Atheism is a faith.

[RandFan]

Not trying to be nit-picky so much - I leave that for complete idiots like insane Canucks - but it seems that a version of heaven which is universally "good" would be as bad as one which is universally "bad". If, during the short speck of our lives, we have lived according to Jesus' "first stone" rule, then we could claim some experience of what it might be like, but given human propensity for those sins, nobody is without them. Where do they go? They are as much a part of us as any other part. If heaven gets watered down to this extent, then it isn't heaven, it's hell.

Damn, as much as I hate to admit it, this is good. My "sins" or mistakes is much of why I am what I am. Does god give us amnesia? What the hell point was the entire excercise for in the first place?

 

[Zygar]

Not trying to be nit-picky so much - I leave that for complete idiots like insane Canucks - but it seems that a version of heaven which is universally "good" would be as bad as one which is universally "bad". If, during the short speck of our lives, we have lived according to Jesus' "first stone" rule, then we could claim some experience of what it might be like, but given human propensity for those sins, nobody is without them. Where do they go? They are as much a part of us as any other part. If heaven gets watered down to this extent, then it isn't heaven, it's hell.

Not to be insulting, Athiest, but this is a very "Mormon" take on the matter. It is the reason why their afterlife is vastly more complex than the standard Xtian one.

 

[CapelDodger]

Being a heaven, I think I'm pretty safe in suggesting that there will be no violence, hatred, bigotry or any of man's sins.

Nice technique .

Human experience would tend to show that those particular traits are pretty well established in humans.

Bigotry is not a trait, nobody was ever bigoted until they were told who to be bigoted about. Normal human society is remarkably non-violent, and personal hatred is often justified.

Where do those traits go? To conform to what an actual heaven would be, I suggest that the one you seek is going to require removal of free will. That being the case, it isn't going to be much of a heaven.

Where's the competition in this heaven? Where's the to-and-fro, the striving, the vicarious pleasure and pain of the supporters? The euphoria of the win comes with the emotional cost of defeat. Not so much when you're a Kiwi, but in principle. Without either, what's it all meant for? Eternal adulation of the Guaranteed Winner?

 

[CapelDodger]

Damn, as much as I hate to admit it, this is good. My "sins" or mistakes is much of why I am what I am. Does god give us amnesia? What the hell point was the entire excercise for in the first place?

Rhetorical, of course, as there's no point or planned exercise, but people do get exercised about that particular point - that there isn't one. Which there isn't.

 

[Ginarley]

Seems to me heaven is another victim of the f word (faith). Obviously heaven is as unprovable as the existence of god, so you have to take it on faith it exists, that it is somehow good, and that it is a reward.

It is no wonder then that religious perceptions of heaven (and hell) have been heavily influenced by literature. I saw an interesting doco recently about the history of hell, and it clearly made the point our modern perception of it was heavily influenced by literature such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost. I suspect heaven is much the same although I couldn't name the specific literature - our visual representation of heaven does not appear to have biblical origins though.

I find it a little amusing that such a significant part of modern chrisitian interpretation of the bible is literally based on fiction lol.

 

[soarwing]

Hi soarwing, welcome aboard
Don't worry. Everything here is a re-hash, but there are always new folks who haven't yet seen it, so it's not wasted.
My Christian family won't talk to me about religion, so I need somewhere to "vent" I suppose. Ironically, I'm a bigfoot nerd who thinks that there probably is something to that phenomenon. - Go figure.
- - -

It is not a faith. It is (IMO) a philosophy. The philosophy is, "only gods with evidence deserve belief." Very basic, but still a philosophy. (FWIW, all skepticism, whether about god(s) or anything else is a philosophy.)
Then only "unicorns with evidence deserve belief" is also a philosophy. Rendering the word "philosophy" meaningless IMO.
- - -

