Question about Atheism : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Question about Atheism » Question about Atheism

Question about Atheism

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:34 PM: Subject: Question about Atheism	#1
This is not an attack, I am only trying to understand. I will use Richard Dawkins' views and Christianity as an example. I have just finished watching two of his documentaries on why religion is a danger to society. In both, he argued that religion is simply irrational and like a virus. He then persuades us to look at truth, and evidence, to discover that religion is a harmful invention. With that in mind, Atheist's believe that when a person dies, they simply cease to exist. A Christian however, believes that when a person dies, they either go on to Heaven or Hell. Evangelical Christians try to persuade people to believe as they do in order to keep people from going to Hell. My point is, why does Richard Dawkins feel the need to persuade and argue his point, if no matter what, all people end up as nonexistent. To me, this puts his whole argument in question. I feel like if he truly believed all people simply cease to exist, he would not try to argue against religions. What are your thoughts?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:47 PM:	#2
mtboger wrote: This is not an attack, I am only trying to understand. I will use Richard Dawkins' views and Christianity as an example. I have just finished watching two of his documentaries on why religion is a danger to society. In both, he argued that religion is simply irrational and like a virus. He then persuades us to look at truth, and evidence, to discover that religion is a harmful invention. We don't all think that. I blame people, not their inventions. With that in mind, Atheist's believe that when a person dies, they simply cease to exist. No, atheists believe that theists are wrong about all that god-stuff. This doesn't necessarily preclude an afterlife, Buddhists can be atheists, and still believe in reincarnation, and all that. What is commonly thought as "atheist" by theists encompasses a large school of philosophical tradition, which the term "atheism" itself does not imply. A Christian however, believes that when a person dies, they either go on to Heaven or Hell. Evangelical Christians try to persuade people to believe as they do in order to keep people from going to Hell. They certainly do... My point is, why does Richard Dawkins feel the need to persuade and argue his point, if no matter what, all people end up as nonexistent. To me, this puts his whole argument in question. I feel like if he truly believed all people simply cease to exist, he would not try to argue against religions. What are your thoughts? I don't see how that follows at all. Why does nothing matter unless we're all oblivious immortals? Edited by Wosret on 11/06/09 - 12:42 AM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:57 PM:	#3
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I believed that there was no afterlife, I would not try to argue my beliefs to anyone. Since I believe this, any argument that I make would be useless because nothing further can be achieved. If I was an Atheist, and I persuaded another person to become an Atheist, no work would get done since the inevitable would happen anyways. I would have no worries in life under these circumstances, not making documentaries combating religion. However, followers of religion believe that something can be gained for persuasion.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 11/05/09 - 10:11 PM:	#4
mtboger wrote: I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I believed that there was no afterlife, I would not try to argue my beliefs to anyone. Never? In any situation? Even moral ones? You'd let anything fly? Even right in front of you? Since I believe this, any argument that I make would be useless because nothing further can be achieved. We could examine this premise? The abandoning of a mere hypothetical view on ones disposition inside a possible universe should not be threatening to your eternal soul, and all that. If I was an Atheist, and I persuaded another person to become an Atheist, no work would get done since the inevitable would happen anyways. I've deconverted a few people, they still got out of bed the next morning. I would have no worries in life under these circumstances, not making documentaries combating religion. I think that you have little choice in the matter. However, followers of religion believe that something can be gained for persuasion. What? I still don't understand what being immortal adds to it. Not many of us are planning what we will be doing next year, let alone a few decades, or centuries. I don't think that this view makes any practical sense. If I don't want to hear my neighbor's music after midnight, what does it matter if we're immortals or not? Do I think that we will be neighbor's for the entirety of eternity? Wouldn't this concern only make sense in the now? Don't most political, and social arguments deal with what is going on right now, without assuming that it will continue to go on that way forever?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/05/09 - 10:26 PM:	#5
If I were an Atheist and someone tried to persuade me to another religion, I would laugh and walk away, because I would know that the other person and I are going to turn back into dust together, no matter what they believe. According to Atheism, if you hadn't deconverted them, they would still end up as ash. I agree that a person has choice in the matter. But why, essentially, waste time deconverting people when you could be enjoying life. Believing in an afterlife creates a goal in converting people. I am a Christian for example, if I convert someone, that's one more victory for God and one less person in Hell. Again, this is only my opinion and I do not mean to insult.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 10:43 PM:	#6
mtboger wrote: If I were an Atheist and someone tried to persuade me to another religion... Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair colour. I would laugh and walk away, because I would know that the other person and I are going to turn back into dust together, no matter what they believe. But why would this render what they were saying invalid, or unsound? Do you believe that just you personally would become emotionally dead and intellectual deceased because you need religion to be true that badly? Or do you think that there is an intellectual level to this? According to Atheism, if you hadn't deconverted them, they would still end up as ash. "Science, mathematics, literature, philosophy, poetry, music -- these are the things hydrogen molecules do, given 13.7 billion years". I'm cool with being star stuff, though I do mourn my mortality, but then I also mourn not having superpowers. C'est la vie. I agree that a person has choice in the matter. But why, essentially, waste time deconverting people when you could be enjoying life. Mostly because they were annoyingly religious, and annoyingly present. I don't generally go out of my way. Believing in an afterlife creates a goal in converting people. I am a Christian for example, if I convert someone, that's one more victory for God and one less person in Hell. Is that all that matters, let alone take precedence? Doesn't things like people's virtues, and goodness, the morality of god, and other things? If Satan could offer you heaven, would it be just as good? If this is the primary goal, would you allow everyone in hell into heaven if it were up to you? If you answer no to any of these questions, then something else must take precedence to this goal -- if it is a moral one, like I suppose, then a finite moral existence, should be favorable to you to an eternal immoral one. If this is also so, then I think this is a demonstration that you do not actually hold that immortality is what is important. Again, this is only my opinion and I do not mean to insult. I'm pretty difficult to insult. Edited by Wosret on 11/05/09 - 10:48 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/05/09 - 11:06 PM:	#7
My mistake..."and someone tried to persuade me to a religion." I understand what you're saying about confrontation being on an intellectual level. But, you lost me on the last part. I believe that my purpose in life is to serve God. It is what I choose to believe. Therefore, gaining believers is the ultimate purpose in my life. I don't understand what you mean by an eternally immoral life. Religion supplies most, if not all, of my morals. If you could prove to me that my religion was false, which is highly unlikely, the definition of morality for me would change drastically.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 11:11 PM:	#8
mtboger wrote: My point is, why does Richard Dawkins feel the need to persuade and argue his point, if no matter what, all people end up as nonexistent. To me, this puts his whole argument in question. I feel like if he truly believed all people simply cease to exist, he would not try to argue against religions. I think it's a good deal simpler than that: it's a matter of truthfulness, or what holds water after logical and rational examination. If I claim that the moon is a green cheese and try to convert you to the green-cheese cult, knowing that neither you or I have been to the moon, what would be your take? Or, if I tell you that you must absolutely not eat carrots on mondays, because I had a revelation telling me that, what would be your take? It's simply a matter of seeking to actually understand reality, utilizing unbiased reasoning (and discovery), and, in the process, weed out fairytales, unsupported imaginative ideas, etc. Having a more accurate understanding of reality seems (to me at least) an advantage and much more interesting; personally I certainly want to seek out what is actually true, abandon inconsistencies, and such. Thus, if Dawkins can make a case for his views, I don't see why he wouldn't. I suppose this goes for anyone with an opinion.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

