Are atheists afraid of judgement?

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. But you can't commit suicide and then immediately come back and say "A-ha! There is a (or no) god!".

The presence of Santa in the analogy probably made you think I was using it as it's commonly used. The more abstract point, removed from figures that might detract from the meaning, is this: If you don't believe in something, you won't be afraid of it. If you're an atheist, you can't fear God. If you do, you're not an atheist, and would more rightly fit into certain definitions of agnosticism. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
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.

So glad we can provide embarrassing entertainment for you, oh wise one.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"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.

Then they are mislabeled if you consider them atheists. Like I said earlier, tautologically clear.

Also, "many more" is purely speculative, a broad guess based on nothing but your bias. If anyone considering themselves an atheist does have lingering fears, I can't imagine they would truly remain an atheist for any significant amount of time, regardless of what they're calling themselves.

Also as before, one does not need to be either unshakably confident or fearful. You're creating a false dichotomy by leaving no other options. Every atheist I've ever met, heard about, read about, etc. is neither of those things.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'd suggest not using the term "presence" so lightly, because apparently you have no idea what it means.

According to you then, presence has to be something earthly? That's not the definition of presence I've come to learn. To me, something in the presence is something close. You don't have to see something in order for it to be close. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

If I hide under the blanket, I'm not any less present. I'm just not visible. That's presence to me, being close.

Now, there are millions out in the world that have a spiritual sense, if not billions. Saying it's impossible to feel the presence of someone that's not there, is plain ignorance. It's maybe impossible for you, for some, but don't say simply "impossible". Rather phrase it as "impossible for me", because that's what one really means.

I've had spiritual experiences, as I'm sure many others have had as well. Just because something is true to you, such as the inexistence of God, doesn't mean it's true for everyone else. And for that matter, just because God doesn't exist in your life, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

To conclude, I've felt the presence of something unearthly. That alone cancel out the phrasing "impossible"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

One of the best posts I have read. 😎 I agree.

My problem is that people on both sides come across as if they know something that only idiots don't know. We all tend to figure some people as idiots too quickly considering the fact that when we are incorrect on anything we will sound idiotic to someone who knows better. There's a big difference between thinking someone sounds idiotic and considering someone an idiot. Atheists and non-atheist tend to pre-judge each other as idiots almost before learning much more about a person than their spiritual belief.

To me, spirituality is something personal. To me, it can't be generalized to "Yes" or "No"

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
To conclude, I've felt the presence of something unearthly. That alone cancel out the phrasing "impossible"

so, when you look at the "rotating snakes" optical illusion, do you think it would be accurate to describe the image as "moving"?

edit: rotating snakes:

Originally posted by The MISTER
Again I ask, Are YOU skekung suggesting that I have some sort of superiority complex. Based on this post you seem to know more about me than I do.

No. You suggest you have a superiority complex when you employ tactics meant to present your opinion as not only superior, but common sense.

I know as much about you as can be gleaned from your posts. It's not my fault it's easy to see.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Skekung quoted my post and then told me that it wasn't how I really felt. I asked him if he was suggesting that I felt some specific way. He didn't answer the question, and here you are acting as if you can't comprehend english either

I said nothing about how you feel. I said "that isn't what you do, though". Really, you can't accuse someone of not understanding english in the very same sentence where you illustrate your own inability to comprehend it.

I couldn't care less about how you feel.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, when you look at the "rotating snakes" optical illusion, do you think it would be accurate to describe the image as "moving"?

Why are you comparing her otherworldly experience to a classroom optical illusion? Why stoop to that level? How about listening to her story before dismissing her as a hallucinating quack.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are you comparing her otherworldly experience to a classroom optical illusion? Why stoop to that level? How about listening to her story before dismissing her as a hallucinating quack.

I think you misunderstand my point

her argument is that human perception = real, and in that instance, optical illusions are an excellent way to show, unequivacably, that just becuase someone perceive something, doesn't mean that it us real at all

you might call it stooping, but I certainly can't imagine why you would differentiate between cognitive pocessea underlying sight and other types of experiences.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
According to you then, presence has to be something earthly?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bingo. Could also substitute "earthly" with "tangible".

Then your definition of presence is obscure. Presence means something being near, and to quote American Heritage Dictionary (I know, not the best dictionary out there)

*The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.
*Immediate proximity in time or space.
*The area immediately surrounding a great personage, especially a sovereign.
*A person who is present.
*A person's bearing, especially when it commands respectful attention: "He continues to possess the presence, mental as well as physical, of the young man".
*The quality of self-assurance and effectiveness that permits a performer to achieve a rapport with the audience: stage presence.
*A supernatural influence felt to be nearby.

My point is: Tangible is not a defining trait of being present. I don't think it's so in any dictionary or encyclopedia at all, because being tangible has nothing to do with being present. They are two entirely different things.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you misunderstand my point

her argument is that human perception = real, and in that instance, optical illusions are an excellent way to show, unequivacably, that just becuase someone perceive something, doesn't mean that it us real at all

you might call it stooping, but I certainly can't imagine why you would differentiate between cognitive pocessea underlying sight and other types of experiences.

My point is that just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there 😐 I don't know how you came to that conclusion through my post.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
Then your definition of presence is obscure. Presence means something being near, and to quote American Heritage Dictionary (I know, not the best dictionary out there)

[b]
*The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.
*Immediate proximity in time or space.
*The area immediately surrounding a great personage, especially a sovereign.
*A person who is present.
*A person's bearing, especially when it commands respectful attention: "He continues to possess the presence, mental as well as physical, of the young man".
*The quality of self-assurance and effectiveness that permits a performer to achieve a rapport with the audience: stage presence.
*A supernatural influence felt to be nearby.

