Ask an atheist

[NiRv4n4]

Welcome to the real world, where things don't works in binary, and it's not because two things aren't both 100 % certain that they are both equivalent !

Let me propose you a game ! I'll throw one hundred regular dices in a big closed box. Once closed, we won't ever be able to open it and be absolutely sure of which face the dices show.
Then we'll shake it, and then I'll tell you that they don't all show 6, and you'll tell me that yes, they do all show 6. Guess who's going to be "more correct" than the other, despite both events being possible ?

I don't think that really applies - we can do tests of the sort you said, and find that 1/10^-5000 times, it will be all sixes. Or do a mathematical model to come up with a statistic of... 6^-100?... Anyway, we can test this with mathematics; can we test religion, meaning of life, and philosophy with math? Not really - like you said, nothing is concrete - except perhaps math.

A better analogy would be looking at a picture of a pole with no indication of it's distance from the camera and without any things to compare it to, and saying how tall it is. It could be anywhere from a milometer to 100km. No Sabemos. The same goes for fuzzy issues of morals, ideals, religion, and meaning - there's no way of knowing whether you're right or not.

 

[Akka]

I don't think that really applies - we can do tests of the sort you said, and find that 1/10^-5000 times, it will be all sixes. Or do a mathematical model to come up with a statistic of... 6^-100?... Anyway, we can test this with mathematics; can we test religion, meaning of life, and philosophy with math? Not really - like you said, nothing is concrete - except perhaps math.

Way to miss the point by trying to stretch the parable without getting its spirit.
The actual point was simply : according to what we know, one of the outcome is MASSIVELY more probable than the other.

A better analogy would be looking at a picture of a pole with no indication of it's distance from the camera and without any things to compare it to, and saying how tall it is. It could be anywhere from a milometer to 100km. No Sabemos. The same goes for fuzzy issues of morals, ideals, religion, and meaning - there's no way of knowing whether you're right or not.

Actually, the best way is to ask : "how can you definitely know that there isn't right in front of you an invisible and intangible four-eyed unicorn that can make rain happens if it wishes so ?" and ask you to actually prove it's not the case. But considering this point is raised in about half of all the posts in all the religious thread (and is of course ignored or handwaved), I just wanted to go for something a bit different.

BTW, there is no way to know if we didn't actually got the "one-in-a-godawfulbignumber" case where all dices are 6 either. Maybe we actually did. Maybe we also have a completely illogical, schizophrenic, drunk and contradictory God that spend his time making things confusing and counter-productive. But in both case, you may not know with absolute, 100 % certainty, but you can VERY safely take a guess -

 

[Traitorfish]

If your "knowledge" is based off of subjectivity, then how do you know it is more correct than the "knowledge" of a Catholic or Lutheran? If nothing is guaranteed to be true, how is anything guaranteed to be wrong?

When did I say that, exactly? Objectivity and subjectivity may be dichotomous, but nobody ever said that they were an absolute binary. Intersubjectivity is, y'know, a thing.

 

[NiRv4n4]

We have no reason to believe the unicorn perhaps, but there is also no reason not to believe it. I find the atheist belief that "there is nothing supernatural in front of me, nothing supernatural anywhere" to be just as "bad" in terms of making a definitive statement based upon relative and subjective "evidence". As for making a guess for the "truth", I disagree - when one guesses, they automatically place one possibility as "valid", and the other as "invalid". Which is impossible for fallible, dumb, irrational mankind to do. To guess that there is no God is the same as knowing that there is a God; it is making a definitive judgement when there is no definitive evidence to support this.

And to Traitorfish, I don't see how inter-subjectivity is any different from subjectivity when mankind is always fallible, both as an individual and a collectivity. To say that mankind has the capability of binding together and making a more truthful judgement implies some degree of supernatural-ness to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

And to Traitorfish, I don't see how inter-subjectivity is any different from subjectivity when mankind is always fallible, both as an individual and a collectivity. To say that mankind has the capability of binding together and making a more truthful judgement implies some degree of supernatural-ness to me.

What is your preoccupation with infallibility, exactly? You keep bringing it up like it's some trump card, but the only person who seems to care about it is you.

 

[Orka]

I'd say the rational for believing unicorns to not exist stems from inductive observations. Unicorns are typically depicted as having magical powers of some sort, but of all of the single horned creatures anything like a unicorn we've ever observed, all are quite normal. So we reasonably conclude that unicorns don't exist. But this generalization can be overturned, as can any inductive conclusion we make in science.

 

[NiRv4n4]

I just bugs me that people say they "know" something, or think they are making the "best" judgement, or the "right" judgement on an issue like religion. People should try to realize there may be some things that we never will know, never will understand.

 

[Traitorfish]

I just bugs me that people say they "know" something, or think they are making the "best" judgement, or the "right" judgement on an issue like religion. People should try to realize there may be some things that we never will know, never will understand.

So because certainty is impossible, you reject reason as such? Did you just miss that whole "Enlightenment" thing we had a little back?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I just bugs me that people say they "know" something, or think they are making the "best" judgement, or the "right" judgement on an issue like religion. People should try to realize there may be some things that we never will know, never will understand.