Here I split with many atheists. I don't think that lack of belief is enough to classify one as an atheist. If this were true, infants would be atheists. Dogs, amoebas, even rocks would be atheists, because they all lack belief. So for me, an atheist must be someone who has, however briefly, considered the question of the existence of God or gods. Lack of consideration does not make a person (or thing) an atheist. Maybe we need a new word like "non-theist" for things which have not or cannot consider the question of God.
Infants are atheists. No belief in god(s)=atheist. "Non-theist" is the the same as atheist. Generally I would say that atheism should be limited to human beings, but by definition, atheism would include dogs, amoebas, infants and people in vegetative states, etc.
---


Not necessarily. He can agree that he doesn't have enough evidence, and yet still believe. There are any number of reasons for doing so. Maybe it gives him comfort. In my mind, everybody is an agnostic because the only way to have certain knowledge of God or of the absence of God is to know everything. I don't know anybody, theist or atheist, who claims to know everything, though many will claim to "know" God exists or doesn't exist. Since I'm busy coining phrases, lets call them "false gnostics".
"Belief" without enough evidence for belief is irrational. Regardless of the comfort or whatever it might bring. I don't know that there aren't magic elves on Mars, but I still lack belief in Magic Martian Elves. I don't need to KNOW to not have magic elf belief. Simply lacking a belief isn't a knowledge claim.
- - -

I agree, but many would question your definition of irrational. To some, rational means "believable to a sane person". In case you haven't figured it out, we spend a lot of time wallowing in semantics here.
That's okay... I like the challenge. To hold beliefs that cannot be rationally demonstrated as true - to me - is a good definition of irrational.
---
I disagree. One can be "not sure" but still believe. In fact, almost all theists I have ever met are "not sure" about some things.
Theists are sure that they believe in god. Otherwise they aren't theists. Being "not sure" is not accepting something to be true or false. I can't be unsure of whether I own a car, but yet believe that I do own a car at the same time. If one is not sure but still has belief in what one is unsure about, then that person is irrational.

Again, welcome, and I look forward to your input.

- - -

Thanks for the welcome!.... hopefully I can contribute something and learn while I'm at it!

SW

 

[The Atheist]

The euphoria of the win comes with the emotional cost of defeat. Not so much when you're a Kiwi, but in principle. Without either, what's it all meant for? Eternal adulation of the Guaranteed Winner?

Can you imagine rugby? Every game would have to be a 50-all draw.

 

[The Atheist]

Not to be insulting, Athiest, but this is a very "Mormon" take on the matter. It is the reason why their afterlife is vastly more complex than the standard Xtian one.

I think you may have mis-read something. The heaven I'm arguing for/against is how I see Mr C's one and it's quite simple in concept - it's a lovely, friendly place with free beer and long opening hours and the only qualification is non-exclusion from god. Mr C will clear that up if I'm wrong, but we're covering it across about five threads on two boards, so I hope I have it right by now!

 

[The Atheist]

Seems to me heaven is another victim of the f word (faith). Obviously heaven is as unprovable as the existence of god, so you have to take it on faith it exists, that it is somehow good, and that it is a reward.

It is no wonder then that religious perceptions of heaven (and hell) have been heavily influenced by literature. I saw an interesting doco recently about the history of hell, and it clearly made the point our modern perception of it was heavily influenced by literature such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost. I suspect heaven is much the same although I couldn't name the specific literature - our visual representation of heaven does not appear to have biblical origins though.

I find it a little amusing that such a significant part of modern chrisitian interpretation of the bible is literally based on fiction lol.

Same thing with Jesus as he is depicted pictorially. Why is he always a tall, European-looking, bearded, long-haired bloke with brown hair. Given his race and the time he was alive, it's pretty certain that he was a short/medium, swarthy, Middle-Eastern-looking bloke with black hair.

Apart from in Rotorua, where he's depicted as a Maori fulla.

