheist (capital "A&quotEye-wink says "I know, and the answer is NONE!  ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA!"

 

=That= is a religion.  atheism (little "a&quotEye-wink isn't.  What I'm taking the OP to be saying is he's a "atheist" who doesn't believe in "Atheism".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eh, that would be a positive

Eh, that would be a positive claim, but it still wouldn't be a religion, just like theism is not a religion. I think of religions as being organized, dogmatic, systems of beliefs, so it can't describe a single belief held by individuals, no matter how irrational.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Theists drink the

Theists drink the Koolaid.

Other individuals cannot.

 

Theists ganged together bitching and attacking those who cannot drink the Koolaid.

Those other individuals who cannot drink the Koolaid got sick of it , realized that there is strength in numbers, and started getting together and fighting back.

Cause/Effect

Theists need to stop bitching about what their bitching and attacks afforded them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eh, that

butterbattle wrote:

Eh, that would be a positive claim, but it still wouldn't be a religion, just like theism is not a religion. I think of religions as being organized, dogmatic, systems of beliefs, so it can't describe a single belief held by individuals, no matter how irrational.

I understand your stance, but Anarchy is "a political philosophy" even if it's sort of a "no-political anything" philosophy.  There's no Official Anarchy Party Headquarters, just as their is no Official Atheism Religious Leader, but beyond "Shrug, don't care." Atheism can, and frequently does, become every bit as dogmatic and based on various systems-of-belief as any other religion.

Consider Sam Harris' arguments in the Atheist Manifesto, the same of which are often repeated here --

G-d is doing a horrible job of being Super Santa Claus, therefore G-d doesn't exist because if G-d existed and doesn't Make It All Better, G-d is Evil.

Guess what?  There are religions which don't believe G-d is Super Santa Claus =or= "Omnibenevolent" or any other "thing" that would make Sam Harris' argument valid.  And yet, Sam has constructed an argument based on specific beliefs.  It's beliefs about theology, and that is a religion.  What I can say, with all sincerity, is that the god that Sam doesn't believe in, I also don't believe in.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Theists drink

redneF wrote:

Theists drink the Koolaid.

Other individuals cannot.

Totally agreed -- there are Theists who "drink the Koolaid" and often haven't a clue =why=, and there are others who can't because the arguments either don't make sense, or the concept seems absurd.

Quote:
Theists ganged together bitching and attacking those who cannot drink the Koolaid.

Those other individuals who cannot drink the Koolaid got sick of it , realized that there is strength in numbers, and started getting together and fighting back.

Cause/Effect

Totally agree here as well.  But that doesn't mean Atheism hasn't become it's own flavor of Koolaid that is often consumed by people looking to seem hip or trendy.  Those are the people who don't know that other religious belief systems even exist, and that those other religious belief systems have nothing in common than the ones that are being refuted.  If you don't believe in god and/or gods, fine by me, at least try to be a good person.

Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu is =not= Super Santa Claus, for example.  Judaism doesn't promise Eternal Paradise Wonderland for Jews or threaten Firey Pits Of Hell-Fire for non-Jews.  Buddhists don't recruit -- in all my years, Ive never been asked to become a Buddhist, though I've studied Buddhism and have incorporated aspects in my life.  I've never met a Yoda practitioner who makes negative value judgements about people who don't practice Yoga other than "mediation might help you with that stress you're experiencing."

Quote:
Theists need to stop bitching about what their bitching and attacks afforded them.

People who believe in zero or more gods of various sorts need to stop thinking everyone else has their same internal conceptualization of zero or more gods, and that people who don't share that conceptualization needs to hold =their= conceptualization OR ELSE!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
If you are an atheist you

If you are an atheist you believe in atheism. No matter what position you take it requires belief. I believe the world isn't one big apple, I believe I have an apple on my desk. No matter what it requires belief. I say yes, you do believe in atheism (You believe there is no god) just like a christian believes in christianity. It seems just plain wrong to say you don't believe in athism, then what do you believe in? Do you not hold any beliefs? Believeing something doesn't exist is just as much a belief as believing something does exist.

You state that god doesn't exist... why do you do this? Because of belief, there can be no other answer.

 

Everything we do in life is because of belief, don't mistake belief as a bad thing, believing in atheism is not bad.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:If you are an

Tapey wrote:

If you are an atheist you believe in atheism. No matter what position you take it requires belief. I believe the world isn't one big apple, I believe I have an apple on my desk. No matter what it requires belief. I say yes, you do believe in atheism (You believe there is no god) just like a christian believes in christianity. It seems just plain wrong to say you don't believe in athism, then what do you believe in? Do you not hold any beliefs? Believeing something doesn't exist is just as much a belief as believing something does exist.

You state that god doesn't exist... why do you do this? Because of belief, there can be no other answer.

Everything we do in life is because of belief, don't mistake belief as a bad thing, believing in atheism is not bad.

I'm going to disagree -- Atheism no more has to be a belief (or belief system) than not believing anything has to be a belief.  "Belief" is active, non-belief can be either active ("G-d does or doesn't exist for these reasons&quotEye-wink or passive ("Shrug.  Don't know, don't care.).

While belief in the supernatural is probably a side-effect of how the brain works (and I seem to recall reading studies which support that -- if anyone has them handy, please post), constructing an entire belief-system =is= an active process.  For anyone whose atheism is "Shrug.  Don't know, don't care." -- that's not a belief.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Tapey

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Tapey wrote:

If you are an atheist you believe in atheism. No matter what position you take it requires belief. I believe the world isn't one big apple, I believe I have an apple on my desk. No matter what it requires belief. I say yes, you do believe in atheism (You believe there is no god) just like a christian believes in christianity. It seems just plain wrong to say you don't believe in athism, then what do you believe in? Do you not hold any beliefs? Believeing something doesn't exist is just as much a belief as believing something does exist.

You state that god doesn't exist... why do you do this? Because of belief, there can be no other answer.

Everything we do in life is because of belief, don't mistake belief as a bad thing, believing in atheism is not bad.

I'm going to disagree -- Atheism no more has to be a belief (or belief system) than not believing anything has to be a belief.  "Belief" is active, non-belief can be either active ("G-d does or doesn't exist for these reasons&quotEye-wink or passive ("Shrug.  Don't know, don't care.).