If they didn't think it was the best judgment, then why make it?

 

[Akka]

We have no reason to believe the unicorn perhaps, but there is also no reason not to believe it.

Yes we have : nothing so far give a hint it may be here. That's quite a big reason to believe it isn't here. And that's what we spontaneously think and act like, which is why you can walk in the street and drive a car and not be blasted by a suddendly-appearing fireball or invisible wall.

Your answer is just a completely rhetorical and hypocrital one made in order to avoid conceding a point, which is the fundamental problem in debating with believers.

I find the atheist belief that "there is nothing supernatural in front of me, nothing supernatural anywhere" to be just as "bad" in terms of making a definitive statement based upon relative and subjective "evidence".

Cf above, you actually do exactly the same, you just restrict "supernatural" to whatever is convenient for you (for example : "no invisible wall will suddendly appear before my car, so I can actually drive", which is exactly what you denounce).

As for making a guess for the "truth", I disagree - when one guesses, they automatically place one possibility as "valid", and the other as "invalid". Which is impossible for fallible, dumb, irrational mankind to do. To guess that there is no God is the same as knowing that there is a God; it is making a definitive judgement when there is no definitive evidence to support this.

First, you say "making a guess" is the same as "making a definitive judgement", which is semantically absurd, as both concepts are completely opposed. Seems like a critical failure at knowing the words you're using.

Second, you're dead wrong about it "being impossible for fallible humanity to do", because it is not only not impossible, but it's actually the only thing possible - what is impossible is to make an absolute answer, but making a valid guess is in fact the only option.
Well, not completely "the only option" I guess. There is a third option : stand motionless and refuse to think and learn (because getting any knowledge is already considering some things more valid than some others). This means that you're being hypocrital BTW, as you've learned lots of things during your life, and as such you've already contradicted your own affirmation.
In fact, in your answer about the dices above, you talked about probability, and probability is the mathematical embodiment of comparative validity, so here come the self-contradicting part two.

 

[NiRv4n4]

I guess using my nihilistic and absurdist ideology as a jumping off point in a debate about religion with people who's views are more mainstream isn't a good idea then... And I guess (joke...) that I just keep on going because I don't care if I am wrong, because everyone on this world is always wrong, in assuming that there is such a thing as a truth. The only truth I accept (which makes me wrong) is that there is no truth, which is contradictory ((which is contradictory) which is...).

Uhhh... I'm really tied up philosophically, and don't see any way or reason to untie myself. So maybe I should just do what I normally do - toss my meaningless convictions aside and argue for the sake of arguing - every wrong opinion deserves a voice! So, back to the issue at hand (and the original one, not my bottomless pit).

Why do atheists care what happens in this life, if nothing happens after it? Is there any real reason to do anything before you die if, after you die, none of it really matters (or does it)? Where do you find meaning in life, when it is so ephemeral?

 

[Traitorfish]

Why do atheists care what happens in this life, if nothing happens after it? Is there any real reason to do anything before you die if, after you die, none of it really matters? Where do you find meaning in life, when it is so ephemeral?

Why do you think that an afterlife would give this life any additional importance? If you don't consider the concious existence to be in itself a meaningful experience, then why does it matter if it lasts an eternity?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

If we have life, I think it follows that we should embrace it while we have it, and perhaps our natural human solidarity will compel us to improve the quality of life for others while they have it. Eternal life would be meaningless because there is no urgency and no incentive to do anything meaningful. Maybe the first million or so years would be fun, but you're talking about eternity, a ghastly and empty proposition which reeks of being conceived by mortal greed. The temporariness of life is what gives it value and makes purpose necessary.

 

[NiRv4n4]

Why do you think that an afterlife would give this life any additional importance? If you don't consider the experience of concious existence to be in itself a meaningful experience, then why does it matter if it lasts an eternity?

I've thought that way myself - zero times infinity is still zero. But I am asking you, not a nihilist (unless you are one). If life has a meaning, even if it is great, it only lasts for like 80 years, then BAM, gone. What incentive do atheists have to try to achieve their goals, reach emotional and mental fulfillment in life?

If we have life, I think it follows that we should embrace it while we have it, and perhaps our natural human solidarity will compel us to improve the quality of life for others while they have it. Eternal life would be meaningless because there is no urgency and no incentive to do anything meaningful. Maybe the first million or so years would be fun, but you're talking about eternity, a ghastly and empty proposition which reeks of being conceived by mortal greed. The temporariness of life is what gives it value and makes purpose necessary.

Even if we improve on the lives of others, they and all of their descendents will be dead at some point - if the universe ends up at heat death with nothing happening (which is likely), then why does it matter what happens in between now and then - especially regarding the life of a human or the human species? Unless there is some way that time can continue forever, and the possibilities are diverse and limitless, I see little reason to take action to achieve anything in life, when it will end up the same anyway.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've thought that way myself - zero times infinity is still zero. But I am asking you, not a nihilist (unless you are one). If life has a meaning, even if it is great, it only lasts for like 80 years, then BAM, gone. What incentive do atheists have to try to achieve their goals, reach emotional and mental fulfillment in life?

