Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would his life's work be for nothing?

^Is that a real question, or are you just trying to be difficult?

It would be like Hitler admitting that he actually liked Jews, or Jerry Falwell becoming a Muslim as he died. It would be a betrayal and rejection of everything he once stood for. And by Dawkins' own words, beleif flies in the face of reason, so he would be turning his back something he once championed.

It really can't make it any more clear than that...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
^Is that a real question, or are you just trying to be difficult?

It would be like Hitler admitting that he actually liked Jews, or Jerry Falwell becoming a Muslim as he died. It would be a betrayal and rejection of everything he once stood for. And by Dawkins' own words, beleif flies in the face of reason, so he would be turning his back something he once championed.

It really can't make it any more clear than that...

He championed science and reason. Anybody who understands those things won't have their minds changed by what he says as he dies, unless it presents a compelling argument. Thus his life's work will still have the same influence it would have anyway. His contributions to biology and sociology would still be intact as well.

I think his point is more that if Dawkins ever finds a want to believe in god when faced with death, he wouldn't want to admit it, maybe not even to himself.

Originally posted by 753
I think his point is more that if Dawkins ever finds a want to believe in god when faced with death, he wouldn't want to admit it, maybe not even to himself.

Yeah, I was ignoring that because it's pointless. Maybe all of the Popes were secretly atheists but never told anyone. Maybe Saladin accepted Judaism at some point in his life but never told anyone. Maybe Mother Teresa secretly converted to Satanism on her deathbed.

He's just speculating about stubborness, lighten up

Originally posted by 753
He's just speculating about stubborness, lighten up

Never! (though I could be lying about that)

I'm really glad that so many people have posted in this thread. When I started it I had the idea that I might be able to get a better understanding of people that called themselves atheists. Off the computer these types of discussions have always been pretty short ( excluding a few friends of mine ) and I didn't feel as though my questions were being entertained. I really got more out of this forum than I have talking to atheists because many do ( and rightfully so ) feel that I probably have the motives of converting them or getting them to come to my church. Many people that profess christianity have these motives. Personally I feel that converting to any religion is a highly personal choice that requires sincerity to matter anyway. Actively trying to suggest converting to someone who is not inquiring you about converting to your religion seems vain.

Skekung may be abrupt but he may have a point. My questions are for the sake of argument. I truly don't want a negative argument, but I like ideas that stand up strong against arguments. I asked one question to start a discussion but not to maliciously attack atheists. I appreciate that all of you have chosen to take the time to read and respond even skekung who seems to see something deceptive in my posts. He suggested some ideas that I chose to entertain. Was I baiting people with my question? If not consciously perhaps subconsciously? After thinking on this I was sure that I had no malicious intent at all. I thought perhaps judgement to hell or some other punishment religions describe might be terrifying to entertain and since it is a threat, dismissed as a man-made attempt to manipulate people with fear. I myself think that being tortured by eternal flames seems like a horror that doesn't seem to fit a being that is called the most merciful in existence. My question was answered by many varying minds and I've come to understand the term atheist much better. The term "atheist" is just like the term "white". It is extremely vague and undermines a persons individuality. Atheists believe many varying ideas just like white people are from many varying places on earth. However when the terms are used by those who have something against these people they generalize them in some negative way. Saying all atheists don't believe in God is like saying all people called white originate from Europe or America. To me the term atheist is useless as a complete description and learning more about the individual is necessary to know what they believe. I've learned this from reading all your posts and so I thank you all for helping me out. I definitely want to learn how well I can stand up to arguments against my ideas so I'm sure you won't be surprised if I do seem argumentative. But I really don't want to be closed off to entertaining any ideas so if I do come off like a know-it-all call me on it. (In fact I should probably just accept that I must come across like that sometimes.) Nobodies perfect! 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
Saying all atheists don't believe in God is like saying all people called white originate from Europe or America.

Indeed, how else would you categorize atheists? A lack of belief in God is basically the only thing that can be definitively said about them, since there exists no central tenet or dogma beyond that which links atheists together. I'm relatively sure it's not only an acceptable way to describe atheists, but perhaps the only accurate way to describe them.

Of course it's not a complete description of a person who is an atheist, as Mister rightly stated. There's always more to a person's personal philosophy. But at that point, it's just that: a person's personal worldview or philosophy. You will learn more about the individual, but not about "atheism" in an abstract sense.