ZenEthics
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Location: Denton Tx

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 116

Posted 11/05/09 - 11:40 PM:	#9
I'm not sure why atheism would imply that we only live once and in the end is only ultimate destruction. A finite universe/multiverse with no god wouldn't make much sense: if the multiverse is infinite, if there is no god, then we don't have unique specific souls, we seem to be subjective constructs of energy experiencing itself from different perspectives. Considering the world to be infinite, and the fact that you cannot experience being dead (being implies existing) then even if there is a near infinite time before whatever formed you happens again, you will be alive again and never mind the gaps, did you mind the billions of years you were dead before you were born? If the only thing we can be is alive, then it would make sense to use our sense to make the most out of being; the worst hell would be believing your whole life in an irrational religion, wasting your whole life by focusing your actions on the after life, only to die, and relive that wasted life over and over and over for eternity. Edited by Incision on 11/06/09 - 10:18 AM. Reason: illiteracy
We are all the punchline to a joke that they wont let us in on.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 11:46 PM:	#10
mtboger wrote: My mistake..."and someone tried to persuade me to a religion." I understand what you're saying about confrontation being on an intellectual level. But, you lost me on the last part. I believe that my purpose in life is to serve God. It is what I choose to believe. Therefore, gaining believers is the ultimate purpose in my life. I don't understand what you mean by an eternally immoral life. Religion supplies most, if not all, of my morals. If you could prove to me that my religion was false, which is highly unlikely, the definition of morality for me would change drastically. Well, then let us go back to your original question, I have distracted from it, and I do not wish to give you the impression that I would like to dissuade you of your religion. Why do I do stuff despite not believing that I'll survive my own death? Because I have emotional, intellectual, and pragmatic stakes in things besides my personal continued existence. Some stuff means things to me, so I act accordingly. I suspect that Dawkins is no different.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.