Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Are you perhaps suggesting that I believe that everyone has awareness of God's existence?

See, again, like most people who argue your perspective, you think there's something you get that people who do not agree with that perspective just won't or can't understand. You pretend there are something you can know for sure that others can not. It's how you're trained to argue; make people think there's something you get that they don't. Again, it's not difficult to see through.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Are you perhaps suggesting that I believe that everyone has awareness of God's existence?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Are you perhaps suggesting that I believe that everyone has awareness of God's existence?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
it's impossible to feel the presence of a fictional entity.

Empirically untrue.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, again, like most people who argue your perspective, you think there's something you get that people who do not agree with that perspective just won't or can't understand. You pretend there are something you can know for sure that others can not. It's how you're trained to argue; make people think there's something you get that they don't. Again, it's not difficult to see through.

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.

Originally posted by King Castle
this is just condescending toward others, a "polite" way of insulting or belittling others beliefs while maintaining and hiding behind a false curtain of civility.

A thief accuses you of stealing something. You say "are you suggesting that I'm a thief?" knowing that you stole nothing. Someone hears your question and says " You just admitted it!!!".

This is an anology of what just happened to me within the last few posts.

King castle can you explain how asking your accuser questions is condescending or belittling? Am I belittling you by asking you these questions? In truth you belittle yourself if you ignore simple questions like skekung does.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
God doesn't exist, it's impossible to feel the presence of a fictional entity.

You can't imagine how very wrong you are. I'm confident many of the intelligent atheists out there would agree to this, that you're wrong. Spirituality is all around us, no matter if we are religious or not.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
You can't imagine how very wrong you are. I'm confident many of the intelligent atheists out there would agree to this, that you're wrong. Spirituality is all around us, no matter if we are religious or not.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
You can't imagine how very wrong you are. I'm confident many of the intelligent atheists out there would agree to this, that you're wrong. Spirituality is all around us, no matter if we are religious or not.

believing that people don't, in fact, feel the presense of god would, and of course this is just imho, be nearly a tautological quality of atheism

Originally posted by Digi
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.

The whole Santa/God comparison is a card that Atheists try to play a lot. But its faulty. One can take a trip to the North Pole or install a camera in their living room on Xmas Eve and disprove Santa's existence. But you can't commit suicide and then immediately come back and say "A-ha! There is a (or no) god!".

The thread-starter basically wants to know why and how Atheists decided to believe what they do; I do too. Its usually informative and revealing (and sometimes entertaining and embarrassing) to hear how they arrived at their current destination.

---

"Complacency" seems to be the right word, because it means "secure", "confident" and "being satisfied with one's current state". Atheists are often all of those things...or at least they appear to be and project themselves that way when talking with theists. I have no doubt that there are some dogged, unshakingly confident Atheists out there who 'know' there's no god. But many more have a lingering fear/doubt somewhere in the back of their minds.

And just FYI: I'm not just sitting here talking out of my ass. I've known and spoken with enough Atheists in my 40-plus years to know what I'm talking about and to make a reliable observation. You can take that to the bank.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The whole Santa/God comparison is a card that Atheists try to play a lot. But its faulty. One can take a trip to the North Pole or install a camera in their living room on Xmas Eve and disprove Santa's existence.

Which makes it a great example, IMO. The Santa believer will modify Santa to avoid having to deal with contradictions with the facts. For example, Santa's workshop is deep under the ice and protected by advanced electronic countermeasures, also he is invisible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have no idea what you mean by this. What, are you saying that everyone feels God's presence? I... don't think so.

I don't believe in God (Mind you, I'm not saying he doesn't exist), I'm speaking about spirituality overall. He says it impossible to feel the presence of a fictional entity, yet children all over the world fear ghosts in dark places, monsters underneath their bed, there are those who genuinely write letters to Santa Claus.

My point is, his idea of impossible is nothing more than a narrow mind. Either that, or he hasn't believed in anything his entire life, not as child nor adult. If so, I pity him.

I'd suggest not using the term impossible so lightly.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I don't believe in God (Mind you, I'm not saying he doesn't exist), I'm speaking about spirituality overall. He says it impossible to feel the presence of a fictional entity, yet children all over the world fear ghosts in dark places, monsters underneath their bed, there are those who genuinely write letters to Santa Claus.

My point is, his idea of impossible is nothing more than a narrow mind. Either that, or he hasn't believed in anything his entire life, not as child nor adult. If so, I pity him.

I'd suggest not using the term impossible so lightly.

You make a very good point. Since our mortal limits are glaringly obvious, who are we as individuals to dictate what future generations will say is impossible? 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
You make a very good point. Since our mortal limits are glaringly obvious, who are we as individuals to dictate what future generations will say is impossible? 😮‍💨

Man will never accelerate an object to greater than the speed of light. Basic, fundamental, empirically provable, mathematically provable law of nature.

Also, that doesn't seem to have been his point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Man will never accelerate an object to greater than the speed of light. Basic, fundamental, empirically provable, mathematically provable law of nature.

Also, that doesn't seem to have been his point.

Her* point.

Too bad NASA will never develop warp drive or a super-luminal engine.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Man will never accelerate an object to greater than the speed of light. Basic, fundamental, empirically provable, mathematically provable law of nature.

Also, that doesn't seem to have been his point.

Originally posted by The MISTER
As we exist in the physical world there are limitations as I stated in my earlier post. I was thinking that what he said about using impossible lightly. Our exposure to this life is short and I'd think that the one of the things that's absolutely impossible to do is to prove that there is no existence for individual consciousness after death. The physics that apply to the speed of light are suitable for the physical world. But you can't really fault individuals for believing that the physical plane might not be all there is to it. If there is more to it what will be impossible then? Nobody knows 100% 😮‍💨

I don't fault people for pointing out that we don't know everything. What I fault them for is saying "we don't know for certain that [something], so it's totally reasonable for [something else] to be true" and then spin that into evidence that something is true.

Some of the people who say "we don't know anything about this" are scientists or philosophers. They go and try to figure out what is in the place/area of life/idea/whatever.

The charlatans are the ones who try to fit their personal gods into the gaps in what we know, without making any investigation into it and then they trick others into believing that is a reasonable way to think. It's damaging, not just when it comes to philosophy but when it comes to very real physical problems. Billions of dollars are made every year by exploiting the idea that "we don't know for sure, thus..." line of thinking.

The things we cannot disprove are infinite for every subject we select. And this is where the talk of "undisprovablity" fails. No one ever talking about "life after death" in the abstract, they ascribe qualities to it or means of getting to one or the others. They always claim to know thing about something they already defined as unknowable and then try to retreat behind undisproveability as a shield when questioned about those details. It is a serious contradiction in logic (which is bad on its own in my book) and constantly used to swindle and deceive.

preach on, brother man

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I don't believe in God (Mind you, I'm not saying he doesn't exist), I'm speaking about spirituality overall. He says it impossible to feel the presence of a fictional entity, yet children all over the world fear ghosts in dark places, monsters underneath their bed, there are those who genuinely write letters to Santa Claus.

My point is, his idea of impossible is nothing more than a narrow mind. Either that, or he hasn't believed in anything his entire life, not as child nor adult. If so, I pity him.

I'd suggest not using the term impossible so lightly.