Ask an Atheist.

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

They are also eternally changing. 

Mortality is just entropy .

Conditions and states aren't stable. They don't have to be consistent to keep existing. They are dependant on other random factors. The centre of a black hole is an example of a different condition regarding laws of nature as we observe them.

Alright, then following that line of logic, regardless of a difference in condition, if the center of a black hole is eternal, then certainly what surrounds it is also eternal.

That would make sense wouldn't it?

 

@onlookerofmayhem I don't want to steer your thread away from what you intended it to be. Let me know if I should halt what I'm doing. 

 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

A good video on the topic :

Atheist or Agnostic?

[psyche101]

Just now, Will Do said:

Alright, then following that line of logic, regardless of a difference in condition, if the center of a black hole is eternal, then certainly what surrounds it is also eternal.

That would make sense wouldn't it?

 

@onlookerofmayhem I don't want to steer your thread away from what you intended it to be. Let me know if I should halt what I'm doing. 

 

 

It's not eternal. It's an example of a different state within a state. Nobody can say how physics work at the centre of a black hole because we don't know yet.

Black holes will be the last inhabitants of this universe. When the last one fizzles our the last of its Hawking radiation, the universe will be empty. 

I don't think your offtopic. I see what you're doing. You're trying to find an example of eternal in nature to support a life after death idea. Some atheists still believe the myth regardless of the god myth though. No such thing exists. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 minutes ago, Will Do said:

@onlookerofmayhem I don't want to steer your thread away from what you intended it to be. Let me know if I should halt what I'm doing. 

As long as you both keep it civil and productive, I'm ok with it.

One of the hopes for this thread was simple question and answer discussion.

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

A good video on the topic :

Atheist or Agnostic?

Here's a good on on 'militant atheism' by the aforementioned Richard Dawkins. 

Good example to discuss his approach if anyone is interested.

 

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It's not eternal. It's an example of a different state within a state. Nobody can say how physics work at the centre of a black hole because we don't know yet.

Black holes will be the last inhabitants of this universe. When the last one fizzles our the last of its Hawking radiation, the universe will be empty. 

I don't think your offtopic. I see what you're doing. You're trying to find an example of eternal in nature to support a life after death idea. Some atheists still believe the myth regardless of the god myth though. No such thing exists. 

 

Ok hold on. Did you just say that some atheists believe in an afterlife?

 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Will Do

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Ok hold on. Did you just say that some atheists believe in an afterlife?

Sure, it's not a god prerequisite. 

Atheists can believe in anything as ridiculous as anyone else. 

I'd say new atheism is less likely to consider it as possible though. It's more science based. 

[Imaginarynumber1]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:39 AM, psyche101 said:

Why do you think I would respond to you, or why do you think anyone will care what you think?

There's an unexplained mystery deserving of this site. You should start a thread on it! 

I wish I could like this post more than once.

[onlookerofmayhem]

@eight bits

What do think of the term :

non-theist?

[Imaginarynumber1]

I used to think i was an atheiest. Turns out i'm 100% an apathiest. 

[Imaginarynumber1]

On 12/6/2020 at 3:14 AM, danydandan said:

@Imaginarynumber1 & @Eon

The default position is ignorance, isn't it, especially if you are taking a position from birth?

Everything else is then a belief based on consideration, regardless of your stance on the topic.

I suppose you are correct. My main point is that for someone to believe in some god, they have to have it taught to them, first. Or let the idea grow organically over tens of thousands of years, i suppose. 

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I used to think i was an atheiest. Turns out i'm 100% an apathiest. 

I totally get that. 

[Will Due]

 

Is there a difference between being apathetic to traditional religious ideas about God and the God who "taps people on the shoulder" to let them know who he is without it having anything to do with any existing religion?

Know what I mean?

You know, the "idea" that grows organically. 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Will Do

[+Nuclear Wessel]

21 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Ok hold on. Did you just say that some atheists believe in an afterlife?

I didn't read the post that you're referring to, but I don't see why this could not be the case.

Even as an atheist I have flirted with the idea of an afterlife. I saw and heard some pretty weird **** in my ex-partner's mother's home that really had me kind of spooked and shook my views on the subject up a bit, despite the fact that that there are some logical explanations for what happened.

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Is there a difference between being apathetic to traditional religious ideas about God and the God who "taps people on the shoulder" to let them know who he is without it having anything to do with any existing religion?

Know what I mean?

You know, the "idea" that grows organically. 

I don't think so.

The whole idea gets so damn stupid at times that one realises what a waste of life even thinking about the god idea is. Imaginary might see it differently but I'm getting jack of the hypocrisy and moral high ground religious people take. Agnosticism used to be a respectable middle ground, but it's become as polarised as belief lately. Religious people don't want to discuss. Even agnostics become aggressive if questions come up that rock that comfortable middle ground. There's information to discuss. Nobody wants any part of that, all that's important is how they feel about it. I'd consider that lying to oneself to create a personal ground that doesn't actually exist.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I didn't read the post that you're referring to, but I don't see why this could not be the case.