While belief in the supernatural is probably a side-effect of how the brain works (and I seem to recall reading studies which support that -- if anyone has them handy, please post), constructing an entire belief-system =is= an active process.  For anyone whose atheism is "Shrug.  Don't know, don't care." -- that's not a belief.

Anytime you hold an opinion on anything you have a belief. This is not something you can argue around. It is self evidently true. Ask yourself why you do anything. It is because you believe something.  Why do I not go to church, I believe the christian god does not exist. Argue all you want but it is a self evident truth.

 

Now one possible objection is, I don't know if something is true, that can sill affect action, so belief is not the only thing which can cause action, this is true. But notice atheism is not I don't know, It is someone saying. The universe is like this. There is no god. I don't know is the only position you can hold where you don't hold a belief.

 

How can "there is no god" not be a belief?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I agree.

I agree with Furry.

Until this exact moment, I'd never entertained the idea that the sun has a companion black hole (it took me a few minutes to come up with a new concept I hadn't yet encountered). Does that mean I believed there was no companion black hole? Or does it mean that I didn't believe there was a companion black hole?

The answer is the latter. From this moment forward, if I say there is or isn't a companion black hole, I'm expressing belief in one state or another, but as long as I continue to simply not believe there is a companion black hole, I'm not believing in anything I didn't already believe in.

Misconceptions are the fault of English as a language. Too many terms have interchangeable definitions that make communicating some concepts difficult, to say the least.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I agree with

Vastet wrote:
I agree with Furry. Until this exact moment, I'd never entertained the idea that the sun has a companion black hole (it took me a few minutes to come up with a new concept I hadn't yet encountered). Does that mean I believed there was no companion black hole? Or does it mean that I didn't believe there was a companion black hole? The answer is the latter. From this moment forward, if I say there is or isn't a companion black hole, I'm expressing belief in one state or another, but as long as I continue to simply not believe there is a companion black hole, I'm not believing in anything I didn't already believe in. Misconceptions are the fault of English as a language. Too many terms have interchangeable definitions that make communicating some concepts difficult, to say the least.

You had a belief something was one way, you believed that all other alternatives were wrong. By believing something is one way you don't need to know all the alternatives, because its is this way, anyway that is not like this is wrong. That is how I see it. Still belief.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: You state that

Tapey wrote:
You state that god doesn't exist...

Really?

Really??

I know I've never done that.

But let's see if you can answer me this... how could I possibly do that with certainty?

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:redneF

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

Theists drink the Koolaid.

Other individuals cannot.

Totally agreed -- there are Theists who "drink the Koolaid" and often haven't a clue =why=, and there are others who can't because the arguments either don't make sense, or the concept seems absurd.

I can't believe how many idiots get tripped up in this false dichotomy.

It actually causes me some kind of pain when I hear someone thinking this shit out loud. The dissonance makes me cringe.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Quote:
Theists ganged together bitching and attacking those who cannot drink the Koolaid.

Those other individuals who cannot drink the Koolaid got sick of it , realized that there is strength in numbers, and started getting together and fighting back.

Cause/Effect

Totally agree here as well.  But that doesn't mean Atheism hasn't become it's own flavor of Koolaid that is often consumed by people looking to seem hip or trendy. 

I can't disagree with you entirely, here. IME, these are the same atheists that would agree with the idea that lying is objectively wrong, or that killing is objectively wrong, without ever really attempting to reconcile how and why they think that is.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Quote:
Theists need to stop bitching about what their bitching and attacks afforded them.

People who believe in zero or more gods of various sorts need to stop thinking everyone else has their same internal conceptualization of zero or more gods, and that people who don't share that conceptualization needs to hold =their= conceptualization OR ELSE!

Tequila! 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I agree with

Vastet wrote:
I agree with Furry.

Holy sh*t, the Messiah is coming.

Time to baptize my dishes in the nearest lake, and other weird Jewish rituals.

And, props for the example -- that's an excellent example of what I was trying to express.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Vastet wrote:I

Tapey wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I agree with Furry. Until this exact moment, I'd never entertained the idea that the sun has a companion black hole (it took me a few minutes to come up with a new concept I hadn't yet encountered). Does that mean I believed there was no companion black hole? Or does it mean that I didn't believe there was a companion black hole? The answer is the latter. From this moment forward, if I say there is or isn't a companion black hole, I'm expressing belief in one state or another, but as long as I continue to simply not believe there is a companion black hole, I'm not believing in anything I didn't already believe in. Misconceptions are the fault of English as a language. Too many terms have interchangeable definitions that make communicating some concepts difficult, to say the least.

You had a belief something was one way, you believed that all other alternatives were wrong. By believing something is one way you don't need to know all the alternatives, because its is this way, anyway that is not like this is wrong. That is how I see it. Still belief.

No, what Vastet is saying, if I understand his example, is that he had absolutely =no= belief there was a mysterious companion black hole to our sun.

Then someone asks him.

To the extent to which he becomes =invested= in believing or disbelieving that there is a companion black hole (I've heard the theory -- there really are people who believe there is a companion black hole on a long period orbit and it is coming to destroy the Earth ...) he does or DOES NOT have a belief.

I =definitely= do not believe in any companion black holes, and I base that belief on the orbital mechanics of all the known planets.  There is no massive body which is gravitationally bound to our sun that could be that black hole.  And I'd be more than happy to explain how that works and how the orbits of the known planets were used to predict the location of the outer planets.

Now, if Vastet is a curious individual, and he starts reading that last paragraph, and he doesn't think I'm full of crap, and he starts to investigate how Neptune and Pluto were discovered, he might start to form a =belief=.  But if he's yet to hit Google, and he completely ignores my post, and this idea passes out of his awareness, he has no =belief=.

"Belief" and "opinion" and "passing comment" are three very different things.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Tapey wrote:

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:
You state that god doesn't exist...

Really?

Really??

I know I've never done that.

But let's see if you can answer me this... how could I possibly do that with certainty?