Even if we improve on the lives of others, they and all of their descendents will be dead at some point - if the universe ends up at heat death with nothing happening (which is likely), then why does it matter what happens in between now and then - especially regarding the life of a human or the human species? Unless there is some way that time can continue forever, and the possibilities are diverse and limitless, I see little reason to take action to achieve anything in life.

And I ask again, why is that a question specific to those who do not believe in afterlife (a category not strictly speaking equivalent to "atheist", for the record)? You seem to be under the impression that relatively brevity of existence robs it of meaning, but why?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

You also seem to be under the impression that the universe owes us a reason for being. So what if there is no intrinsic purpose? Why is it a necessity?

 

[NiRv4n4]

And I ask again, why is that a question specific to those who do not believe in afterlife (a category not strictly speaking equivalent to "atheist", for the record)? You seem to be under the impression that relatively brevity of existence robs it of meaning, but why?

Because if, at any moment, your existence could end, and what happened in between now and then is irrelevant - the end result is the same. And even if your existence has an impact on the world past your lifespan, that will eventually be gone, and none of it will have mattered - i.e. none of it will have had meaning. If you are going to end up in a certain situation, with the same exact circumstances (this means physical, mental, emotional - all possibilities converge into one) no matter what you do, does it matter what you do? No.

You also seem to be under the impression that the universe owes us a reason for being. So what if there is no intrinsic purpose? Why is it a necessity?

I can say that I am divided between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche here - though I usually lean towards Nietzsche; while humans are capable of making value in life for themselves, making that value is pointless, and therefore irrelevant. They can do it, as I am doing right now, but it really doesn't matter either way.

I have a feeling I am getting too abstract, which isn't a good thing for me...

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

It matters what we do because it's a question of what sort of world we want to live in. Most people don't want to live in a world in which the strong prey upon the weak, so they try to cooperate with each other so that society maintains some degree of structure and peace. The alternative is chaos and death. Ask yourself what sort of world you want to live in and you will have your answer for why atheists are altruistic.

 

[Orka]

Because if, at any moment, your existence could end, and what happened in between now and then is irrelevant - the end result is the same. And even if your existence has an impact on the world past your lifespan, that will eventually be gone, and none of it will have mattered - i.e. none of it will have had meaning. If you are going to end up in a certain situation, with the same exact circumstances (this means physical, mental, emotional - all possibilities converge into one) no matter what you do, does it matter what you do? No.

Here's the way I view it - just my personal thoughts. The end of this universe may not mean the end of humanity or life. In the billions - trillions of years sentient life will have, perhaps it will discover science beyond our imagining, perhaps opening doors to other dimensions or whatnot, ways to be truly immortal... this all speculation, of course, but if there is even a little hope for life to overcome even the universe's death itself, then its continuation and prosperity for as long as possible is in its best interest.

Ask yourself what sort of world you want to live in and you will have your answer for why atheists are altruistic.

This is part of it, too. After all, we all have one life, and we understand everyone else has only one life, so we should make it the best it can be for all us.

 

[NiRv4n4]

It matters what we do because it's a question of what sort of world we want to live in. Most people don't want to live in a world in which the strong prey upon the weak, so they try to cooperate with each other so that society maintains some degree of structure and peace. The alternative is chaos and death. Ask yourself what sort of world you want to live in and you will have your answer for why atheists are altruistic.

Funny you mention that; I often find myself supporting "survival of the fittest", and thinking that, even if it seems like it was out of someone's control, everybody gets what is coming to them (reap what you sow - thanks Bible). So the strong preying on the weak in an anarchic society is just a way to expedite that process. At the same time, I find myself hating the selfishness and greed of the people around me, and willing to devote my life to others. I find myself wavering between two polarities in so many issues, and I think it is more than just some mood disorder; en el fin, no se.

Here's the way I view it - just my personal thoughts. The end of this universe may not mean the end of humanity or life. In the billions - trillions of years sentient life will have, perhaps it will discover science beyond our imagining, perhaps opening doors to other dimensions or whatnot, ways to be truly immortal, gods in all but name... this all speculation, of course, but if there is even a little hope for life to overcome even the universe itself, then its continuation and prosperity for as long as possible is in its best interest.

Of course, when I live and do things, I simply follow what makes me feel happy and calm, which are a lot of things. Helping and socializing with others, for example.

Why do you do what makes you happy and calm? If there is one thing that I am somewhat consistent on, it is that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger - I think if more people put themselves in uncomfortable conditions more often (less food, less warmth, less recreation - things that aren't fun), they would be more in touch with themselves and the world around them. Seeking what you determine to be a "good" existence breeds complacency and softness, in my opinion.

Back on topic, does this mean atheists are by and large against a Hobbesian worldview? I would think with their usual emphasis on the natural aspect of human nature, they would be more willing to accept it.