Atheists: Do you feel good about your beliefs?

[Blouman Empire]

I wouldn't have called that position 'faithist' - I would describe it as 'pro-religion Atheist'.

Which, incidentally, describes my own position.

Similar to Alain De Botton?

[Not Safe For Work]

I wouldn't have called that position 'faithist' - I would describe it as 'pro-religion Atheist'.

Which, incidentally, describes my own position.

Similar to Alain De Botton?

Not yet having read "Religion for Atheists", I'm going to say 'maybe'... but based on some of the rest of his oeuvre... probably not.

[Not Safe For Work]

There's no 'need' for any of it, unless the 'need' is describing things as accurately as you can.

Which is only needed on NSG if talking generally theist and agnostic will do just fine

Well, no - realistically, the question of 'knowledge' rarely occurs outside of rarefied climates like our little debate forum.

Talking generally, it's the question of whether you do or don't believe that generally matters.

[Bluvil]

I don't really like the idea of a heaven, obviously I don't believe in it's existence and would prefer to hell if either were proven to be true.

What bothers me about heaven is the thought of my friends and family who were sent to hell instead, I could be in paradise, but forever their suffering would linger on my mind.
Also, forever, that's a very, very long time, I could do everything I could have ever wanted to do in my life, maybe it would take a million years, after that, then what? After a million years, I'd have just been getting started on my time in heaven, I'd be there forever.

It would indeed be heaven, but in a way, it would slowly become a psychological hell.

I think that non-existence is better than eternal existence.

[Blouman Empire]

Similar to Alain De Botton?

Not yet having read "Religion for Atheists", I'm going to say 'maybe'... but based on some of the rest of his oeuvre... probably not.

I haven't read it either but I listened to a long interview about the book and what his message was and it seemed interesting, mainly saying that there is a lot to learn from world religions from morality to architecture and that we shouldn't be dismissing them simply because they come from religion.

What would your position be? As a pro-religion atheist?

[Blouman Empire]

Which is only needed on NSG if talking generally theist and agnostic will do just fine

Well, no - realistically, the question of 'knowledge' rarely occurs outside of rarefied climates like our little debate forum.

Talking generally, it's the question of whether you do or don't believe that generally matters.

Generally yes but if someone said to me they were agnostic I wouldn't be going agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, I would know that they don't hold a belief but also that they aren't the Richard Dawkins type

[Not Safe For Work]

Not yet having read "Religion for Atheists", I'm going to say 'maybe'... but based on some of the rest of his oeuvre... probably not.

I haven't read it either but I listened to a long interview about the book and what his message was and it seemed interesting, mainly saying that there is a lot to learn from world religions from morality to architecture and that we shouldn't be dismissing them simply because they come from religion.

What would your position be? As a pro-religion atheist?

I have a very low opinion of people, as a collective entity. I subscribe to that old adage that people in large numbers are dumb, panicky animals. Self-serving, (ironically also) self-destructive, selfish. aimless and mutually contradictory.

But over the years, we've come up with various ways to limit the excesses of our most major collective weaknesses - and religion is probably the most efficient of these various ways, at making people act as a collectively useful, altruistic and directed entity.

While I personally don't 'believe', I certainly see religion as one of the most useful tools we've ever invented for making our species not entirely pointless.

[Not Safe For Work]

Well, no - realistically, the question of 'knowledge' rarely occurs outside of rarefied climates like our little debate forum.

Talking generally, it's the question of whether you do or don't believe that generally matters.

Generally yes but if someone said to me they were agnostic I wouldn't be going agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, I would know that they don't hold a belief but also that they aren't the Richard Dawkins type

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. We have at least one admitted agnostic theist just in this small circle of friends we call Nationstates General.

If someone told you they were agnostic - that doesn't actually tell you anything about what they believe - on what their position is on the question of whether we can really 'know'.

[Ba Seng Se]

Of course I feel good about my beliefs. God and Heaven were nice to believe in and think about when I was little, but so was Santa. Eventually I grew up and learned to accept life for what it is. You can still live a fulfilling life as an Atheist, just because you know it will end doesn't make it less worth living. There is still love, family, music, fun, friendship, imagination, sex, dreams, and all the other things that make life worth it. As an Atheist, I can enjoy what I have now without worrying if I'm making some god happy.

[Murray land]

Can we stop with these threads please they have established one fact DON'T debate religion or a lack there of.