 


You have an atheist badge, I assume you are an atheist. To be an atheist is to not hold an active belief in god. I am saying that is the same as saying I believe god doesn't exist. Feel free to disagree there, but it seems to me to be self evident. I can handle people have different ideas about what belief is. By being an atheist you are saying it. If you don't say it you cannot be an atheist.

 

Now the question on certainty. How certain you are of the claim affects your level of athesim. If you are not certain you are a weak atheist, if you are certain you are a strong atheist. Notice you are still an atheist, you are still saying god does not exist. Your certainty about the claim is all that is changing, not your claim itself.

 

Let me show you how you can  do it with certainty.

God does not exist. You just believe it.  Certainty has nothing to do with absolute truth, just how you view the world.

 

I can be correct or incorrect in saying that. We are talked about what is a belief, not what justifies a belief. If we had o go through our beliefs most would be unjustified anyway.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

"Belief" and "opinion" and "passing comment" are three very different things.

To be honest I have no clue what you are talking about with companion holes or whatever so you will excuse me if I plead ignorance there, the example is getting in they way of me understanding what is being said, use a different example and I will properly understand what you are talking about.

 

On this little bit you are correct there is a difference between "Belief" and "opinion" and "passing comment". However surely you would not disagree that your opinions are informed by your beliefs? For every opinion you have a belief or even multiple beliefs? Thats all I was really trying to say. If you disagree with this I think we just have vastly different ideas on what is a belief.

 

The only time there might be problem with what I have said is when there alternatives which someone has not thought of before. I have never considered  if there are really invisible cowss on the moon.. do I hold a belief that they do not exist? I would say yes because of reasons spoken about above. not because I have thought about it but because I believe that there is no life on the moon by extention there cannot be any invisible cows. I hold the belief with out having thought about that particular thing before. I assume before I brought up this example you believe that you had no belief on the matter? But this is not a problem for the topic at hand as we have all considered the question of god.

Let me no if I have misrepresented your position, it will have been unintentional, I am just trying up understand your position.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:To be honest I

Tapey wrote:

To be honest I have no clue what you are talking about with companion holes or whatever so you will excuse me if I plead ignorance there, the example is getting in they way of me understanding what is being said, use a different example and I will properly understand what you are talking about.

Ah!

Okay, so you haven't a clue about companion black holes.

Do you believe in them, yes or no?

Then hold that answer in your head.

Quote:
On this little bit you are correct there is a difference between "Belief" and "opinion" and "passing comment". However surely you would not disagree that your opinions are informed by your beliefs? For every opinion you have a belief or even multiple beliefs? Thats all I was really trying to say. If you disagree with this I think we just have vastly different ideas on what is a belief.

No, I have opinions about which I've not yet formed any beliefs.  I've made "passing comments" on things which I've not yet formed an opinion.  Those were intended to be hierarchies of "thinking about stuff".

Quote:
The only time there might be problem with what I have said is when there alternatives which someone has not thought of before. I have never considered  if there are really invisible cowss on the moon.. do I hold a belief that they do not exist? I would say yes because of reasons spoken about above. not because I have thought about it but because I believe that there is no life on the moon by extention there cannot be any invisible cows. I hold the belief with out having thought about that particular thing before. I assume before I brought up this example you believe that you had no belief on the matter? But this is not a problem for the topic at hand as we have all considered the question of god.

Let me no if I have misrepresented your position, it will have been unintentional, I am just trying up understand your position.

I would says that unless you've tried to reason why invisible cows can't survive or exist on the moon, that you have no =belief=.  You've clearly made a "passing comment", and you may have an =opinion=.  But you are a-invisible-cow-ist on the subject of invisible cows on the moon.  If you tried, for example, to claim that invisible cows are the source of the green cheese that the moon is definitely made of, then I'd say you have a belief.

Vastet is saying "before you mentioned it, I had no thought that invisible cows might exist on the moon, therefore, I had no belief."  I'm saying that the more you argue for or against, the more you have a belief.

More clear?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:FurryCatHerder

Tapey wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

"Belief" and "opinion" and "passing comment" are three very different things.

To be honest I have no clue what you are talking about with companion holes or whatever so you will excuse me if I plead ignorance there, the example is getting in they way of me understanding what is being said, use a different example and I will properly understand what you are talking about.

The example is clear.

The belief in god question is a bifurcation fallacy.

You might not be a theist yourself, but you fall into the same 'rabbit hole' thinking that allows retards like Bush to make statements like 'If you're not with us, you're with them' and get people nodding along in agreement like stupid monkeys and tricking you into a false dichotomy and siding with him.

Belief is banal term about 'knowledge'.

I can't have every knowledge.

Here's the only possible way I can answer these questions:

Q- Do you believe there is a god?

A- No

Q- Do you believe there is no god?

A- No

I answered both questions, with absolute sincerity.

If I told my mother I did not believe there is no god, and I told my father I did not believe there is a god, what would my parents conclude?

That I lied?

I did not lie.

 

The statement 'If you're with us, then you're with them'  is an unsound and invalid premise.

The statement 'If you're not with us, then you're with them'  is sound, but invalid, because 'I' am actually not with them.

The statement 'If you're not with them, then you're with us'  is sound, but invalid, because 'I' am actually not with us.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I had a big post typed up,

I had a big post typed up, but I found it didn't add anything to what red and Furry were saying, so I'll just post my agreement with their posts.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I state that

Personally, I state that there are no gods because science supports this statement. I don't like using the word "believe" because it smacks of religion. For me, saying: "I don't believe in any god", is weak.

I also try to move away from making being atheist a label.

It's a co-incidence that there's a word describing a person who states that there are no gods: Atheist.

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo wrote:Personally, I

FMStereo wrote:

Personally, I state that there are no gods because science supports this statement. I don't like using the word "believe" because it smacks of religion. For me, saying: "I don't believe in any god", is weak.

I also try to move away from making being atheist a label.

It's a co-incidence that there's a word describing a person who states that there are no gods: Atheist.

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

FMStereo wrote:

Personally, I state that there are no gods because science supports this statement. I don't like using the word "believe" because it smacks of religion. For me, saying: "I don't believe in any god", is weak.

I also try to move away from making being atheist a label.

