Keith Russell

Gosh, the most popular argument (and the worst) for the belief in anything is, 'cause lots of people believe it.

K

LostGirl

The thing I've never understood when people cite belief in the afterlife as being crucial to the current one's "meaning" is this:what gives meaning to the afterlife?
If the purpose of the afterlife is to give meaning to actions in the "living" life, then what do you do for eternity except reflect on the time spent alive and the glory of god? That's not a very convincing reason to continue one's existence, if you ask me. I'd much rather appreciate and reflect on my life whilst I'm living it than wait for a hypothetical opportunity once it's over.

joedad

We're talking about being Faithful to a god, right? IOW, 'Don't question just adore.' I used to think that too, but faith can pin itself elsewhere. I think it takes just as much faith - no gods involved – to get on with life after childhood. Actually, a pretty good argument can be made that it takes less faith to be religious, because there's less examination involved. Religious faith occurs where a natural vision and confidence lack, seems to me. But faith is still power, whether gods are involved or not.
I think this is the number one reason folks believe. Bring in the idea of heaven and a little religious synergy occurs. Immortality is one thing, but now my immortality is somehow perfectly pleasurable.

[trots out very tired old horse and soapbox]
I see a difference between an afterlife and a future life, at least in the christian sense. The first is personal and generally appeals to relief – "Heaven the treasury of everlasting joy" – as Shakespeare called it. Or in Thomas Moore's words, "Earth has no sorrow that Heaven cannot heal." But this is nihilism to me.
Exactly. And it isn't so terribly difficult to see ourselves in people and events of the past while we are alive. Nor is it difficult to imagine an actual future, as opposed to a heavenly reward. But if one's never been taught to consider the future beyond a personal lifetime (and I've personally never met a believer-in-an-afterlife who has even thought to consider lives generations hence), the personal afterlife thing wins hands-down.
[withdraws with horse and soapbox]

joe

Wyz_sub10

It's the premise, in general, that I don't buy. I do not think you or your friends are lying.

(Later on I do state that the specifics are also hard to accept, but I'll address that below)

Fair enough.

Let me just make sure I understand you - most atheist you have spoken with say that they do not believe because people that do believe are stupid and/or weak?

If that's the case, the I am confused. That statement says nothing about the validity of the claim. It's like you saying that you don't believe it's raining out because you have no crops that need the water.

Obviously this comment is directed at them, not you. But it just doesn't make a lot of sense for that to be the reason. You might think that, as an additional criticism of theists, but it's not a reason in itself.

Quite possibly. But even then, while many people here have "deeper" reasons for justifying their beliefs, it almost always comes down to 1) theist claims cannot be validated, (usually former theists) 2) no evidence exists to compel belief (usually lifelong athiests)

Any analysis of theists, themselves, seems irrelevent to the central question.

Well, I certainly believe you, don't get me wrong. It's just that, even in the context you describe, it seems like an odd justification for a position on god's existence.

As with my rain example, it speaks to the believers, not the belief.

johngalt

The most popular reason i have heard is that if there isn't a god, then what is the purpose in living?

thomaq

the best argument i've heard so far is this:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause

that the universe began to exist, i believe is more widely believed among scientists than not.

P1. seems more rational than its opposite.

if this cause is uncaused and timeless, then it escapes the problem of needing a cause for itself. one would then ask, "why cant the universe be timeless and uncaused?"
maybe it could be, but the scientific evidence currently appears to say it began to exist.

i'm not saying i necessarily believe this, it just seems like it could be rational.

thomaq

any response?

thomaq

either that argument is rational or you all are tired of talking about it.

Darth Dane

the best argument i've heard so far is this:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause

that the universe began to exist, i believe is more widely believed among scientists than not.

Yes, perfect reasoned.

P1. seems more rational than its opposite.

if this cause is uncaused and timeless, then it escapes the problem of needing a cause for itself. one would then ask, "why cant the universe be timeless and uncaused?"

If the cause is timeless isn't the effect timles? or infinite?

...maybe it could be, but the scientific evidence currently appears to say it began to exist.

Uncaused cause? Soundless sound?

i'm not saying i necessarily believe this, it just seems like it could be rational.

Whatever the uncaused cause Is, that's where we are from in essense. If the universe expands, then it expanded from tehh uncaused cause, the uncaused cause, caused the stars and planets to appear, gravity and mass, plants and humans, thoughts and conciousness. All of these where inherent in the uncaused cause, and are so in essense identical.

If "God" Is, and can act in the universe, then "God" must in also have part of the essense of the uncaused cause.






DD - Love Spliff

SRB

The term "purpose" is ambiguous. An entity might be said to have a created purpose if it was created with some particular goal in mind. A person might be said to have a practical purpose for a certain action if he has some reason for performing the action.

If humanity was not created, then there is no created purpose for the human race, but it certainly does not follow that we have no reasons to perform the actions we do (i.e. practical purposes)! As an atheist my purposes for my actions in daily life include enjoying relationships with others and dealing with challenges. The issue of whom or what created me seems to have little bearing on all that.

SRB