How is it that some atheists are good people?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep. That’s the crux of it.

I don't Think I'd need to go quite that far. Looking back at my analogy with the curtains (spelled it right this time); every time secular science has expanded the scope of human understanding into realms where gods were supposed to reside, we've come away with more science but no gods. There are only so many times one can have the goalposts moved without raising some serious suspicion.

As far as nothing goes, Reading Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" made me understand that a lack of intuitive understanding of certain concepts makes dealing with these questions especially messy, but a few things stuck with me from Reading that book: apparently "absolute nothing" might not be able to exist and/or would be extremely volatile, and asking things like "what was before the big bang?" might not actually make sense.

Agreed.
"Whatever floats your boat."

It is not my intention to be an iconoclast so as to assert dominance for the porpoise <sic> of relevancy through other people,
Walking over the corpse of their individualistic philosophies.
But that doesn't mean I am going to abdicate my quest for personal enlightenment.
"To each their own."

People have different needs, even if those needs are irrational.
Am I "the philosophical soup Nazi" determining what people should or shouldn't say or think?

https://youtu.be/WZ3AOmZ2fps
"I don't think so, Tim."

Why not replace it with faith in something more concrete? Or at the very least, offer them something other than religion to cling to? Even if they have faith in both, is that so bad?

You may have noticed,
I am not typical.
I am *very* comfortable in declaring: "God is dead."
And good riddance to the mutha!

It really doesn't bother me if I discard the finer details of metaphysical philosophy.
This is my choice to make.
I adhere to my own personal rulz.
It pleases me to dwell on more practical considerations in certain areas.
Like "Don",
"Assertiveness" is a good thing.

As I have mentioned, evolution has created the human animal with psychological weaknesses.
The effects of uncertainty can, in certain circumstances, inhibit the development of conceptual constructs.
It can cause intellectual paralysis.

There seems to be an implicit/inherent expectation that one must follower "The Rulz".
Some people are defined by "The Matrix".
Others define their own.

https://youtu.be/ZX3QWhtipWo

I am "The One" and Mikah is my "Agent Smith".

Like what exactly?

Say a person is dying of cancer or sitting on death row and they are afraid to die. You really think telling them that there is no afterlife is going to make them feel better about having to die?

If I was knocking on death's door the last thing I would want is to listen to an atheist tell me that there is no hope of an afterlife. Just saying.

I can really feel the reason and rationality oozing from this rant post Mr Anderson...

Joe Pesci?

Good.
You are coming along, grasshopper.

The problem I have identified in our conversation here is that we are not on the same page.
The lack of defining context and definitions happens all the time everywhere.
And the intertwining of humour and seriousness adds to the confusion.
Whatcha gunna do? <shrug>

But my serious point is that you are making assumptions which I don't share.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that using reason, one can't become an atheist.
Wolfram, I believe, is saying the same thing.
You saying something is one thing.
But if Wolfram is being supportive of what you are saying, well, totally different picture altogether.

I think the sticking point involves *absolute* certainty.
I have never seriously said I am absolutely certain about the non-existence of a higher entity.
I am saying that, based on my life experience, it is more pragmatic/practical (and sensible for me personally) to dismiss an improbability and embrace the probability.

And what is the worst that can happen?
I burn in hell for eternity and beyond?
Err...

Please explain your point of view.

The sticking point is *reasonable* certainty. You don't know enough to even begin to guess the probable truth of the universe.



Atheism can be a pragmatic choice yes. So can theism. But we can and have dismembered the idea of probability judgements in this. If you are not already a true agnostic, then logically you must have other reasons for choosing atheism and "dismissing the improbable" was a rationalisation for a choice already made.



Yes, he sees what is obvious, to a point anyway.
I was going to let his god-of-the-gaps slide, but since you brought him up again: let me rephrase his probability judgement in a slightly facetious way - "I am making a probability judgement on the nature of the universe not because I have the requisite knowledge to do so properly, but because I believe humans in the past have consistently made incorrect probability judgements from patterns observed but I've noticed a pattern of my own..."

That's a really stupid question. Really.

If "good" people (ie. Christians) need a all-watching deity to punish them for evil deeds, one might ask the question:

Are those "good Christians" good at all? What if they didn't have the all-watching eye looking down on their lives and counting all their evil deeds and punishing them in the end? Would they naturally be assumed to commit those evil deeds then?

The big question is: How can some religious people be good, if they need a deity in order to be good people?

Let me ask you a question: Do you only refrain from stealing, murdering etc. because of your God?

Hey, whatever works for some people!

"The Matrix" is a metaphor for our man-made social system.
The suppositions and expectations generated by "The Matrix" are not inherent/intrinsic.
Some, like Neo (and me ), transcend these man-made rules through enlightenment as a result of life experience and metacognition.
We see them for what they are,
Rules that have been imposed on others by other mortal men/women.

The concept of god/gods is simply a man-made intellectual construct driven by emotional insecurity.
"Man made god in his own image" to fill an existential vacuum.

May god bless you,
Err,
I mean,
May man bless you.

If you have committed a mortal sin, would you not prefer oblivion rather than eternal damnation?
<thinks to self: Pepe, your argument is helping the other side. Stop talking you igit>

So you are saying I must abdicate the reasoning abilities I have and continue believing in Santa Clause and the fairies at the bottom of the garden because someone told me about them?

How about flipping it around.
How the hell did you come up with the cockamamie belief in an invisible friend if you yourself don't know enough about life, the universe and everything?
Are you special?
Are you Neo too?
"There can only be one."


"We" have???
Could you explain it one more time for this dummy?
Unless you are invoking a theoretical context, your comment does not make any sense to me.
My context involves living in the real world pragmatically using reason/rationality/objectivity.

Consider:
Both parties have to agree to the context/premise of a conversation in order to come to an understanding.
Once again,
Please accurately define your context and your qualifiers.

I am an atheist,
I.E. I emphatically reject the concept of god/gods.
I think it more probable that "organic life" was a product of a cosmic accident rather than a consciousness that mysteriously manifested itself.
I base my life on what I think is likely,
Rather than be governed by an intellectual construct, designed initially by more primitive societies, to pacify, intimidate and control.

I think we are on the verge of invoking: "Let us agree to disagree."


We are going around in circles.
I'm getting dizzy.
Stop the carousel.
I think the discussion is over.


Well, he has a point in regards to the damage done to the credibility of someone/group who consistently proffers nonsense.
An example of this is: "Extinction Rebellion".

In a collective sense, the majority of human sociality involved "gods" rather than a god at its conceptual genesis.
Monotheism is simply a cut-price budgetary alternative involving a dictator rather than an oligarchy.

Nonsense begets nonsense.
Basing a design on an inherently flawed intellectual construct driven by emotional, rather than rational needs doesn't sound sound to my "ears".
I think "you need to go back to the drawing board" and start afresh.