It's a co-incidence that there's a word describing a person who states that there are no gods: Atheist.

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

IOW it is not something that is in any sense knowable, either as to its existence or its attributes if it did exist - it is effectively purely a construct of the human mind. In that sense it is certainly open to study...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

IOW it is not something that is in any sense knowable, either as to its existence or its attributes if it did exist - it is effectively purely a construct of the human mind. In that sense it is certainly open to study...

I wouldn't go so far as saying "purely a construct of the human mind."

I will agree with "In that sense it is certainly open to study..."

If belief in god and/or gods is something encoded in the wetware, and scientific evidence points in that direction, believing in some "higher power" is no more a mental construct than breathing.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

FMStereo wrote:

Personally, I state that there are no gods because science supports this statement. I don't like using the word "believe" because it smacks of religion. For me, saying: "I don't believe in any god", is weak.

I also try to move away from making being atheist a label.

It's a co-incidence that there's a word describing a person who states that there are no gods: Atheist.

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

OK, I think my wording was sloppy. Let me re-phrase: There's no scientific evidence that proves the existence of any god. If any religion claims that it's god exists, they must proof this scientifically for me to consider.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
FMStereo

FMStereo wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

OK, I think my wording was sloppy. Let me re-phrase: There's no scientific evidence that proves the existence of any god. If any religion claims that it's god exists, they must proof this scientifically for me to consider.

Science doesn't prove a lot of things, including some very important things.

Don't let Science become a new religion for you.  Science is great stuff, but it isn't magical.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

IOW it is not something that is in any sense knowable, either as to its existence or its attributes if it did exist - it is effectively purely a construct of the human mind. In that sense it is certainly open to study...

I wouldn't go so far as saying "purely a construct of the human mind."

Of course you won't - or cannot. Doesn't disprove my conjecture. You will need to show me some decent reason why you see it as something more, if you want me to take you as more than a "deluded theist"  . The human mind is perfectly capable of imagining all the God concepts, but not the complexities of modern science - that requires the evidence of our research, which continues to show that 'empirical' reality is infinitely more complex and subtle than anything our unprompted imagination can come up with.

Quote:

I will agree with "In that sense it is certainly open to study..."

If belief in god and/or gods is something encoded in the wetware, and scientific evidence points in that direction, believing in some "higher power" is no more a mental construct than breathing.

That is not a coherent response to my statement.

Believing in it would be a bit like breathing, but the concept of a "higher power" in which that belief was invested would still be  a"mental construct". There could be, and do seem to be, a whole range of concepts which our inherent drive to believe could seize upon as suitable to satisfy our inherent urge to explain our perceptions of reality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Science does no such thing -- the existence or non-existence of G-d is outside the domain of Science.  What =is= inside the domain of Science is any scientific claims that a religion makes.

IOW it is not something that is in any sense knowable, either as to its existence or its attributes if it did exist - it is effectively purely a construct of the human mind. In that sense it is certainly open to study...

I wouldn't go so far as saying "purely a construct of the human mind."

Of course you won't - or cannot. Doesn't disprove my conjecture. You will need to show me some decent reason why you see it as something more, if you want me to take you as more than a "deluded theist"  . The human mind is perfectly capable of imagining all the God concepts, but not the complexities of modern science - that requires the evidence of our research, which continues to show that 'empirical' reality is infinitely more complex and subtle than anything our unprompted imagination can come up with.

Well, I =did= show you some decent reason, you just didn't like it!

The only objective Evolution has is "reproductive success", that's it.  Everything else is optional -- if it doesn't serve "reproductive success", it's surplus to requirements and can just be tossed.  And here we are, wired-up to believe in supernatural beings, because that's what science has suggested -- belief in god and/or gods is wired in the brain, the "wetware" as it were.  We're just hairless apes with opposable thumbs -- subject to the same evolutionary rules as any other living being on the planet.

Quote:
Quote:

I will agree with "In that sense it is certainly open to study..."

If belief in god and/or gods is something encoded in the wetware, and scientific evidence points in that direction, believing in some "higher power" is no more a mental construct than breathing.

That is not a coherent response to my statement.

Believing in it would be a bit like breathing, but the concept of a "higher power" in which that belief was invested would still be  a"mental construct". There could be, and do seem to be, a whole range of concepts which our inherent drive to believe could seize upon as suitable to satisfy our inherent urge to explain our perceptions of reality.

Okay, now I'm going to admit I'm not following you.

I don't see how you can say that something that seems to be a hard-wire instinct ("belief in a higher power&quotEye-wink is a mental construct.  "Breathing" isn't constructed.  Try =not= breathing for an hour or two and see how that works out.

A =specific= god-concept -- that's your construct, but I'd say it's a social construct (external and public) not a mental one (internal and private).  Try having a Religion Of One.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, I must have

I'm sorry, I must have missed your reason. Seriously. Not just joking. Could you at least tell me which post?

What Science, and history, seems to show is  that we are 'wired' to default to perceiving some form of 'agency' behind any event or phenomena we cannot otherwise explain.

This is understandable as a survival trait, to think that there might possibly be a predator or someone from another tribe behind that unusual movement in the grass, that sound in the forest, that may be dangerous. So safer to assume that and run away rather than risk being caught.

In a more settled context, this can be a God, demon, nature spirit, any of the forms of 'magic' beings that our imagination has come up with.

In the context of seeking an explanation for things in general, the term "higher power" frequently is mentioned.

The predisposition to believe in some form of 'higher power' behind things may well be 'wired-in', arising from the same inclination to default to an agent with will and intent, but, as a wired-in idea, it is not likely to be any more specific than that phrase.

Anything more specific has to be 'filled-in' from and by the individual's other knowledge and understanding.

A "social construct", yeah, that would be an aspect of it, where when individuals in a particular social context discussed and compared their personal experiences and ideas among themselves, some sort of consensus would emerge.

If you look at the creation myths and other related narratives in cultures around the world, the specifics are all over the place. Specific commonalities usually can be shown to have been due to contacts between the cultures at some point.

More general similarities can be seen as due to the common inherited instincts in our brains that drive such narratives.

