Why not atheism?

[Jason]

From the perspective of the atheist:

Let's reverse the scenario. Assume you achieve no success; in fact, assume you lead a totally non-productive life, including dying with a criminal record and deeply in debt. Knowing that you will die in that condition--even though you won't be around to see it--would be deeply disturbing, right?

Why shouldn't I be happy that I am ultimately escaping any serious consequences for my actions? I had my fun, didn't help anyone, lazed my way through life and after I'm dead that's it - no more suffering and no more consequences. Why shouldn't I go and do whatever I feel like, since at worst I'll get a few years of pain and then nothing?

Consquently, it follows that you should, indeed, care about "having any success at all." The fact that you won't see your heirs benefit from it, doesn't change the fact that it will exist as a force for good in their lives, and you will be remembered as their benefactor.

But eventually all my heirs will die as well. Eventually the entire human race will become extinct when the universe ends. What point will all of this good have then? And who will remember me as a benefactor?

Hmmm. . . . When you die, will your service/legacy/influence/example as a husband and father--not to mention your estate--die with you? I don't think so.

Eventually it will die, yes.

[mfbukowski]

AUGH?

Jason and Mudcat are now atheists!

I can't take iiiiiiiiittttttttttt!......

"Everything you know is wrong"- Firesign Theatre

[mfbukowski]

I'm seeing these...

Argument from Beauty (Weakest Teleological Argument)

Argument from Personal Experience

Argument from Personal Preference

Argument from Gambling (Pascal's Wager)

Argument from Meaning

and I am unimpressed.

That's ok. When you wake up one morning and God is standing there and says "Hi Montgomery! I've been waiting for you" you will be impressed.

[wenglund]

...and I am unimpressed.

I just hope we believers can one day find a way to live with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Skywalker]

No one can pass through this life and not impact the lives of others; it isn't possible to do that. John Donne got it right when he said "No man is an island." Hence, when you say "it is ultimately about ourselves," you are correct in a strictly personal sense, but not in a social/familial sense.

Let's reverse the scenario. Assume you achieve no success; in fact, assume you lead a totally non-productive life, including dying with a criminal record and deeply in debt. Knowing that you will die in that condition--even though you won't be around to see it--would be deeply disturbing, right? Consquently, it follows that you should, indeed, care about "having any success at all." The fact that you won't see your heirs benefit from it, doesn't change the fact that it will exist as a force for good in their lives, and you will be remembered as their benefactor.

It would only be deeply disturbing until I actually die. Then it will neither be disturbing or pleasant, because there won't be a me to experience those emotions. So ultimately, as an atheist, who cares?

You said you love your children, and the truth is there is a me to prepare to pass on that love to them now, while you are in a position to do so. Again, the fact that you won't see your good works in action doesn't change the fact that they will exist--and will make a difference in the lives of those for whom you care deeply. Surely that knowledge should be a source of satisfaction to you.

I won't love my children when I am dead, there won't be a me to love my children. My feelings toward them will be absolutely nil.

Now doesn't exist, because once we consider "now" it becomes "then." And "then" doesn't exist either, it's just a memory. So really, with the atheist viewpoint, we don't even exist. How depressing.

Hmmm. . . . When you die, will your service/legacy/influence/example as a husband and father--not to mention your estate--die with you? I don't think so.

I can see how what I said seems odd, but think about it, all of those things die with me. The universe only exists as I observe it. I don't know what you see, you might see a totally different universe than I do, because I can never see out of your eyes with your brain as an interpretation. So, the universe dies with each of us.

[paulpatter]

It would only be deeply disturbing until I actually die. Then it will neither be disturbing or pleasant, because there won't be a me to experience those emotions. So ultimately, as an atheist, who cares?

So, you don't care that those who loved you and survive you will be negatively affected by your "legacy"? The people whose lives you touched will continue to live, at least for a time, and they will pay a price for your failures. The world won't end for "zillions" of other people the day you die.

: I won't love my children when I am dead, there won't be a me to love my children. My feelings toward them will be absolutely nil.

Ah, but what of their feelings toward you and the effect those feelings will have on them?

: Now doesn't exist, because once we consider "now" it becomes "then." And "then" doesn't exist either, it's just a memory. So really, with the atheist viewpoint, we don't even exist. How depressing.

Of course "now" exists. What are you doing right now? What can you do now to positively affect the lives of those who survive you?

