Ask an Atheist
 

DLish and Levite were kind enough to create threads in which they could answer questions about their religious philosophy. My lack of a religious philosophy doesn't necessarily mean there won't be any questions for an atheist, so I figure it's worth putting out there.

It is of course important to remember that atheism is to religions as "off" is to TV channels, so my answers won't necessarily represent all atheists and agnostic atheists.

Alright, shoot.

Pew pew! Was the virgin Mary a whore or did she just set on the wrong toilet seat?

Actually, I'm not (personally) wholly convinced that there was a Virgin Mary. Extra-Biblical accounts of the existence of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus didn't start popping up until after they all would have died. For example, the St. John's fragment, which is generally considered to be one of the, if not the oldest record of Christianity, was probably written about 120 years after the supposed birth of Jesus.

Anyway, the story of a virgin giving birth to a savior predates Christianity significantly. Ra, Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, and Melanippe are among many deities that were born of a god and a virgin. I'd argue it's one of the more common motifs in religious mythology.

This doesn't demonstrate absolutely that there wasn't a virgin birth, but I think it paints a clear picture of a more likely alternative.

Explain (scientifically) emotions for me, please....

Ah, good question. Have you ever watched Star Trek? On Star Trek there's something called a "red alert". When a senior bridge officer recognizes that there's danger, he or she calls for a "red alert" in order to automatically launch a series of computer commands like arm weapons, activate shields, call personnel to battle stations. The alert even can deactivate things that might interfere with the functionality of the ship during a battle.

As humans evolved from lower forms of life, we developed more and more complex behavioral functions. Certain situations/stimuli trigger different functions. If I'm attacked by a predator, I go into fight or flight. In order to utilize these effectively, though, we need the right combinations to activate at the right times. Fight or flight alone isn't enough to really do the job of defending me from danger, it has to be joined with a slew of other functions in order to be utilized most efficiently and I even have to have some functions temporarily disabled. If I've had a long day, and my body wants to sleep, the "danger/fear" emotional state overrides my sleep commands. Suddenly, a red alert is called and you go into fight or flight, adrenaline is released to increase blood flow, hairs stand up (that one's not as important as it once was when we were more hairy), etc. All of these things together are a part of an emotional response. Emotions essentially coordinate various functions.

Think about the troubles a pre-civilization human might have faced: defense against physical attack, falling in love for effective mating, experiencing a drop in social status, dealing with birth of a new generation or death of an old one, and even confronting an unfaithful mate all have serious evolutionary functions and would require coordinations of many, many functions. The humans that had these behaviors more than others were able to survive better, and thus emotions became a survival trait.

You can read more about it here.

Nice thread, Will.

Atheists often posit that the existence of god need only be substantiated by those who believe while believers pretend as if their capacity to believe serves as anything more than a testament to their capacity to believe. Aren't both perspectives similarly flawed? How are religiosity and atheism anything more than opposite sides of the same coin? How does either amount to anything more than grasping toward certainty when none is to be found?

If you died, and met God, would you disappointed?

Have you ever investigated the historical (extra-Biblical) evidence of the person known as Jesus Christ and/or his claims to be God (I and the Father are One)?

Hmm...maybe that is 2 questions.....

The reason I ask is because some Christians base their faith and belief not only on the Bible, but on the historical evidences as well.

I've done a little bit of reading into the historical evidence of Jesus (but truth be told not alot and most of it was a few years ago when I was still agnostic) but here's the thing for me. Proving that Jesus did or did not exist doesn't prove any sort of divinity to me.

This.

I see no reason not to believe Jesus existed. I see lots of reasons to doubt he was divine. Maybe I'll elaborate when I have more time - I'm heading out the door right now.

:thumbsup:
Religiosity, or theism, generally is not agnostic in any way. Most believers are certain of the existence of god or gods. If you present them with verifiable evidence, they are more likely to take the role of an apologist. Most atheists are atheists because of null theory, or we're unconvinced. If presented with verifiable evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I swear I'd be totally interested and I'd do everything within my intellectual ability to understand it.