We do have tendency to weave a narrative around a basic account of any event. Then consider the way some bit of information gets changed as it is passed on from person to person, the old game of 'Chinese Whispers" when we are talking about very simple phrases. More elaborate accounts get even more elaborated.

When teaching new ideas to people, setting them in a narrative is much more effective at engaging their attention. The problem is that somewhere down the track, the narrative context can be conflated, merged with the actual information to be conveyed.

From this perspective, to not see all such stories as just that, stories, narratives, seems to me to require a wilful blindness, to want to cling to some particular story or creation myth as somehow the 'one true story'. How would you even determine that?

Do you really have a problem with this kind of scenario? Other than that it undermines your personal beliefs, or your basis for them?

You would really need some 'hard' evidence, not just reported mental experiences, to justify picking the 'true' bits of any of these stories. Which is what I have been seeking from you. Sorry if I missed it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I'm sorry, I

BobSpence wrote:

I'm sorry, I must have missed your reason. Seriously. Not just joking. Could you at least tell me which post?

What Science, and history, seems to show is  that we are 'wired' to default to perceiving some form of 'agency' behind any event or phenomena we cannot otherwise explain.

This is understandable as a survival trait, to think that there might possibly be a predator or someone from another tribe behind that unusual movement in the grass, that sound in the forest, that may be dangerous. So safer to assume that and run away rather than risk being caught.

In a more settled context, this can be a God, demon, nature spirit, any of the forms of 'magic' beings that our imagination has come up with.

In the context of seeking an explanation for things in general, the term "higher power" frequently is mentioned.

The predisposition to believe in some form of 'higher power' behind things may well be 'wired-in', arising from the same inclination to default to an agent with will and intent, but, as a wired-in idea, it is not likely to be any more specific than that phrase.

Anything more specific has to be 'filled-in' from and by the individual's other knowledge and understanding.

A "social construct", yeah, that would be an aspect of it, where when individuals in a particular social context discussed and compared their personal experiences and ideas among themselves, some sort of consensus would emerge.

If you look at the creation myths and other related narratives in cultures around the world, the specifics are all over the place. Specific commonalities usually can be shown to have been due to contacts between the cultures at some point.

More general similarities can be seen as due to the common inherited instincts in our brains that drive such narratives.

We do have tendency to weave a narrative around a basic account of any event. Then consider the way some bit of information gets changed as it is passed on from person to person, the old game of 'Chinese Whispers" when we are talking about very simple phrases. More elaborate accounts get even more elaborated.

When teaching new ideas to people, setting them in a narrative is much more effective at engaging their attention. The problem is that somewhere down the track, the narrative context can be conflated, merged with the actual information to be conveyed.

From this perspective, to not see all such stories as just that, stories, narratives, seems to me to require a wilful blindness, to want to cling to some particular story or creation myth as somehow the 'one true story'. How would you even determine that?

Do you really have a problem with this kind of scenario? Other than that it undermines your personal beliefs, or your basis for them?

 

You would really need some 'hard' evidence, not just reported mental experiences, to justify picking the 'true' bits of any of these stories. Which is what I have been seeking from you. Sorry if I missed it.

 

 

Yes Bob god belief is "wired in" just like an electrician wires the wrong switch to the fuse box. That "agent" is our gap filling. Humans can only communicate with other humans, to the extent we evolved to have a language, so that "wire" is our flaw in self projection. It is can be comforting to think of something as being familiar, "like you" OR "in your favor" if you have that placebo perception, it can be a REAL coping mechanism.

That "wire" is simple anthropomorphism. Projecting human qualities on non human things.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yes Bob god

Brian37 wrote:

Yes Bob god belief is "wired in" just like an electrician wires the wrong switch to the fuse box.

I'll have you know I've never wired the wrong switch to a fuse box!  I've zapped myself a few times, and vaporized a fair bit of copper along the way, but my wires always go to the right fuses!

I think there are a lot of ways to rationalize belief in G-d, for someone who does, but I don't believe in G-d because there's some genetic tendency to believe in G-d, or I've found some way to reconcile much of what the Bible does with "science" with actual Science.  I'm more inclined to believe in G-d because the claimed objective, however badly mutilated it winds up being in practice, is a heck of a lot better than what civilizations did thousands of years ago =and= they line up well with "Secular Humanism".  Mind you -- most religions don't live up to their ideal, but a lot of well-intentioned people often fall short of their intentions.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I'm sorry, I

BobSpence wrote:

I'm sorry, I must have missed your reason. Seriously. Not just joking. Could you at least tell me which post?

I responded to Brian37.  Hopefully that clears things up.

BobSpence wrote:
What Science, and history, seems to show is  that we are 'wired' to default to perceiving some form of 'agency' behind any event or phenomena we cannot otherwise explain.

This is understandable as a survival trait, to think that there might possibly be a predator or someone from another tribe behind that unusual movement in the grass, that sound in the forest, that may be dangerous. So safer to assume that and run away rather than risk being caught.

In a more settled context, this can be a God, demon, nature spirit, any of the forms of 'magic' beings that our imagination has come up with.

In the context of seeking an explanation for things in general, the term "higher power" frequently is mentioned.

The predisposition to believe in some form of 'higher power' behind things may well be 'wired-in', arising from the same inclination to default to an agent with will and intent, but, as a wired-in idea, it is not likely to be any more specific than that phrase.

Anything more specific has to be 'filled-in' from and by the individual's other knowledge and understanding.

A "social construct", yeah, that would be an aspect of it, where when individuals in a particular social context discussed and compared their personal experiences and ideas among themselves, some sort of consensus would emerge.

Good!  We got that out of the way.

BobSpence wrote:
If you look at the creation myths and other related narratives in cultures around the world, the specifics are all over the place. Specific commonalities usually can be shown to have been due to contacts between the cultures at some point.

The difference is that the Hebrew texts don't make claims that are specific enough to be absolutely false.  The are no turtles under the earth, the sun isn't pulled by some guy, gods aren't claimed to be coming down and knocking up virgins, with their god-man sons condemned to countless challenges.