 

[Zygar]

I think you may have mis-read something. The heaven I'm arguing for/against is how I see Mr C's one and it's quite simple in concept - it's a lovely, friendly place with free beer and long opening hours and the only qualification is non-exclusion from god. Mr C will clear that up if I'm wrong, but we're covering it across about five threads on two boards, so I hope I have it right by now!

No, I was referring specifically to:

but given human propensity for those sins, nobody is without them. Where do they go?

Not that it is all that important, but Mormons ask the very same question and factor it into their idea of the afterlife.

 

[Tricky]

Thanks for replying, Soarwing.

The first thing I'm going to do is just a posting hint. Click the "quote" button at the bottom of any post and you'll be presented with a screen of the post which excludes all other quoted items. This prevents endless repitition. Copy the whole thing and then paste it repeatedly, trimming it to just the part you want to reply to, surrounged by the bracketed {quote} text {/quote} thingies. That way, you can easily separate what the other person said versus what you said. It takes a little practice, but it makes reading (and replying) to your posts much easier. But just this once, I'll do the editing.

My Christian family won't talk to me about religion, so I need somewhere to "vent" I suppose. Ironically, I'm a bigfoot nerd who thinks that there probably is something to that phenomenon. - Go figure.

I think a lot of us are here because we need to vent. It is a good, safe place to do it. Nobody knows who you are. You can be as free as you like.

Then only "unicorns with evidence deserve belief" is also a philosophy. Rendering the word "philosophy" meaningless IMO.

Unicorns with (good) evidence do deserve belief, and yes that is a philosophy. Anything with good evidence deserves belief. But I don't believe this renders philosophy meaningless. I would define Philosophy as "the rules by which beliefs are based". Yeah, a lot of times the rules are stupid and as a result, the philosophies that use them are self-contradictory and worthless.

Infants are atheists. No belief in god(s)=atheist. "Non-theist" is the the same as atheist. Generally I would say that atheism should be limited to human beings, but by definition, atheism would include dogs, amoebas, infants and people in vegetative states, etc.

That is why I don't accept this definition. If I join a society of atheists, I don't expect to see dogs and amoebas in there. I expect to see people who have considered the question of God.

If you asked somebody what they thought of God and they said, "What is God?" would you mark them down as atheist? I wouldn't. If you explained the concept of God to them, well then, they have now considered the concept of God, so they can legitimately be called "atheists" if they say they don't believe in any god(s).

ETA. See Dr. Kitten's excellent post on "privative" for a better explanation than I have given.

"Belief" without enough evidence for belief is irrational. Regardless of the comfort or whatever it might bring. I don't know that there aren't magic elves on Mars, but I still lack belief in Magic Martian Elves. I don't need to KNOW to not have magic elf belief. Simply lacking a belief isn't a knowledge claim.

I agree. Knowledge and belief are two different things. Belief without evidence is (by my definition) irrational. Still, one must allow that others may define it differently. By understanding what others mean, we can have a discussion without pushing hot-buttons, like calling a sane person "irrational".

For what its worth, I hold some irrational beliefs. So do you. That doesn't make either one of us, on the whole, irrational.

That's okay... I like the challenge. To hold beliefs that cannot be rationally demonstrated as true - to me - is a good definition of irrational.

You mean like Bigfoot?

Seriously though, this is exactly what I mean. Most, if not all people hold some irrational beliefs. I only found out recently that the old story about swimming less than an hour after eating would give you cramps, was utter BS. It was irrational, because I had only accepted it on the word of others, not because I had any evidence. I can give you other examples of where I am irrational. You have given us one of yours. Such is the burden of being human.

Theists are sure that they believe in god. Otherwise they aren't theists. Being "not sure" is not accepting something to be true or false.

Agreed. Being sure you believe is not the same as being sure of your belief. But I think most people would admit that their beliefs have changed over time and may change again. Being sure you believe is like being sure you will vote for a certain party this election. It doesn't mean you will always vote that way.