The opposite of a theist would be a hard atheist, or someone who absolutely is unwilling to believe in god or gods even when presented with verifiable evidence. These people are out there, but they're uncommon.
It depends on which one. If I were to find myself, after death, face to face with a god, it could just as easily be Ra, Ba'al, Zeus, or some god no one's ever heard of. If it's the God of the Bible, I'd be supremely disappointed if he is anything like the way he's depicted in scripture. I really look down on the whole "I require you to worship me" thing, especially when there's vengeance involved for those who don't.
I have. There's nothing at all from the time when Jesus is said to have lived, and the stuff that came after bears little to no resemblance to the Jesus that came out of the ecumenical councils. That substantial inconsistency tells me that Jesus was a story that was retold over and over again, changing as the story was retold, and eventually a highly politicized process finally hammered out the story we're familiar with today.

It's possible there was a Jesus, a Joshua, son of Joseph, that went around performing and preaching, but there's no reason at all to think that he was superhuman or was a god.

With due respect, I doubt that's the case. The Bible reads a great deal like historical fiction, or fantasy woven in with historical record. There was a Herod, but that doesn't mean there was a Jesus, in order words.

David Koresh existed.

So to be clear, you would prefer anhiliation than the existence of a God who's standards you find offensive?

I dont mean to be harsh, but it really is a question that gets to the crux of atheism as a religion to me.

(and I separate the agnostic who says "these things are unknowable" from the atheist who actively and as an act of faith has the positive belief that there is no God)

I don't understand this question.
Just to clarify, I'm an atheist/agnostic. I don't believe in God, or divinities. If there was substantial evidence of supernatural/divine activity, I'd look into it and would definitely be interested.
What do you mean by annihilation, and why would that be the alternative to the existence of a certain god?

This is entirely hypothetical, of course, but I'd prefer a finite life to an infinit one anyway, with or without a god. A finite existence gives my life now a great deal more personal meaning. Successes are sweeter and failures are more bitter because I know that some day my life will end and that will be that. After de-converting from Christianity, it was actually one of the things I found to be more comforting.

It's more than just "offensive", though. If everything in the Bible is true, God is rather insane. He kills for inconsistent reasons, he will at one moment demand that his followers kill for no reason whatsoever and then turn around and say, "thou shalt not kill", and the philosophies of the Old and New Testaments are almost entirely antithetical. Those paradoxes and inconsistencies suggest to me that the philosophy had many, many different authors with many, many different philosophies. If I appeared before God for judgment, I'd have a hell of a lot of questions that would need answering before I spent eternity with the guy.
There are agnostic (weak) atheists and there are gnostic (strong) atheists. Weak atheists take up by a large degree the lion's share of all atheists in the world. I'm an agnostic atheist, or an atheist by default. I disbelieve the existence of god or gods. A strong atheist does not simply disbelieve, but actively denies the existence of god regardless of new information. I think it's an important distinction to make because one position is much easier to defend.

Yeah I'm confused by this as well.

By Will's response, I'm guessing by annihilation he means the end of this physical life being, well, the end.

In any case, my belief, or lack of belief, is not a choice, or a preference. Life beyond death sounds appealing, for sure. There are many things I'm unhappy about, one of the major things is that I won't be able to see what humanity will become after I die. But no matter what my feelings are about it, I don't believe in the afterlife, at least not at all the way it is presented in Christian belief.

Well then I'll explain. What Strange_Famous is asking is "do you prefer to vanish into the ether or wouldn't you rather live an eternity of worshiping someone?"

He's not really asking anything to do with the topic or the question dealing with Atheism at hand because the proof of the matter is, in all our years of debate, it was resolved that god cannot be dis/proven.

Anyone who is religious is, face it, a nut. I mean seriously. People believed in things that were ridiculous at the time and they still prevail to today.

Scientists on the other hand can't really prove anyithing because they are too busy focusing on how to extend penises and erections and grow hair at the same time. Hence I leave you with this message ... there probably is no god and if there is, no one gives a shit. Mind your own business.

What do you say when you're getting a blow job? ;)

Oh, Epicurus! *skeet*

You understand my question certainly, but I dispute that it has nothing to do with it.

My contention is that all atheists wish that God exists, but the fear of "vanishing" overwhelms their desire to believe

Perhaps you might say that the religious are simply the opposite.

Wouldn't the fear of "vanishing" push us to believe?
And which "God" are you talking about? The one in Christianity? Or some other deity?

I have no wish for that God to exist. It sounds stupid to me that an all-powerful, omniscient being would need humans (who can't even compare to that amount of power or importance) to worship him/her/it.

I don't care if a god or gods exist. The things I wish for—peace, enlightenment, happiness, etc.—all have a real life bearing on my existence. If god or gods exist, it doesn't improve my life at all, in any way.