For example, the order of creation -- Earth first, then the Sun -- has often been attacked as "wrong" by Atheists because "obviously" the sun formed first.  Except it didn't become a star until after the Earth was formed --

Wikipedia wrote:
When the protostar has grown such that it ignites to form a star, the surviving disk is removed from the inside outward by photoevaporation, the solar wind, Poynting-Robertson drag and other effects.[67][68] Thereafter there still may be many protoplanets orbiting the star or each other, but over time many will collide, either to form a single larger planet or release material for other larger protoplanets or planets to absorb.[69] Those objects that have become massive enough will capture most matter in their orbital neighbourhoods to become planets. Meanwhile, protoplanets that have avoided collisions may become natural satellites of planets through a process of gravitational capture, or remain in belts of other objects to become either dwarf planets or small bodies.

Do you really have a problem with this kind of scenario? Other than that it undermines your personal beliefs, or your basis for them?

 

You would really need some 'hard' evidence, not just reported mental experiences, to justify picking the 'true' bits of any of these stories. Which is what I have been seeking from you. Sorry if I missed it.

I dunno.  The Bible says Time didn't exist before G-d created the Universe.  Time requires matter (see Special Relativity).  The Bible says G-d created the Universe (matter) and Time (see Einstein) and the Earth was a planet before the Sun was a star.  None of those are "mental experiences", but I have those, too.

I think I'm going to stick with the book that seems to have gotten it right more than the others =and= that has a goal for civilization that Atheists seem to think is just peachy.

But none of that is why I believe in G-d.  I think it's cool that the Torah gets Special Relativity, Big Bang cosmology, and planet formation right.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
attn FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:
There's no clear mention of any "afterlife" in the non-literary parts of the Bible. Daniel is in the "literature" section of the Hebrew bible, not the "Law" or "Prophecy" sections. Christians turned him into a prophet, not us.

What about 1 Samuel 28 where the witch of Endor calls up the spirit of the dead Samuel who speaks to Saul? That is a non-literary part. Doesn't that show there are spirits flitting about and they are of dead people?

 

What about this above FurryCatHerder? How is that literal?

And to extend. You say this G-d is incomprehensible to us and may not even bother to give you an afterlife and I assume not really involved into day to day details of human life.

Doesn't this completely satisfy this statement "The invisible and the non-existent look alike".

Aren't you simply one minor click away from being an atheist? The more I read from you the less I see value add for this G-d. The deluded at least have a long rider added to their contract with god.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:FMStereo

redneF wrote:

FMStereo wrote:

Is atheism a philosophical term for you or a "label"?

It's an epithet; a derisive term.

It's not really a 'positive' label. It's a 'negative' label probably invented by theists themselves. An ad hominem.

Atheism has no 'content'.

Even theists are atheists. They don't believe the other god claims have met their burden of proof.

"Gay" before it was used as a epithet meant "happy". Homophobes adapted it, but if we use your logic word meaning cannot change and this is an example of it changing. And even today although "gay" still is used as an epithet many gay and heterosexuals do not use it as an epithet. If the word never changed then why do gays call themselves gay? How can they see the word as positive if the word never changed?

Avoiding words in all contexts as a blanket solution is silly. Time place and context are important, not the use of the word itself.

"atheist" as an epithet is only an epithet to the ignorant bigots who us it that way. I find no shame in calling myself an atheist. The word itself does not make one automatically good or bad because it is merely addressing a position. Fuck anyone who thinks it should only be used as an epithet.

The word "fly" mainly meant the actions of birds or an insect. But back in the 80s "fly" meant cool or sexy.

Words change and words often have more than one meaning which is why time place and context are far more important than the simple fact that the word was said. Why it was said and how it was said and the context of the situation it was said and the definition intended are what matter.

Atheists should not view the word as an epithet and most don't. But even in the context of an epithet we shouldn't rid all reference of that because we need a way to put that bigotry on display.

Here is how I respond to the word Atheist being used as an epithet.

Believer , "ATHEIST!"

Me, "So, what's wrong with being an atheist?  Better than being an asshole bigot like you".

Now, in this context I used it both as an epithet and a mere description of a position. How could I do that without using the word, if I cant use it at all, I cant even use it in the mere context of example?

If human language never changed we'd all still be grunting and flinging poo at each other.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I think

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I think there are a lot of ways to rationalize belief in G-d, for someone who does, but I don't believe in G-d because there's some genetic tendency to believe in G-d, or I've found some way to reconcile much of what the Bible does with "science" with actual Science.I'm more inclined to believe in G-d because the claimed objective, however badly mutilated it winds up being in practice, is a heck of a lot better than what civilizations did thousands of years ago =and= they line up well with "Secular Humanism".

First, you would not be in a position to judge how much of your inclination to believe was influenced by your 'wired-in' tendency to believe. The genetic influence on that has been reasonably demonstrated by twin studies, and is roughly 50%.

Second, from my perspective, 'belief' is not something you choose, in any sense. I am pretty sure I saw you explicitly use the phrase "choose to believe" in an earlier post, and that would seem to be consistent with your account here. 

I will give some position or claim provisional acceptance, an expression I would feel more accurately describes the way I hold most positions than "belief", based on what I perceive as the strength of the arguments and/or the evidence for it. This involves bouncing it off what I already see as well supported ideas that I accept. If it is wildly inconsistent, the new idea will have to come with damn strong supporting arguments, and provide a clearer, more consistent model of that aspect of reality than the ideas it will replace.

I specifically try to exclude purely personal inclination, ie feelings not based on objective considerations.

My highest goal is truth, or as close as we can get to it.

You seem to be saying you liked the aims and objectives of the group who identified with a particular version of Judaism so much that you wanted to join them, which is fine to that point. Since membership required you hold a particular set of beliefs, you decided to convince yourself that you could do that. Forgive me if I misread you here, or jumped too far to my conclusions.

I have a real problem with this. It is the same basic problem I have with the notion of religious faith itself.

I have a similar perspective on this to Mark Twain: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

It deeply offends my sense of a commitment to truth.

You are not the only one I've encountered with this attitude to belief, as something you "choose". It troubles me.