Even as an atheist I have flirted with the idea of an afterlife. I saw and heard some pretty weird **** in my ex-partner's mother's home that really had me kind of spooked and shook my views on the subject up a bit, despite the fact that that there are some logical explanations for what happened.

 

Brother believe me, I know what you mean lol.

 

 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think so.

The whole idea gets so damn stupid at times that one realises what a waste of life even thinking about the god idea is. Imaginary might see it differently but I'm getting jack of the hypocrisy and moral high ground religious people take. Agnosticism used to be a respectable middle ground, but it's become as polarised as belief lately. Religious people don't want to discuss. Even agnostics become aggressive if questions come up that rock that comfortable middle ground. There's information to discuss. Nobody wants any part of that, all that's important is how they feel about it. I'd consider that lying to oneself to create a personal ground that doesn't actually exist.

 

Well it's hard not to be human.

 

 

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Well it's hard not to be human.

It's even harder to be one. 

[Will Due]

 

Well, given there are reasons to believe that some things in the universe are eternal, yes not everyone agrees, but I just keep getting back to the question:

If we enter into life out of nowhere, what's mortality for?

 

 

[psyche101]

Just now, Will Do said:

Well, given there are reasons to believe that some things in the universe are eternal, yes not everyone agrees, but I just keep getting back to the question:

If we enter into life out of nowhere, what's mortality for?

There is no reason to think the universe is eternal.

Some like to hope so. Not the same thing. 

Mortality is a system of entropy whilst the universe is in its present state. 

[Will Due]

Just now, psyche101 said:

It's even harder to be one. 

 

I know right lol? 

And again, since that's true, what's mortality for?

Hey, I like being alive lol.

 

 

[psyche101]

Just now, Will Do said:

I know right lol? 

We do agree on that much. 

Just now, Will Do said:

And again, since that's true, what's mortality for?

Answered above.

Just now, Will Do said:

Hey, I like being alive lol.

Indeed, you can't like anything when you're dead. 

[Orphalesion]

1 hour ago, Will Do said:

 

Ok hold on. Did you just say that some atheists believe in an afterlife?

 

 

I'm gonna blow your mind. You can even be religious without believing in the existence of any gods.
Yes, there are religions without gods

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

What do think of the term :

non-theist?

Yes, that's fine, to designate the group which includes both atheists and agnostics.

If I could comment on the video you posted: when somebody says "I'm an atheist" and somebody else says "No you're not, you're a [fill in whatever other term here]" then the somebody else shoulders a very heavy burden. The person who spoke first knows a lot more about their beliefs than the person who objects. Plus, atheist and agnostic are contentious terms whose meanings have shifted over time.

If somebody has found a label that works for them, which presumably includes its being understood by the people they regularly interact with, then maybe that choice of label should simply be accepted. At most, maybe a "heads up" might be offered ("Many people are going to misunderstand your choice ..."). After a warning like that, the person has other options besides changing their preferred self-description. Maybe if they want both to continue using the term but also to address a wider audience then up till now, then they'll need to define the term (as you did when you launched this thread). The term itself, however, they can continue to use.

Insisting that somebody else use the same term the same way is a different kettle of fish, IMO.

Finally, a word on Dawkins: each person in the public arena has a personal style. I think it's too much to expect that everybody is going to like anybody's style. At the same time, Dawkins's books sell, his appearances are well-attended. Some people must like what he offers them. Personally, while I get the criticism that he is "aggressive" (as my beloved Huxley was compared with a bulldog ... which kinda backfires with me, given my affection for bulldogs), isn't that part of his substantive point? We tolerate "aggressive" public speech about politics and sports, why should religion be exempt from frank criticism?

Last I heard, walkin' the walk you talk is a good thing. Dawkins walks the walk. Good for him, even if I'd prefer to do it differently.

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by eight bits

[onlookerofmayhem]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

when somebody says "I'm an atheist" and somebody else says "No you're not, you're a [fill in whatever other term here]" then the somebody else shoulders a very heavy burden. The person who spoke first knows a lot more about their beliefs than the person who objects. Plus, atheist and agnostic are contentious terms whose meanings have shifted over time.

Agreed. I think it's more about what the actual belief is as opposed to the label. 

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Insisting that somebody else use the same term the same way is a different kettle of fish, IMO.

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

We tolerate "aggressive" public speech about politics and sports, why should religion be exempt from frank criticism?

Totally agree. 

I find it a bit odd that some of the religious folks consider it a "war on (insert religion)" whenever their beliefs are scrutinized, yet they have no issue waging "war" on whatever their religion tells them is wrong.

I think that's how we progress as a whole. By examining and scrutinizing beliefs that most of the time go unchallenged.

Thanks for your input. It's very helpful.