I suppose what I don't understand is the line of reasoning that allows you to consider yourself an atheist when you recognize that theism, while extremely unlikely, can not be entirely refuted. Highly improbable but not impossible.

As per wikipedia:
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

I'm assuming your beliefs align with the first definition. What I don't understand is how this is anything more than a cop-out as it seems to me that your beliefs are founded not in anything in particular but rather in the negation of another belief.

Simply put, if you're an atheist who accepts the possibility of god's existence then how are you not an agnostic?

But one of the central points of all religion is that mortal humans dont ever know what it is that God wills.

And also, I said it had nothing to do with it because your appealing to human fear of death. What you are asking is "what is your preference?" Strange, I prefer to be Lance Armstrong without cancer right now but that will do nothing towards me achieving that particular goal.

Not really, no. Look at Christianity. Why is there the concept of sin, if not for fear of God?
Why do they tell us to live, and act a certain way, and to believe a certain thing if they don't "know" that that's God's will.
It's all based on what some people said God wanted hundreds of years ago, and fear if what will happen if we don't follow it.

I accept the possibility of a god's existence in the same way that I accept the possibility of any other supernatural thing, such as unicorns or hobbits. Atheism, specifically my own weak or agnostic atheism, signifies an absence of a positive belief. It's atheism because if you were to ask me, right now, "Will, do you believe in the existence of god?", my answer would be "No." If my answer was, "I really don't know at all," I would be agnostic.

Of course, living in a world with an omniscient omnipotent ghost uncle (to riff on the Christian mythos) who will reward us with a really long party sounds pretty cool. So does Santa Claus...how cool would that be? Also, do you ever wish you had a genie? Does the fear of not having wishes granted overwhelm your desire to rub lamps? Does fear of not getting presents keep you from being a santa clausist?

I won't jack will's thread, but I will say this: I have not encountered anything personally in my life, or reliable scientific reports of anything in this universe, that I feel requires the existence of anything supernatural (that is, outside the known laws of science), and definitely nothing that requires a personal deity the likes of which major monotheistic religions believe in.

You present a false dillema. I am an agnostic atheist, and, based on Will's statements, I would assume he is as well. gnostic/agnostic refers to 'knowing', whereas theist/atheist refers to 'believing'.

http://imgur.com/6HNmN.png

The difference here is that a gnostic atheist would not change their beliefs when presented by credible proof of a god, as they believe they know it is impossible, whereas an agnostic atheist, if you were able to prove the existence of the supernatural, would expand their world view to contain it.

Only a God that tells you to not lie to yourself, and to do the things which you believe to be right.

Twisted, I see your point but it all reads to me as hairsplitting. By your standards, and if I cared enough to, I would also categorize myself as an agnostic atheist but I suppose that my problem stems from the inability to do anything with such a declaration.

I should also note that I am a vegetarian so long as there isn't any meat within arms length.

It's not hairsplitting, it's a simple definition of terms. Atheist and Agnostic are simply not on the same axis. Despite the apparently common notion, agnostic doesn't represent some middle ground between atheist and theist, it is a totally different metric.

I'm actually okay with completely ceasing to exist over the existance of a God who's standards I find offensive.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

Generally something along the lines of "Yes oh fuck yes." or "fuck that's good" (yes I like to use the word Fuck during sex).

I also don't want to jack will's thread, but I will interject to say that I've always had a slightly different set of definitions, after reading a bunch of theistic/atheistic agnostic/gnostic information a while back. To be clear, I agree that atheist/theist and gnostic/agnostic are two separate questions. In my understanding, the question of atheism/theism comes down to whether or not you can positively state that you believe in the existence of a deity/deities. If the answer is yes, then you are a theist. If not, then by default you are an atheist. It's really that simple. My difference with the above is on the definition of agnostic/gnostic. I've always read that agnosticism was more than saying that you don't know if god/gods exist, but saying that such knowledge is impossible to have. Gnosticism, would then be the opposite of this - saying that such knowledge is possible. In that sense, I consider myself to be a weak gnostic atheist. Which seems to coincide with the basic philosophy posted above as agnostic atheism. My stand is that I see no real reason to believe that a god or gods exist, but I think that such evidence is possible. If god or gods came down every so often and did some godlike acts, and imbued humanity with their presence, took a few people to heaven and back, and injected people with the direct knowledge that they / it were, in fact, God/Gods...you'd have more ground to stand on. Yes, you could think they were aliens, but I assume that something with the power to create the world, cause miracles, etc could get over this little logical hump. No bars would be barred for God/Gods, thus I think by definition proof could be provided. The fact that such proof is not provided, or does not measure up to questioning and checks of consistency, is the main reason that I am an atheist.

