I think this is the question: if when someone dies they enter paradise, why would you missing them be such a consideration? I mean when someone moves away because they get their dream job, I don't cry. I might miss them a bit.

Answer: Assuming the existence of an afterlife, mourning the dead isn't actually mourning the dead, it's morning yourself. You're feeling badly because you won't see them until you die.

are you really going to sit there and say there is not difference between a person dying and there never ever being a possibility of interacting with them while you're alive and someone moving away, someone you can still actively communicate with?

and as far as your "answer" thats exactly what I stated previously

I wasn't avoiding the question. I answered it the first time you asked why should I care when a loved on dies and you chose not to respond to it.

Yes, and as I said to you a couple of posts ago, why shouldn't we be sad when a loved one dies? Jesus lamented over the fact that Lazarus died, after all. And that was BEFORE Jesus raised him from the dead.

If your significant other goes overseas for a few months, would you not be sad even though you know you'll see them again? Yes, you would. Same concept here.

When I was Catholic, I viewed death much differently than I do now...I truly feared it. I had no Idea if I was good enough for God, or if I had done something that might send me packing to a Heated Afterlife of Torment. The whole "What does God want" thing was so unclear that I could hope I was right....but deep down I couldnt be sure.
Once I gained my own understanding of the personal truth aspect of life, things cleared up pretty nicely, and I can honestly say I just dont know what happens. Its a great relief to admit to myself that I really have no control over my own death, and then just let the whole concept go. Now, I only need fear the Way I'm gonna die, rather than the way I live.

I just hope a wood chipper isn't involved

Cart before the horse. Its the seeing them when you die mythology thats the comfort. Its not the waiting period that causes the grief, its the death.

If I KNEW without doubt that a loved one would be there for me after their death, I'd be sad at their parting but I wouldn't be grief stricken. It would suck and it would be hard depending on how close they were, but I'd have to be really self absorbed to cry grief stricken over a few years in the face of eternity. It would be childish and petty. Billions and billions of years in our future and I'm weeping over a few decades?

So back to my original questions....

Lets try this one....

A mans entire family has been killed by a house fire 10 years ago.

He now has terminal cancer.

Do you tell him how wonderful it is?

And, once again, the answer you're getting is "Why would you?"

I can easily imagine a theist saying that it's wonderful he'll get to see his family again. And I suppose there's no harm in that besides unintended trickery. It would probably make him happier, despite it being fiction.

And what's wrong with this?

We are god.

What's wrong with an adult believing in Santa Clause?

What's wrong with an adult believing in euclidean geometry?

I don't think it is trendy in the sense of doing it to be cool. But the rise in atheism is more than coincidence. I think it is a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism in this country and the political power these nutcases have.

In the old days you could just go through your Episcopalian motions without ever seriously thinking about faith and its ramifications. But when the wingnuts try -- with a lot of success -- to take over the country then you have to think about what you really believe about God. And if you do, you have to conclude that there is no middle ground, no defensible form of "moderate" religious belief. God either exists or he doesn't. When forced to choose, which is basically what is happening, a lot of people are concluding that he doesn't.

You mean there was less religion and religious thought in the past? :orly:

I'd venture to say your statement lacks historical backing. "God" help you if you would have said you were an atheist publicly until the 70s at the earliest.

I've had to ask myself whether a delusion was bad in and of itself or because of the result of the delusion. It's difficult for me to call those who have faith and do good wrong or to condemn their faith. I can disagree with them, of course, but condemning them somehow seems disingenuous. I help people, too.

I think the self defense mechanism is at work in everyone. Perhaps someone who had some localized brain damage might actually be free of self defense mechanisms, but then they might not last long. My theory is that everyone I have met is on a sliding scale of hipocrazy and house of cards of emotions and beliefs. I am thankful that we don't live longer than we do, or the damage would be worse, but then if people lived longer, they might be more educated if they retained that education however is an unfounded supposition. But do round worms have more ethics and morals because they live such short lives ? Delusion and self defense mechanisms go hand in hand, but does your left hemisphere know what your right hemisphere is doing ?

Atheism equals theism.

We've got to be kidding.

Can you elaborate?

I am an atheist. I haven't read through the entire thread so I'll just respond to the OP.

It's not the responsibility of atheists to explain to everyone why they're atheists. What if everyone who didn't have an orange on them was expected to explain to the rest of the world why they're orangeless? It's just silly.

Despite that, I will explain why I'm an atheist: there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of any god or deity.

Would it be nice if there was a warm, smiling god responsible for all that is? Of course, but that doesn't make it true.

Truth is not decided by the individual. If you have faith in a god, be it Thor or the god of the Abrahamic religions, fine. If you and everybody else in the world believed in Thor, Thor would still be a fabrication of human imagination.

Truth is not decided by the institution. The one piece of "proof" given to me, over and over again, is the bible. Who claims the bible is proof that the words IN THE BIBLE are true? The church. Think about that. Who profits most from the masses of people who believe this absurdly illogical claim? The church. Durrrr... me thinkies that sumthin' ain't right.