Mister, you're just looking at labels the wrong way. It doesn't strip away individuality, it provides a useful tool for shared meaning in society. We frankly don't have time to go into our worldviews in most religious discussions, so terms like Christian, Episcopalian, Atheist, Jewish, etc. are handy tools to form a basis of knowledge. Nobody pretends that they represent everything about a person. Abhorring convenient descriptions is just ignorance of their function. But, and here's your other mistake, when you say "Catholic" for instance, it refers to a gigantic set of beliefs and tenets. "Atheist" doesn't. It refers only to a lack of belief in a god or gods. So saying that atheism is much more than that is false. People are more than that, atheism is not.

Frankly though, this discussion might be better served in the general atheism thread now, because the premise of this thread as it was created remains embarassingly clueless.

Originally posted by Digi
Frankly though, this discussion might be better served in the general atheism thread now, because the premise of this thread as it was created remains embarassingly clueless.

I wouldn't say so. Its basically asking how secure Atheists are in their belief (or, rather, lack thereof). Are they completely firm and confident...or is their apparent complacency a mask to hide a latent fear that they might be in for a rude awakening if/when The Day comes?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't get why everyone (or, at least the non-atheists) obsess so much with how to categorize people who don't believe in god? what is wrong with letting people choose the affiliations they wish to have?

and no, I'm not an agnostic. if you have a definition of agnosticism that includes myself, you are wrong

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I wouldn't say so. Its basically asking how secure Atheists are in their belief (or, rather, lack thereof). Are they completely firm and confident...or is their apparent complacency a mask to hide a latent fear that they might be in for a rude awakening if/when The Day comes?

aren't those types of doubts a central part of most monotheisms?

or, whatever people believe?

Originally posted by The MISTER
A Buddhist for example doesn't have a belief in gods (I believe) so does that make them atheists by definition? I would say no.

Correct; Buddhists don't believe in god. And actually, it does make them an Atheist by definition.

Originally posted by inimalist
aren't those types of doubts a central part of most monotheisms?

or, whatever people believe?

Doubts are not a central part of any theism. Otherwise, what would be the point of being a theist?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Doubts are not a central part of any theism. Otherwise, what would be the point of being a theist?

I guess I don't mean central, but like, all religious texts at full of people who expressed doubt.

the idea that an atheist might have an experience that makes them go "huh, maybe there is something to this fate thing", or whatever, imho, doesn't say much about atheism that it doesn't about anything, even like "capitalism" or whatever.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess I don't mean central, but like, all religious texts at full of people who expressed doubt.

the idea that an atheist might have an experience that makes them go "huh, maybe there is something to this fate thing", or whatever, imho, doesn't say much about atheism that it doesn't about anything, even like "capitalism" or whatever.

Doubters don't appear (rarely if ever) in Vedic texts. And when doubters appear in the Bible or Koran they often are metaphors, or part of a moral tale. In the Bible they're used to serve as examples. The Koran will often directly address or challenge doubters. It contains the lines "Have you not considered..." and "...yet you still believe not?" multiple times and in many places.

you are right, doubt is not something common to the human experience

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Doubts are not a central part of any theism. Otherwise, what would be the point of being a theist?

EDIT: I meant Kierkegaard.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I wouldn't say so. Its basically asking how secure Atheists are in their belief (or, rather, lack thereof). Are they completely firm and confident...or is their apparent complacency a mask to hide a latent fear that they might be in for a rude awakening if/when The Day comes?

Right, and the answer is almost tautologically clear. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, and it's very hard to be afraid of something you don't believe in. One might as well ask if anyone over the age of 20 is afraid that Santa won't bring them presents. Both questions are equally absurd. The question might be better asked of some types of agnostics, whose belief in some form of creator might also entail.

Also, emphasizing "completely" misrepresents your side to make it seems more plausible. One need not be completely certain of something for it to be a cognitive and moral non-issue. I'm not 100% certain there isn't a God, nor can you be 100% certain there is. So we can't be completely sure in the strictest sense, yet any belief strong enough to label oneself is also strong enough to be at peace with. In any case, I have yet to meet or hear of an atheist with any such fear, latent or otherwise. If they do, their true beliefs probably aren't atheistic.

So again, I find the OP to be embarrassingly ignorant of what atheists actually believe. His search for knowledge is admirable, and he's continued his inquiries in a mostly commendable manner, but it doesn't change the absurdity of the thread's premise.

...

Also, equating atheism with complancency is misleading and mildly insulting. You have a gift for finding subtle ways to undermine your opponent. A shame how you use it sometimes.

Originally posted by The MISTER
A post like this reflects the frustration of being categorized. If a person tells me that they don't believe in God and I ask them are they atheists and they say no, I don't think it would be right for me to tell them "Yes you are whether YOU like it or not!"

That isn't really what you do, though. You tell them they aren't atheist, because deep down they know they agree with you.

Originally posted by skekUng
That isn't really what you do, though. You tell them they aren't atheist, because deep down they know they agree with you.