You haven't been on NSG for long have you? Religion, abortion, gays and how much republuicans suck are the 4 mainstays of NSG

Compared to you not at all

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

And that's still a belief system. It's something you believe in. You believe metaphysics are bullshit, you believe you're not here for a reason, you've believe there's no higher purpose, and you believe that you just live and die.

Denying metaphysics, to eliminate competition, and give materialism more ground doesn't remove metaphysics being present, and it doesn't withdraw materialism from still being something people believe in.

Buddhist monks are a hell of a lot more wiser than most pretentious, stuck up western youths. And they will claim materialism is an illusion.

Isn't it great, how different philosophical doctrines, are present in the land of free information, to let people decide for themselves what they want to adhere to?

And scientists know a hell of a lot more about this universe than Buddhists. Thus far, no evidence for a metaphysical plane of existence, therefore no reason to believe it exists or even propose hypotheses on the grounds of its existence.

Also, let's define what we're talking about here - concepts or scientific theories? If it's theories, you don't really have a case.

You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?

Yes, reincarnation research. It actually exists. Phenomenon that atheism couldn't decipher to save it's life.

[Samuraikoku]

You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#Questionable_validity_of_parapsychology_research

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#Questionable_validity_of_parapsychology_research

And I wonder how much of that denial and criticism, has come from rigid materialists? Or atheists ironically clinging onto their belief (sorry, "non-belief") materialist system, in an ironically similar fashion in how a fundamental christian will cling onto their orthodox sects, and question the validity of any evolutionary evidence at all? To put it simply, criticizers still having a closed mind. And that by hating something else, it still doesn't make you exempt from displaying similar characteristics to what you claim to oppose. Lest ye be the monster you hate, stare into the abyss it stares back, yadayada.

One second it's materialists moaning because evidence isn't in the material plane, then the next second when a breakthrough happens they're moaning because they don't actually want, even any vague signs of possible rebuttal in the material plane in the first place.

"Quick, brush it under the carpet before someone sees it. We don't want to talk about it, it might not make us look good!"

[The Realm of God]

I haven't read it either but I listened to a long interview about the book and what his message was and it seemed interesting, mainly saying that there is a lot to learn from world religions from morality to architecture and that we shouldn't be dismissing them simply because they come from religion.

What would your position be? As a pro-religion atheist?

I have a very low opinion of people, as a collective entity. I subscribe to that old adage that people in large numbers are dumb, panicky animals. Self-serving, (ironically also) self-destructive, selfish. aimless and mutually contradictory.

But over the years, we've come up with various ways to limit the excesses of our most major collective weaknesses - and religion is probably the most efficient of these various ways, at making people act as a collectively useful, altruistic and directed entity.

While I personally don't 'believe', I certainly see religion as one of the most useful tools we've ever invented for making our species not entirely pointless.

So you agree with John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes on human nature?

[The Realm of God]

And scientists know a hell of a lot more about this universe than Buddhists. Thus far, no evidence for a metaphysical plane of existence, therefore no reason to believe it exists or even propose hypotheses on the grounds of its existence.

Also, let's define what we're talking about here - concepts or scientific theories? If it's theories, you don't really have a case.

You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?

Yes, reincarnation research. It actually exists. Phenomenon that atheism couldn't decipher to save it's life.

Why would you need a God for reincarnation.....it's just metaphysics and can survive without any theology at all.

[Czechanada]

I was raised Roman Catholic by my parents. My parents still go to church regularly. When I was younger I think I believed there was a god, but I no longer do. I quit going to church when I was about 13 or 14. I only go to church for weddings or funerals nowadays.

I still respect people who do believe in god although I do not share (some of) their beliefs like the belief in god. I do not share the views of creationism. I don't believe people go to heaven (or hell). I do believe in some of their values. I believe this life on earth is all we got and we have to make the best of it. When we die we will only live on in the memmory of others.

I also respect religion for giving people meaning in their lives and their values being a possible good for society.

I do not feel in any way better or smarter than people who are religious.

Good sir, being an atheist does not mean that one is smarter than the religious. It simply means you are more rational.

[Orcoa]

I was raised Roman Catholic by my parents. My parents still go to church regularly. When I was younger I think I believed there was a god, but I no longer do. I quit going to church when I was about 13 or 14. I only go to church for weddings or funerals nowadays.