In response to the question about preferring to cower to a God's pleasure, if in fact I die and go to meet God/Gods...then I would say that one should develop their moral code outside of any perception of religion. Is it ok to kill people or not? Ok to lie to people or not? Should absolute power come with requirements of absolute mercy and responsibility to love unconditionally, despite the fact that humanity is not perfect, lacks full comprehension, and may have reasonable cause to doubt the existence of God or not? After making these decisions, I think one can determine whether they would support a given hypothetical God, and from that point of departure can determine how they might face God/Gods. I might be afraid if I were to meet God(s) after my death, but I don't think that would make my basic position any less valid.

Then there's always Pascal's Wager, which in a nutshell points out that you're better off stating your fundamental position regardless, because he's like Santa Claus. He sees you when you're sleeping, and he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness' sake. You can't fake out an omniscient being.

I'm glad to have other atheists share their views. As I said above, my answers won't necessarily represent all atheists and agnostic atheists.

Thanks will: also gnostic in the sense we are using it shouldn't be confused with gnosticism

I would not be, nor would God.

I don't think there's any atheists who aren't interested in an afterlife. I mean come on, a never ending party of awesomeness? Just because you want something doesn't mean you can just start believing in something to get it. If it worked that way then everyone would have won the lottery.

The reason atheists don't believe in higher beings is because there is no evidence. Not because they want to be anti-mainstream, not because they hate religious people, but because there is simply no fucking evidence whatsoever. If a god came down to Earth one day and stood there before everyone and said, do this and that, follow this book and you will be orgasming for all eternity in my house, you better believe that every atheist in the whole world would be instantly religious.

The problem is that Christianity began thousands of years ago when people believed in magic and sorcerers and shit like that. You were killed if you were gay. Science was so infantile at this stage that the only way to explain and understand the world was to make shit up to make people feel better. It's ok that Jebediah died after eating rotten meat, he's going to heaven. Now we know why rotten meat is dangerous and we avoid it.

The only time humanity turns to religion is when they don't understand something. Look at the most famous scientists in history: they are atheists their whole lives until they can't figure out something. Then they say it must be a higher power. Then 50 or 100 years later, the problem they were stumped on is solved...by humans.

I kind of glossed over this question at first, but then I realized it goes to the core of how many believers totally misunderstand what it means to be an atheist.

It's not like atheists are sitting around secretly believing in a god or gods and really hoping that there isn't one just because they want to live a life without consequences. People don't become atheists out of some desire to be selfish and amoral. None of that has anything to do with atheism.

Would I be disappointed if I died and encountered a god or gods? Hell no! There are very few people who would not want to believe in an afterlife. I hate the fact that when I die, so many new and amazing things will be discovered that I will miss out on. I will likely never know what it is like to step foot on the moon, or better yet, Mars, and that saddens me. I would love nothing more than to die and find out there are still new experiences to be had. I simply don't believe it. There's absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever, and there's plenty of evidence and well-reasoned arguments that indicate we've come to such beliefs as a by-product of our evolutionary development.

There's nothing about being an atheist that would make one feel disappointed to discover there is a higher power. Many atheists come to their lack of belief through an understanding of science and how the world works. Scientists are constantly revising what they know, proving themselves wrong in some way and continuing on with their new knowledge. If I discovered the existence of a higher power, it would merely be one more of the many things I've been wrong about in my life.

You could ask me, "aren't you worried that when you die and discover that higher power, it might punish you for your lack of belief?" That's a non-issue though, and certainly not an argument for belief, because I could ask you the very same question: aren't you worried that when you die and discover the existence of some other god who you don't worship, that that god will punish you for worshipping the non-existent god that you do? You can see, Pascal's Wager is a ludicrous reason for belief. It's impossible to worship all gods, since many require that you worship no other gods, and it is equally unknowable whether or not there is any god at all as it is unknowable whether or not you are worshipping the correct god. In the face of no reason to believe other than the fact it would make me feel warm and fuzzy inside, I am forced to come to the conclusion that it makes the most sense to choose non-belief over picking just one of the thousands of likely-wrong belief options that would comfort me with an afterlife.