My point is: Tangible is not a defining trait of being present. I don't think it's so in any dictionary or encyclopedia at all, because being tangible has nothing to do with being present. They are two entirely different things.[/B]

*The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.

Current existence. That would mean it needs to exist in order to have presence. And:

*A supernatural influence felt to be nearby.
Last time I checked, no supernatural entity has ever made their presence known (literally, the words of so-called prophets and writers exempt), so hence their presence has been non-existent. Only the idea and faith in the potential existence of said being has influenced anyone, not the being itself.

A being that does not exist has no physical presence. Something that cannot be perceived by any sense has no presence (and that's not the stone-set definition of non-resence, so don't misquote me). The word you should have originally used is "influence". The belief in God, an afterlife, morality, abstract idea, or anything physical has an influence. But love does not have a presence. And neither does God.

EDIT: same can be said for hallucinations as well.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
My point is that just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there 😐 I don't know how you came to that conclusion through my post.

I can't see how your previous statements suggest that was your argument at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't see how your previous statements suggest that was your argument at all.

"If I hide under the blanket, I'm not any less present. I'm just not visible"

How's that anything else?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're a sharp one. Did you see that first definition you cited?

[b]*The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.

Current existence. That would mean it needs to exist in order to have presence. [/B]

The first one speaks of something that exists. Problem is, you don't know that spiritual things doesn't exist. You just don't have proof of that it does. Again, just because it can't be seen, doesn't mean it's not there. You can't see an atom with the naked eye, but I can assure you it's right in front of you.

To take a more solid example, there's been quite recently the discovery of a life-form that grows on arsenate instead of phosphate. By this logic of yours, that life-form didn't exist until we discovered it.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
"If I hide under the blanket, I'm not any less present. I'm just not visible"

How's that anything else?

Hrm, I've been misreading your posts.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
The first one speaks of something that exists. Problem is, you don't know that spiritual things doesn't exist. You just don't have proof of that it does. Again, just because it can't be seen, doesn't mean it's not there.

Why should we believe in things there is no evidence for?

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
You can't see an atom with the naked eye, but I can assure you it's right in front of you.

These days we can go look at atoms and molecules if we want to and before that we had all sorts of consistent repeatable experiments that were best explained by the presence of atoms.

Originally posted by skekUng
I said nothing about how you feel. I said "that isn't what you do, though". Really, you can't accuse someone of not understanding english in the very same sentence where you illustrate your own inability to comprehend it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hrm, I've been misreading your posts.

Why should we believe in things there is no evidence for?

These days we can go look at atoms and molecules if we want to and before that we had all sorts of consistent repeatable experiments that were best explained by the presence of atoms.

It happens 🙂

*

I'm not asking you to believe. I'm simply telling you that just because you don't know it's there, doesn't mean it's not. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not telling you that X is how it is, I'm simply pointing out that we don't know.

You can ask for all the proof you want, and I can fail to provide it every time. That doesn't mean it's not there. You can say "Hand me the ache in your hand" and I'll fail to provide, but that doesn't mean it's not there. You can't touch it, you can't see it, you can't sense it, but it's still there.

*

It's true, we can look at atoms with the proper tools. We couldn't look at atoms a thousand years ago however, albeit we had them around then as well. We didn't even know they existed.

Now, for the sake of the case, lets pretend ghosts are real. We can't see them now, but that doesn't mean we can't see them a thousand years from now with the proper tools. Should we be able this, that doesn't mean they didn't exist until we became able to do it. No, this suggest they existed all along (We just didn't know).

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I'm not asking you to believe. I'm simply telling you that just because you don't know it's there, doesn't mean it's not. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not telling you that X is how it is, I'm simply pointing out that we don't know.

That's a hollow statement. If it never effects us and can never be found then its no different from something that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
You can ask for all the proof you want, and I can fail to provide it every time. That doesn't mean it's not there. You can say "Hand me the ache in your hand" and I'll fail to provide, but that doesn't mean it's not there. You can't touch it, you can't see it, you can't sense it, but it's still there.

The ache in your hand can be sensed (if couldn't your hand wouldn't ache). From my own experience I know that creatures like me can feel such things, and from my reason I know that an ache in the hand does not contradict itself.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
It's true, we can look at atoms with the proper tools. We couldn't look at atoms a thousand years ago however, albeit we had them around then as well. We didn't even know they existed.

And as such there was zero reason to think they existed.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
Now, for the sake of the case, lets pretend ghosts are real. We can't see them now, but that doesn't mean we can't see them a thousand years from now with the proper tools. Should we be able this, that doesn't mean they didn't exist until we became able to do it. No, this suggest they existed all along (We just didn't know).

And as such we had no reason to think they were real until it was proven, just like atoms.

Originally posted by skekUng
No. You suggest you have a superiority complex when you employ tactics meant to present your opinion as not only superior, but common sense.

I know as much about you as can be gleaned from your posts. It's not my fault it's easy to see.

As far as employing tactics to present my opinions there are none necessary, I'm an open book, never was one to hide my true feelings. If you like to present your ideas as inferior and the opposite of common sense feel free, but don't be offended if I don't follow your lead. 😮‍💨