I can't be unsure of whether I own a car, but yet believe that I do own a car at the same time. If one is not sure but still has belief in what one is unsure about, then that person is irrational.

I disagree. I am not sure, as in 100% sure of anything. I have things for which there is so much evidence that it is indistinguishable from being "sure", such as gravity, evolution, the value of oral hygene and the stupidity of rap music, but I must retain the willingness to be proved wrong by good evidence, or else I am, as you say, irrational.

Thanks for the welcome!.... hopefully I can contribute something and learn while I'm at it!

You already have contributed. Please continue to do so. We will learn from each other.

 

[The Atheist]

No, I was referring specifically to:

Not that it is all that important, but Mormons ask the very same question and factor it into their idea of the afterlife.

Oh cool, I can always get a job biking around like a complete twat in a white shirt and black trousers.

 

[soarwing]

Thanks for replying, Soarwing.

The first thing I'm going to do is just a posting hint. Click the "quote" button at the bottom of any post and you'll be presented with a screen of the post which excludes all other quoted items. This prevents endless repitition. Copy the whole thing and then paste it repeatedly, trimming it to just the part you want to reply to, surrounged by the bracketed {quote} text {/quote} thingies. That way, you can easily separate what the other person said versus what you said. It takes a little practice, but it makes reading (and replying) to your posts much easier. But just this once, I'll do the editing.

Thanks. I'll give it a try (forgive me if I get it wrong a few times)

I think a lot of us are here because we need to vent. It is a good, safe place to do it. Nobody knows who you are. You can be as free as you like.
Unicorns with (good) evidence do deserve belief, and yes that is a philosophy. Anything with good evidence deserves belief. But I don't believe this renders philosophy meaningless. I would define Philosophy as "the rules by which beliefs are based". Yeah, a lot of times the rules are stupid and as a result, the philosophies that use them are self-contradictory and worthless.

I think your definition of philosophy is too broad. Disbelief in an infinity of things could then be called a philosophy. But I could be wrong.

That is why I don't accept this definition. If I join a society of atheists, I don't expect to see dogs and amoebas in there. I expect to see people who have considered the question of God.

If you asked somebody what they thought of God and they said, "What is God?" would you mark them down as atheist? I wouldn't. If you explained the concept of God to them, well then, they have now considered the concept of God, so they can legitimately be called "atheists" if they say they don't believe in any god(s).

Yes I would mark them down as an atheist because they don't believe in a god or gods. A-theism (Like A-sexual or A-political) Consideration of a god, or anything else, isn't required to not have a belief in that particular thing.

I agree. Knowledge and belief are two different things. Belief without evidence is (by my definition) irrational. Still, one must allow that others may define it differently. By understanding what others mean, we can have a discussion without pushing hot-buttons, like calling a sane person "irrational".

Having irrational beliefs (or fears) is not the same as being insane. One can be sane and have multiple irrational beliefs and fears. The beliefs are irrational and so are the thoughts that give rise to them. And you're right, this doesn't mean that the person is irrational on the whole. Just parts.

Evidence for something specific, like bigfoot, can be rationally demonstrated in principle. I don't "believe" in bigfoot as much as I think there probably was or is something real that spawned the legends. After all, bigfoot-like creatures are known to have existed... the question is whether they still do. But I digress.

Seriously though, this is exactly what I mean. Most, if not all people hold some irrational beliefs. I only found out recently that the old story about swimming less than an hour after eating would give you cramps, was utter BS. It was irrational, because I had only accepted it on the word of others, not because I had any evidence. I can give you other examples of where I am irrational. You have given us one of yours. Such is the burden of being human.

The difference being that getting cramps after swimming can be tested.

I disagree. I am not sure, as in 100% sure of anything. I have things for which there is so much evidence that it is indistinguishable from being "sure", such as gravity, evolution, the value of oral hygene and the stupidity of rap music, but I must retain the willingness to be proved wrong by good evidence, or else I am, as you say, irrational.