===========

Your Wiki quote undermines your point, in that the object that we know as Earth almost certainly did not exist in its final form until the period of collisions of proto-planets tailed off, leaving what we see as the current family of planets in stable orbits. IOW, after the sun ignited. So if you intend to exclude the protostar that became the shining star we call the Sun as counting as a pre-existing Sun, you should be consistent and exclude the proto-planets too.

Even if I let that pass, you still are ignoring all the other points I gave as inconsistent with the Genesis account.

Quote:

 

I dunno.  The Bible says Time didn't exist before G-d created the Universe.  Time requires matter (see Special Relativity).  The Bible says G-d created the Universe (matter) and Time (see Einstein) and the Earth was a planet before the Sun was a star.  None of those are "mental experiences", but I have those, too.

I think I'm going to stick with the book that seems to have gotten it right more than the others =and= that has a goal for civilization that Atheists seem to think is just peachy.

But none of that is why I believe in G-d.  I think it's cool that the Torah gets Special Relativity, Big Bang cosmology, and planet formation right.

If Time didn't exist, God could not have take action. Both Time and God require matter, or some equivalent 'stuff', ie something that allows stable patterns and structures to exist, a prequisite for any complex process such as thought to occur. He could 

The existence of a specific imagined entity, God, and what he is imagined to have done, is a mental construct. Going from those ideas to cherry-picked facts requires a mental leap of 'faith'. Apart from the fact that you have ignored the more explicit inconsistencies, and that at best, all you have done is show that some ideas in the story are not completely inconsistent with Science. Hardly enough to justify positing the existence of an entity wildly beyond anything currently known by Science. There are many mental gymnastics involved in the process of reaching your conclusions here.

The Torah says nothing specific about Special Relativity, or the Big Bang, and even the planet formation match is questionable. All you have shown is that some ideas are not completely inconsistent with those ideas. That does NOT amount to the Torah "getting them right".

Sorry, Furry, not impressed at all.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Your Wiki

BobSpence wrote:

Your Wiki quote undermines your point, in that the object that we know as Earth almost certainly did not exist in its final form until the period of collisions of proto-planets tailed off, leaving what we see as the current family of planets in stable orbits. IOW, after the sun ignited. So if you intend to exclude the protostar that became the shining star we call the Sun as counting as a pre-existing Sun, you should be consistent and exclude the proto-planets too.

Even if I let that pass, you still are ignoring all the other points I gave as inconsistent with the Genesis account.

Sigh.

Do you realize how =small= Hebrew is as a language?  Do you have any (cultural) appreciation for the age of the text and the lack of sophistication of people 2,500 (if you buy the Documentary Hypothesis), 3,000 (age of the united Kingdom of Israel) or 3,500 (approximate date of the Exodus) years ago?  The first chapter of Genesis has fewer =letters= than any reasonable cosmology text has words, and if it's a decent text, fewer letters than that text has paragraphs.

Quote:
Quote:

I dunno.  The Bible says Time didn't exist before G-d created the Universe.  Time requires matter (see Special Relativity).  The Bible says G-d created the Universe (matter) and Time (see Einstein) and the Earth was a planet before the Sun was a star.  None of those are "mental experiences", but I have those, too.

I think I'm going to stick with the book that seems to have gotten it right more than the others =and= that has a goal for civilization that Atheists seem to think is just peachy.

But none of that is why I believe in G-d.  I think it's cool that the Torah gets Special Relativity, Big Bang cosmology, and planet formation right.

If Time didn't exist, God could not have take action. Both Time and God require matter, or some equivalent 'stuff', ie something that allows stable patterns and structures to exist, a prequisite for any complex process such as thought to occur. He could

Ah, this is where "I worship Science as a religion" comes screaming through.

No, G-d no more requires "matter" than "love" has weight, a rest mass, magnetic field, spin, etc.  "Thought" doesn't require mass or time.  You can't weigh or measure a thought, a feeling, an emotion, an intention, a like or dislike, a belief or a slew of other things.  There is no weight, rest mass, eletromagnetic field, spin, or any other property =to= the Laws of Nature.  You can't give me a gram, meter, degree K, Joule, Tesla, Weber or any other fundamental or derived unit of the First, Second or Third Law of Thermodynamics.  And yet, they all somehow exist.

Quote:
The existence of a specific imagined entity, God, and what he is imagined to have done, is a mental construct. Going from those ideas to cherry-picked facts requires a mental leap of 'faith'. Apart from the fact that you have ignored the more explicit inconsistencies, and that at best, all you have done is show that some ideas in the story are not completely inconsistent with Science. Hardly enough to justify positing the existence of an entity wildly beyond anything currently known by Science. There are many mental gymnastics involved in the process of reaching your conclusions here.

I'm very comfortable not having all the answers.  I've invented enough things (patented things ...) to be pretty good at not having all the answers =and= making up the missing pieces to come up with a real solution.  Maybe that's why what you've written isn't the least bit persuasive?  Maybe I've done things that people claimed were impossible too many times for "that's impossible" to have any relevance for me?

Quote:
The Torah says nothing specific about Special Relativity, or the Big Bang, and even the planet formation match is questionable. All you have shown is that some ideas are not completely inconsistent with those ideas. That does NOT amount to the Torah "getting them right".

Sorry, Furry, not impressed at all.

For a 3,500 year old book, it does a pretty good job using an ancient language made up of words that have 3 letters each from a 22 character alphabet.

If all your responses are for the benefit of other people, I think I'm going to bow out -- I've been through this before.  If it's for my benefit, let's just agree that you have no argument that will change my mind and move on.

You make claims about reality that have no basis in reality.  When you can give me a gram, liter or second of the First Law of Thermodynamics, at that point I will accept your claim that I can't give you a gram, liter or second of G-d as persuasive for the non-existence of G-d.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Your Wiki quote undermines your point, in that the object that we know as Earth almost certainly did not exist in its final form until the period of collisions of proto-planets tailed off, leaving what we see as the current family of planets in stable orbits. IOW, after the sun ignited. So if you intend to exclude the protostar that became the shining star we call the Sun as counting as a pre-existing Sun, you should be consistent and exclude the proto-planets too.

Even if I let that pass, you still are ignoring all the other points I gave as inconsistent with the Genesis account.

Sigh.