: I can see how what I said seems odd, but think about it, all of those things die with me. The universe only exists as I observe it. I don't know what you see, you might see a totally different universe than I do, because I can never see out of your eyes with your brain as an interpretation. So, the universe dies with each of us.

This strikes me as a strange thing for an atheist to say, even recognizing that there are many "degrees" of atheism. Doesn't the atheist view hold that the universe is indifferent to us? It existed long before we were and will exist long after we are not. How, then, can it die (accepting the atheist position) with the death of an individual human being? The universe survives and evolves as a living, dynamic entity. BTW, have you see the latest batch of Hubble photographs? Awesome, truly awesome.

[Jason]

This strikes me as a strange thing for an atheist to say, even recognizing that there are many "degrees" of atheism. Doesn't the atheist view hold that the universe is indifferent to us? It existed long before we were and will exist long after we are not. How, then, can it die (accepting the atheist position) with the death of an individual human being? The universe survives and evolves as a living, dynamic entity.

For each individual, if death means nonexistence then the universe is effectively nonexistent to them once they have died. If they aren't there to experience it then it doesn't exist for them.

That was oxygenadam's point.

[Skywalker]

For each individual, if death means nonexistence then the universe is effectively nonexistent to them once they have died. If they aren't there to experience it then it doesn't exist for them.

That was oxygenadam's point.

Yes, thanks Jason.

So, you don't care that those who loved you and survive you will be negatively affected by your "legacy"? The people whose lives you touched will continue to live, at least for a time, and they will pay a price for your failures. The world won't end for "zillions" of other people the day you die.

Ah, but what of their feelings toward you and the effect those feelings will have on them?

I'd like to remind you that I am not an atheist, but am asking these questions from what I perceive as an atheist viewpoint in order to better understand it. Therefore, of course I do care about all of these things.

But, as an atheist, those people whose lives I touched will continue to live, and will pay the price for my failures or successes: true. But why care? I am going to be dead, and will be neither upset by this, nor pleased. I will not exist. I can't very well feel sorry that I did not accomplish anything in life and my kin are suffering because of it if there isn't a me to have that feeling.

Of course "now" exists. What are you doing right now? What can you do now to positively affect the lives of those who survive you?

When you asked that question, how long did "now" last before it became the past? A minute? A second? A nanosecond? I submit that now is an infinitely small and immeasurable amount of time, and therefore does not exist in any applicable way.

doesn't the atheist view hold that the universe is indifferent to us? It existed long before we were and will exist long after we are not. How, then, can it die (accepting the atheist position) with the death of an individual human being?

Again, in my opinion, it is all about perception. The universe to me might be different than the universe to you. Sure, we have measurements that we can objectively take about the universe, but the way it looks, the way it feels, the way it behaves... its all subjective. I mean, the color red could look completely different when interpreted through my eyes and brain than through yours. The universe that I perceive dies with me.

[paulpatter]

From the perspective of the atheist:

Why shouldn't I be happy that I am ultimately escaping any serious consequences for my actions? I had my fun, didn't help anyone, lazed my way through life and after I'm dead that's it - no more suffering and no more consequences. Why shouldn't I go and do whatever I feel like, since at worst I'll get a few years of pain and then nothing?

Living by those ground rules is likely to make for an exceptionally miserable mortal experience. I should note, however, that some atheists are genuinely moral people. Why? Because they feel that since there will be no post-death justice administered by a divine being, they are obligated to do everything possible to create justice here.

: But eventually all my heirs will die as well. Eventually the entire human race will become extinct when the universe ends. What point will all of this good have then? And who will remember me as a benefactor?

So, inasmuch as nothing lasts forever, there is no reason to enjoy what is available to us now or to act charitably. Is that your position? Last Sunday a group of priests in my ward went to the home of a sister who is bedridden. They administered the sacrament to her. She was grateful. Obviously, in your view, that was a futile act--a waste of time because some day the universe is going to end. Huh?

: Eventually it will die, yes.

In the meantime, in recognition of that fact, we are--by some perverse logic--compelled to make ourselves as miserable as possible.

[Skywalker]

BTW, have you see the latest batch of Hubble photographs? Awesome, truly awesome.

I have. They are very beautiful. I love looking at these types of pictures.

[Jason]

Living by those ground rules is likely to make for an exceptionally miserable mortal experience.