You already have contributed. Please continue to do so. We will learn from each other.

I too, of course am willing to be proven wrong. I'll be better off for it.
To believe that you own a car, but yet not be really sure whether you do or not is taking skepticism too far. Third party perspective has a way of clearing these things up in a hurry in my estimation.

Agreed....Rap music is stupid.

My point is that you can't "have faith" in something or be unsure of something while at the same time knowing (or believing) it is true because of rational demonstration. Rationally demonstrating evidence for something doesn't mean that the conclusion is correct. Just that the conclusion doesn't rely on "belief" in spite of - or in the absence of demonstrable evidence itself.

The evidences for theism, the belief in a god or gods, cannot be rationally demonstrated - unless the truth of theism is accepted first. For example, I could claim that when it snows, it's because the Magic Elf Princess has willed it. This claim cannot be demonstrated as true (or false), unless one accepts that there is a Magic Elf Princess that creates snow in the first place.

In other words, the world of agnosticism is plaqued by an infinite number of possible gods or magic elves. Making the actual belief in any of them - instead of the other - an exercise in futility. By what method do we demonstrate the existence of the supernatural? Especially in light of the fact that things that might seem supernatural at first (lightning, rainbows, etc.) actually aren't?

Good discussion.... thanks! And I'm sorry if you thought that I was calling you an irrational person. I didn't mean it that way at all.

 

[Zygar]

Oh cool, I can always get a job biking around like a complete twat in a white shirt and black trousers.

Yay! Will you knock on my door at 8 AM on a Saturday? I'd love it if you'd do that! I'll even refer you to a few people who would love to be woken at 6 AM on a Sunday!

 

[The Atheist]

Yay! Will you knock on my door at 8 AM on a Saturday? I'd love it if you'd do that! I'll even refer you to a few people who would love to be woken at 6 AM on a Sunday!

I'm only joining if they get that polygamy law passed. (And if they put up a couple of nubile, young candidates. Maree Osmond circa 1980 would be the goal.)

 

[Zygar]

I'm only joining if they get that polygamy law passed. (And if they put up a couple of nubile, young candidates. Maree Osmond circa 1980 would be the goal.)

Not sure about girls like her, but if you like tall blonde women they are in quantity in Provo. For some reason it got quite the influx of Scandinavians back when it was being settled.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Oh boy, if you think I'm hard on christians, you'd never want to hear me comment on that bunch of [bloody foreigner] in-bred, whining, worthless, puritanical hypocrites who deign to let us mere mortals refer to them as "majesty". GRRRRRRRRRR. She'd have a horrible anus after she had my size 10 workboots removed.

Anyway, another time....

Back to the god-bloke.

Ha ha! I'm not much of a monarchist, but the idea of President Blair sounds like the devil we don't know. I think you need a go on the pipe of peace, man, all this pent-up aggression released on the internet!

Your heaven's an amazing place, eh? You've shown me that your god is the real one, you and your buddies at the SOF. He is the true god of love, sitting and waiting in heaven for humans to join him.

Now sometimes I don't know whether your statements about Xtianity are a wind up or because you're not sure of something. Eg, the above picture of god, sitting, twiddling his thumbs, waiting around isn't accurate because orthodox Xtianity has God also active in the world through the Holy Spirit.

In heaven, I will retain my essential "me-ness" and be happily together with my loved ones.

Being a heaven, I think I'm pretty safe in suggesting that there will be no violence, hatred, bigotry or any of man's sins.

Human experience would tend to show that those particular traits are pretty well established in humans. Where do those traits go? To conform to what an actual heaven would be, I suggest that the one you seek is going to require removal of free will. That being the case, it isn't going to be much of a heaven.

How do you personally rationalise such issues?