Bottom line (assuming you believe in truth): Believe what you want, but if you're going to claim that something is true, have evidence. Actual evidence, not circular bullshit.

Very well put my friend!

Be content;
Magic surrounds you,
Making more.

I dunno, that's pretty vague.

One aspect of the popularity of dawkins is that being an eloquent radical atheist is currently somewhat profitable. Preaching to the choir is especially attractive if the choir is willing to shell out $25 dollars for a hardcover version of something they already knew. If you as a publisher knew you have stumbled upon a sizable community of similarly minded folks who feel somewhat slighted by popular culture and you have also stumbled upon a person who could speak eloquently to and about that community in way which would inspire controversy, and consequently sales, in the general public you'd be negligent to your shareholders for not publishing the author's work.

I know that atheism is nothing new, and i'm pretty sure that dawkins isn't the first person with the ability to express atheism as a persuasive argument. Maybe the growth in radical atheism is more just a symptom that atheists have finally joined that that oh-so-coveted "oppressed with money" demographic.

If someone were willing to pay me a lot of money to write a book and debate other people about nature of my perspective, i'd do it.

You people don't pay me shit for it.

He said it was for agnostics.

Also, I might buy your book.

If i ever write one you're on the comp list, will.

Likewise!

You're correct, but I don't see your point. Are you implying that he's incorrect or that he doesn't believe what he writes?

I'd go for he doesn't believe what he writes, as he'll frequently backtrack on his position if pressed hard enough.

I've never seen that. Do you have a citation, IL?

I haven't read any of his books (just started working my way through The End of Faith), but I have watched interviews and debates with him and he doesn't seem to backtrack. I'd also like a citation.

I'm implying that atheism's sudden rise is the result of commercial interests recognizing that people will pay money to read about atheist perspectives. It's not like dawkins is the first person to be able to persuasively argue against the existence of god. He's polarizing, and people will pay money to watch him be polarizing.

The rise started before God Delusion. It started around the time conservative fundamentalists started getting political and social power again, between 1999 and 2001. God Delusion came out in 2006. It's backlash, not commercialism.

"Atheism's sudden rise" is not a result of commercial interests. Rather, the fact that these books are immensely popular (and profitable) is a result of the "sudden rise" of atheism.

Of course people like Dawkins, Hitchins and Harris are not the first to hold these views. They are, however, the modern people who are discussing them most convincingly and with the most clarity.

i would still maintain that there is no "sudden rise" except of conservative christian rhetoric, the kind that imputes its own political defeat to the some outside malign Force--in this case, atheism, but it just as easily could be Natas.
so the thread is geared around treating a rhetoric designed to recode political defeat as a description of the world.
and it immediately encountered problems
and that simply because
you cant find what isnt there.

I don't see many atheist threads before 2006. I remember seeing figures back in 2003 that said 2-3% of the population of the US was atheist, now they're estimating closer to 10%. I'd call that a rise.

Here's what i think happened. A few eloquent atheists wrote persuasive books about why atheism is the bee's knees. Many people bought the books, including atheists and more ambivalent folk. Ambivalent folk, who quite possibly weren't formal christians anyway, read persuasive arguments endorsing atheism, become enraptured by eloquent atheist proponents, become atheists, atheism suddenly rises.

Either that or the number of atheists isn't really rising, atheism is just becoming more acceptable, so that more people are comfortable with calling themselves atheists and popular culture changes to reflect this fact.
I wouldn't doubt that christian conservatism has something to do with it, but i don't think anyone can be sure to what extent. Becoming an atheist is not necessarily a step along the way to rejecting christian conservatism.

Oh the social parallel between atheism and homosexuality....

This is what I think. Visibility isn't the same as presence. We're more aware in the last couple of years because of profit-creating things like books, but I don't think there has been a drastic increase in the number of atheists in the general population.

I know, i was going to mention the same thing in my last post but i couldn't think up any funny names for an atheism-themed analog to "will and grace".

You're probably correct that the atheist population is becoming more visible but isn't necessarily growing.

The parallels to any socially unacceptable behavior are there for atheism.

I think the big difference between now and then is that this is the information age. You don't have to attend meetings and have a news letter you are afraid to get delivered to your home lest your neighbors see it.

100 years ago, someone like myself may have had a few educated peers to discuss such matters, but it would never go beyond that. Today, even if you don't feel comfortable 'coming out' you can discuss it on places like this or any number of other websites.

I'd venture to guess the books on it, are more due to this allowed discourse, and they then fuel more discourse. We don't need someone like Richard Dawkins to talk about atheism, I have been an atheist for 29 years now and I've heard of Richard Dawkins less than one year. What it does give us is a common reference which aids the discourse.

It also allows us to eliminate some of the normal arguments and straw men. Rather then trying to personally explain why intelligence design falls down, or the famous 747 theory, we can dispense of that right from the start.