From what perspective? And should I, the atheist, care about what others think of my life once it is over? What they think will be unable to affect me in any way.

I should note, however, that some atheists are genuinely moral people. Why? Because they feel that since there will be no post-death justice administered by a divine being, they are obligated to do everything possible to create justice here.

Taking my atheist hat off for the moment, I would say it's because they don't fully understand the full implications of their world view. They, like the rest of us in their view, can't help but pretend that these things matter.

So, inasmuch as nothing lasts forever, there is no reason to enjoy what is available to us now or to act charitably. Is that your position?

That is the logical consequence of the atheist's world view, yes.

By the way - in case I'm not making it obvious enough, I am no atheist.

[paulpatter]

For each individual, if death means nonexistence then the universe is effectively nonexistent to them once they have died. If they aren't there to experience it then it doesn't exist for them.

That was oxygenadam's point.

Your explanation qualifies oxygenadam's point. He said (as I recall) that when people die, the universe ceases to exist. Period. No. It ceases to exist for them.

Perhaps he was being too subtle for me. Sorry.

[Montgomery Price]

I am sorry that you are unimpressed. The argument from beauty and from complexity are considered weak arguments, but they are nonetheless valid arguments.

I disagree.

The argument from personal experience is valid to the one experiencing the event. It is not an objective argument, but neither is the argument about the existence of gravity, or that I have a headache right now. You cannot objectively prove either, yet they remain true.

It is not necessarily valid for the person experiencing the event. If this personal experience is acquired through a method which is known to be flawed, then that person is still not justified in accepting their personal own experience until it is sufficiently controlled for the weaknesses of the method. One person can have a personal experience of Jesus, and another of an alien who claims to have invented Jesus. How are you justified in accepting your own experience if an identical experience contradicts. You must appeal to something else besides the personal experience argument. Not exactly valid.

The arguments from personal preference and from meaning probably don't add value to this discussion, which might be why you are unimpressed.

But, of course, you cannot objectively prove that you are unimpressed, so that is an argument from personal experience right there.

The standard of evidence for such mundane personal experiences aren't nearly as demanding as it is for revolutionary ideas about humanity and the cosmos. We have reasons to accept higher standards of evidence for some thing over others.

[Montgomery Price]

That's ok. When you wake up one morning and God is standing there and says "Hi Montgomery! I've been waiting for you" you will be impressed.

Thanks for the sentiment... and you could be wrong too?

I just hope we believers can one day find a way to live with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why would you ever worry?

[paulpatter]

. . . . Time is really happening all at once, because there really is no such thing as "now" when every time I contemplate "now" it becomes "then."

How can there be a "then" if there isn't a "now"? And how can you "contemplate 'now'" if it doesn't exist?

[paulpatter]

From what perspective? And should I, the atheist, care about what others think of my life once it is over? What they think will be unable to affect me in any way.

What they think about you after you've taken the Big Off Ramp will affect your legacy/example, and that, in turn, has the potential to affect how they opt to lead their lives.

: Taking my atheist hat off for the moment, I would say it's because they don't fully understand the full implications of their world view. They, like the rest of us in their view, can't help but pretend that these things matter.

I'm afraid you lose me here.

: That is the logical consequence of the atheist's world view, yes.

Sad.

: By the way - in case I'm not making it obvious enough, I am no atheist.

I didn't suppose you were.

[Jason]

What they think about you after you've taken the Big Off Ramp will affect your legacy/example, and that, in turn, has the potential to affect how they opt to lead their lives.

So? I won't care, because I won't exist anymore, and soon they won't care either - when they cease to exist.

[Skywalker]

I disagree.

Sorry.

It is not necessarily valid for the person experiencing the event. If this personal experience is acquired through a method which is known to be flawed, then that person is still not justified in accepting their personal own experience until it is sufficiently controlled for the weaknesses of the method. One person can have a personal experience of Jesus, and another of an alien who claims to have invented Jesus. How are you justified in accepting your own experience if an identical experience contradicts. You must appeal to something else besides the personal experience argument. Not exactly valid.

Well, you'd have to show how the method is known to be flawed, which requires a different proof altogether. Contradiction may be a catalyst for this proof, but it is not, in my opinion, proof in itself.

The standard of evidence for such mundane personal experiences aren't nearly as demanding as it is for revolutionary ideas about humanity and the cosmos. We have reasons to accept higher standards of evidence for some thing over others.