Xtianity would say that the sins of someone are not part of the essential "me-ness"; Jesus showed that it is quite possible to be sinless and human and perhaps the state in which someone can be fully human is to be sinless. The q of where do these traits go is a good one. In Prot land it appears that this process of glorification/theosis is glossed over somewhat and happens as one 'enters heaven' but I find Catholic and Orthodox ideas more appealing. The idea is more of a purgatory, a 'place' where one can come to terms with who one is and work through 'issues', for want of a better word, (sounds like a divine therapy clinic, doesn't it!). In some ways it could be hellish - facing up to how one has hurt others and oneself and then undergoing change is painful.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Not trying to be nit-picky so much - I leave that for complete idiots like insane Canucks - but it seems that a version of heaven which is universally "good" would be as bad as one which is universally "bad". If, during the short speck of our lives, we have lived according to Jesus' "first stone" rule, then we could claim some experience of what it might be like, but given human propensity for those sins, nobody is without them. Where do they go? They are as much a part of us as any other part. If heaven gets watered down to this extent, then it isn't heaven, it's hell."

Amen, Brother!

My (similar) contention is that if I somehow made it to such a heaven, it wouldn't be "me", because what I am is my experiences, good and bad, my morality, my way of dealing with adversity (as well as versity). This treacle dream of eternal goodness holds no allure for me.

I think I am on this board for a variety of reasons - boredom, a belief (perhaps touchingly naive and misguided) that different sides can benefit from dialogue (we are, after all, human beings, possibly) perhaps a bit of point-scoring (a bit of ego always tries to creep in) but I am trying to avoid that because I also want to challenge my beliefs and think about them. Unfortunately I get far too easily pissed off at lots of the ignorance of Xtianity that can be displayed.

Tricky, why do you think, for instance, that your experiences, good and bad, won't be part of a 'redeemed' you? In heaven, in a circumstance in which you might have snapped at a loved one would no longer make you want to do that.

I don't get why you think that a purely good Tricky is treacle goodness. I don't understand so would you help me out.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Where's the competition in this heaven? Where's the to-and-fro, the striving, the vicarious pleasure and pain of the supporters? The euphoria of the win comes with the emotional cost of defeat. Not so much when you're a Kiwi, but in principle. Without either, what's it all meant for? Eternal adulation of the Guaranteed Winner?

It is possible in this life to train, compete and lose and still enjoy the game so why would it be different in heaven? Why would games have to have no losers?

 

[Tricky]

I think I am on this board for a variety of reasons - boredom, a belief (perhaps touchingly naive and misguided) that different sides can benefit from dialogue (we are, after all, human beings, possibly) perhaps a bit of point-scoring (a bit of ego always tries to creep in) but I am trying to avoid that because I also want to challenge my beliefs and think about them. Unfortunately I get far too easily pissed off at lots of the ignorance of Xtianity that can be displayed.

I think you will find that there is less ignorance of Xtianity here than in many places, but also less (a great deal less) reverence for it. I hope that doesn't piss you off too badly.

Tricky, why do you think, for instance, that your experiences, good and bad, won't be part of a 'redeemed' you? In heaven, in a circumstance in which you might have snapped at a loved one would no longer make you want to do that.

Because it wouldn't be me. It would be something else. If I snap at a loved one (or you), that is a part of my personality, for good or bad. If you excise the short-tempered part of my personality then you might as well lobotomize me. I want to fix my personality problems by recognizing them and working on them, not by having them wiped away.

I don't get why you think that a purely good Tricky is treacle goodness. I don't understand so would you help me out.

It sure as hell wouldn't be "Tricky", the sarcastic flame warrior who things everything, even tragedy, contains elements of humor. While your concept of heaven (as best I understand it) is a great deal more benign than most I have heard, it still requires some change in my basic nature. Well, maybe I need some changes, but I want to be the one who decides that.

Here's a good question for you. In your version of heaven, how much free will do you have? Are you free to do evil?
***
BTW, you can nest quotes, though it takes a bit of cutting and pasting.

like this

and this

and this

though it takes a bit of cutting and pasting.