I still respect people who do believe in god although I do not share (some of) their beliefs like the belief in god. I do not share the views of creationism. I don't believe people go to heaven (or hell). I do believe in some of their values. I believe this life on earth is all we got and we have to make the best of it. When we die we will only live on in the memmory of others.

I also respect religion for giving people meaning in their lives and their values being a possible good for society.

I do not feel in any way better or smarter than people who are religious.

Good sir, being an atheist does not mean that one is smarter than the religious. It simply means you are more rational.

You really sure about that?

/r/atheism

That is all

[Divair]

Good sir, being an atheist does not mean that one is smarter than the religious. It simply means you are more rational.

You really sure about that?

/r/atheism

That is all

It's a circle-jerk, but it's still rational (for the most part).

[Orcoa]

You really sure about that?

/r/atheism

That is all

It's a circle-jerk, but it's still rational (for the most part).

From what I have seen on /r/ atheism, there is very little rational.

But that is the internet for you I guess.

[Imsogone]

I've responded a couple of times in this forum, but it's just now occurred to me to ask - why should anyone feel anything about what they believe or don't believe? I mean, unless you're one of those passionate extremists who's going to burn out from believing or not believing and end up in an asylum or morgue for it, it's really a non-issue.

If you're inside something (in this instance, a set of beliefs or lack of belief), that generally means you're comfortable there and don't have to think about it or conjure a set of emotions about it, it just is. The ones who get all passionate and wild-eyed about it are the ones who really aren't sure and are working at keeping it alive.

[Uirokeilendh]

I don't have any beliefs.

[Friede]

I'm a devout Christian and I've never understood how someone could happily live as an atheist who believes that they won't go to heaven. When I say atheists I don't mean Buddhists or anything, I mean the ones who think that death is the end.

Are you happy thinking that? Does it make you feel more intelligent? Would you LIKE there to be a God?

Personally if I was atheist I'd be depressed as hell going through life thinking like that. What are your opinions?

In all honesty, it does make me feel more intelligent, yes. I know it's not what we're "meant to say", and I only mention it because you asked, but I don't see theism or any belief in the supernatural as an intelligent conclusion.

I'm not happy about it, and I would love for there to be a God and an afterlife. I have a tremendous fear of death and uncertainty in life. But I simply can't believe.

[Entaurii]

No idea if this has been said before (Didn't bother to real all 20+ pages) but here goes:

Religion was created by our human minds in the absence of science to explain what we didn't understand. With the introduction of science, we no longer need religion to explain these things. Instead, it's now mostly just an excuse for war while being 'nice' to your neighbor.

I, personally, am disgusted by the vast majority of modern religions - especially Christianity (Since they pretty much killed and stole to get what they wanted, not to mention the fact that it's entirely unoriginal). Being an atheist is quite liberating like most others have said.

[AETEN II]

I don't really like the idea of a heaven, obviously I don't believe in it's existence and would prefer to hell if either were proven to be true.

What bothers me about heaven is the thought of my friends and family who were sent to hell instead, I could be in paradise, but forever their suffering would linger on my mind.
Also, forever, that's a very, very long time, I could do everything I could have ever wanted to do in my life, maybe it would take a million years, after that, then what? After a million years, I'd have just been getting started on my time in heaven, I'd be there forever.

It would indeed be heaven, but in a way, it would slowly become a psychological hell.

I think that non-existence is better than eternal existence.

Eh, if there was a deity, I'd put it more in a benevolent Cthulhu group. If an omnipotent creature did contact a human, it would likely be impossible for it to explain an alternate (or even higher) dimension to some prehistoric farmer who thought that lightning was magic and that sacrificing an animal would appease a ridiculously advanced form of life. It would be like a human trying to explain quantum physics to an ant.

[Blouman Empire]

Generally yes but if someone said to me they were agnostic I wouldn't be going agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, I would know that they don't hold a belief but also that they aren't the Richard Dawkins type

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. We have at least one admitted agnostic theist just in this small circle of friends we call Nationstates General.

If someone told you they were agnostic - that doesn't actually tell you anything about what they believe - on what their position is on the question of whether we can really 'know'.

If NSG were like the general population the world would be a very different place, I would be right almost all the time. And if someone was an agnostic theist they would more then likely know that there is such a thing and would say I'm an agnostic theist not agnostic, therefore I would be right 99.95% of the time.