Okay, but in principle only, they are the same.

[Skywalker]

So? I won't care, because I won't exist anymore, and soon they won't care either - when they cease to exist.

This is the whole point I am trying to make. The atheist viewpoint doesn't make sense in my opinion, because you come to the unanswerable questions much sooner than a theist does: Why are we here? Why life? Well, we have to stop right there, don't we? With theism, at least we can ask these questions and receive an answer. We only come to the unanswerable several tiers later when we ask "where did God come from?" and "Why does he exist?" and "Why did he create us?"

[Skywalker]

How can there be a "then" if there isn't a "now"? And how can you "contemplate 'now'" if it doesn't exist?

I do not dispute that the idea of now exists, and it is therefore possible to contemplate.

[Mudcat]

You make judgments and decisions which affect your life every day, every minute without worrying about if others exist- you go on your private experiences and thoughts- THAT is where you "live your life"- in your head, not "out there".

Sure, I am confined to my many respects, but my ability to interact with others, influence, be influenced and so forth is living out there in many respects also.

What is "in your head" is just as "real" as anything "out there", and you ignore what is out there over what is in your head all the time.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose. Things out there can certainly influence what is in my mind. But my mind is the locus, in respect to me.

Did you ever do something your wife didn't want you to do? Did you ever do what you thought was best over what you had been advised to do?

Why? Because you valued what was "in your head" more than what was "out there". So how is belief in God any different?

It is only different in consequence. Certainly many reject the notion of God, however if God exists, then rejecting his existence is rejecting a brute fact.

Why should you believe what is "out there" more than what is "in your head" in that instance?I am not sure I follow the question here.

Belief in God is a judgment call and a decision, it is not about what is "out there" observable by others.

I don't know that I agree fully here.

I mean there are a number of things that are observable out there that point towards God, IMO.

The coming into being of the Universe.

The intricate fine tuning of the Universe for permissiveness to life.

The immense differences in the capabilities, comprehension and intelligence of mankind in comparison to any other species. Including our apprehension of moral values.

The radical claims of Christ and his followers, regarding his ministry, death, burial and resurrection.

Aside from the fact that many including myself, would concur that God through his Holy Spirit is immediately knowable to those that seek him, these things among many others leave God as the best explanation.

I agree that choosing to believe in God is a judgment call on the part of the individual. However, I don't think choosing to disbelieve in God equates to any more of an accurate use of judgment than disbelieving in the number 42.

[Mudcat]

Jason and Mudcat are now atheists!

I am only an athiest "in there" Bukowski

[paulpatter]

So? I won't care, because I won't exist anymore, and soon they won't care either - when they cease to exist.

As some point before you die, you will evaluate your life. Part of that evaluation will be to ask yourself how you will be remembered. And deep down you will hope that those to whom you were close will remember you with affection. That's a universal human need, except among those who are mentally ill or otherwise psychologically unhealthy.

[paulpatter]

I do not dispute that the idea of now exists, and it is therefore possible to contemplate.

How did the idea of "now" come about? Did someone invent it as a way to communicate the immediate present?

[Cold Steel]

Atheists sometimes astound me because of their rock solid belief in something they can't know.

Relgionists have their leaps of faith, and I think we'll all admit there's a point where we have to just throw up our hands and say, "I don't know." But atheists have those same leaps. Where does matter come from? Where does energy originate? Who, or what, dictated the laws of physics? These are the questions that agnostics don't feel threatened by. As someone mentioned above, there are intriguing after-death experiences and there are some that are laughable. Many, though, are incredibly consistent regardless of cultures or religious backgrounds. And when Christians who don't believe in premortality begin having after-death experiences that involve premortality, that should make Latter-day Saints take note. What make many of these experiences believable, to me, are their continuity. When Lance Richardson described people he knew before he was born, and people he didn't know and met, that gave his experience credibility. On the other hand, when people see colors and do a lot of floating, I think perhaps that drugs and lack of oxygen might be involved.

Atheists believe there is no God, and some of them believe in it passionately. I know some who wear T-shirts, have atheist forums, conventions and support groups. That's going a bit far for believing that something doesn't exist. Many of them also live for ridiculing people who believe in God.

In the end, though, their beliefs are just as faith-driven as anyone else's. When I die, I think I'm just going to hang around the veil and watch those people stumble in.

Anyone care to join me?

.