Do you realize how =small= Hebrew is as a language?  Do you have any (cultural) appreciation for the age of the text and the lack of sophistication of people 2,500 (if you buy the Documentary Hypothesis), 3,000 (age of the united Kingdom of Israel) or 3,500 (approximate date of the Exodus) years ago?  The first chapter of Genesis has fewer =letters= than any reasonable cosmology text has words, and if it's a decent text, fewer letters than that text has paragraphs.

Quote:
Quote:

I dunno.  The Bible says Time didn't exist before G-d created the Universe.  Time requires matter (see Special Relativity).  The Bible says G-d created the Universe (matter) and Time (see Einstein) and the Earth was a planet before the Sun was a star.  None of those are "mental experiences", but I have those, too.

I think I'm going to stick with the book that seems to have gotten it right more than the others =and= that has a goal for civilization that Atheists seem to think is just peachy.

But none of that is why I believe in G-d.  I think it's cool that the Torah gets Special Relativity, Big Bang cosmology, and planet formation right.

If Time didn't exist, God could not have take action. Both Time and God require matter, or some equivalent 'stuff', ie something that allows stable patterns and structures to exist, a prequisite for any complex process such as thought to occur. He could

Ah, this is where "I worship Science as a religion" comes screaming through.

No, G-d no more requires "matter" than "love" has weight, a rest mass, magnetic field, spin, etc.  "Thought" doesn't require mass or time.  You can't weigh or measure a thought, a feeling, an emotion, an intention, a like or dislike, a belief or a slew of other things.  There is no weight, rest mass, eletromagnetic field, spin, or any other property =to= the Laws of Nature.  You can't give me a gram, meter, degree K, Joule, Tesla, Weber or any other fundamental or derived unit of the First, Second or Third Law of Thermodynamics.  And yet, they all somehow exist.

Quote:
The existence of a specific imagined entity, God, and what he is imagined to have done, is a mental construct. Going from those ideas to cherry-picked facts requires a mental leap of 'faith'. Apart from the fact that you have ignored the more explicit inconsistencies, and that at best, all you have done is show that some ideas in the story are not completely inconsistent with Science. Hardly enough to justify positing the existence of an entity wildly beyond anything currently known by Science. There are many mental gymnastics involved in the process of reaching your conclusions here.

I'm very comfortable not having all the answers.  I've invented enough things (patented things ...) to be pretty good at not having all the answers =and= making up the missing pieces to come up with a real solution.  Maybe that's why what you've written isn't the least bit persuasive?  Maybe I've done things that people claimed were impossible too many times for "that's impossible" to have any relevance for me?

Quote:
The Torah says nothing specific about Special Relativity, or the Big Bang, and even the planet formation match is questionable. All you have shown is that some ideas are not completely inconsistent with those ideas. That does NOT amount to the Torah "getting them right".

Sorry, Furry, not impressed at all.

For a 3,500 year old book, it does a pretty good job using an ancient language made up of words that have 3 letters each from a 22 character alphabet.

If all your responses are for the benefit of other people, I think I'm going to bow out -- I've been through this before.  If it's for my benefit, let's just agree that you have no argument that will change my mind and move on.

You make claims about reality that have no basis in reality.  When you can give me a gram, liter or second of the First Law of Thermodynamics, at that point I will accept your claim that I can't give you a gram, liter or second of G-d as persuasive for the non-existence of G-d.

We do this for EVERYONE'S benefit, including yours. But you are not special. WE know that people do not need a pet invisible friend to live life. Pet invisible friends do not explain the reality that scientific method observes.

There is nothing scientific about any myth, especially ones written in a scientifically ignorant age. I have argued the same retrofitting garbage with Muslims and Christians too. Saying the sky is blue does not demonstrate scientifically you know why it is blue. The Egyptians observed the sun and depicted the sun in their religion, that did not mean they knew what the sun was actually made of.

Now as far as a "beginning" the ambiguous  quotes in any holy book do not demonstrate knowledge.

Science currently DOES NOT know if the cause of the universe came out of nothing, or was an ongoing process that ended up causing the universe. "In the beginning" means nothing scientifically

Either finite or infinite the universe is not cognitive either way, nor does it need a cognition to cause it any more than a hurricane needs Posiden to cause it.

I have had Muslims point to a Hubble picture and a Red Nebula claiming that was proof of Allah. I had another Muslim argue congealed blood proving Allah picked the sex of the baby. I have had Christians as well argue their retrofitted pseudo science too. I've had BOTH Muslims and Christians quote similar verses about "mountains moving" as evidence that their holy books proved that their characters had scientific knowledge of plate tectonics.

Gene Roddenberry, by your logic should be considered responsible for the modern cell phone. I've even had si fi fans argue that. All poppycock! Scientists already had microwave technology when Roddenberry came up with the word "Tricorder". Scientists were already making the attempt to try to make microwave communication smaller. All he did was make the idea popular. No one at the time had any clue if that could be a reality. Roddenberry also came up with the transporter and Tribbles  and Klingons. You have even less evidence for your god than Roddenberry had for cell phones.

"In the beginning" IS merely the projection of humans of wanting to be the first, wanting to be special, nothing more. Holy books by any name are not science textbooks. They are mere reflections of the culture of that time written in comic book form falsely believed to be fact.

Coincidence does not constitute knowledge, especially when you are arguing way after the fact. The fact is the writers of ALL those ancient myths, were not writing them from study or testing or independent review. They wrote those books because it was a way to market their superstition.

Holy books are not science textbooks.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 FurryCatHerder,Are you

 FurryCatHerder,

Are you avoiding my question in #44 above?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

 FurryCatHerder,

Are you avoiding my question in #44 above?

Tell you what -- you cut me a check, and I'll answer your questions on demand.  How does that sound?

Speaking with spirits is a sin.

I don't think being "one click away from an Atheist" is a design flaw in Judaism.

I don't think any religion that promises goodies in exchange for "believing" is worth a sh*t.

And now I have to send out an invoice to a business partner and try to get a potential sale to close -- they objected to my "lesbian" t-shirt picture, but not to the picture of the thermonuclear device going off.  Some people and their morality ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."