Reasons are things that only exist in our minds. They aren't 'out there'. Causes are though.
Buy on AliExpress.com
The causality approach (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hist
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I have an honest question for you, Martin.
Do you really think that if no atheists existed in the world, you would be an atheist?
I agree with the psychological factor of being influenced by people, but it would then apply to all groups, religious, non-religious, political, sports, etc..
We are greatly influenced by certain people, not all kinds of people, in society. I believe there are a certain type of people that possess an innate skill to be able to influence other people's actions and opinions.
I also believe that certain atheistic authors and philosophers are the prime reason for why atheists exist. They have the ability to influence other people's opinions and it is no different in theism.
Do you really think that if no atheists existed in the world, you would be an atheist?
I agree with the psychological factor of being influenced by people, but it would then apply to all groups, religious, non-religious, political, sports, etc..
We are greatly influenced by certain people, not all kinds of people, in society. I believe there are a certain type of people that possess an innate skill to be able to influence other people's actions and opinions.
I also believe that certain atheistic authors and philosophers are the prime reason for why atheists exist. They have the ability to influence other people's opinions and it is no different in theism.
I can't really consider this question seriously, because it's not a possible reality. What you are suggesting is a world where every single person believes in religion and that's just not possible in practice. (Strictly speaking not likely, but practically speaking not possible.) If you ask every living person on earth you will not find a single thing everyone agrees on. The most promising question might be "do you believe that you are alive", but if you include people who are hospitalized for mental illness, there are bound to be some who will refute even that.
Now, I don't say that just to be picky. Answer coming later.
Yes, it does apply to everything. Just look at this forum, by being in here people see the passion and commitment other fans have to the cause and it deepens their feelings about Juve. And then they express their feelings and so it goes in circles.
Certainly. People specialize in "being influential" by picking certain careers. Politicians, lawyers, advertisers, missionaries, clerics perhaps.
I think this is an absurd statement. Like I said above, there is no possible world where everyone believes the same thing. Humans are not robots, they differ. Whenever it was that religion was first proposed, there were people who didn't fall for it. Didn't believe the prophets, didn't buy into it, for whatever reasons they had.
Atheists authors did not create atheism (of course this is a self contradiction, how could they have created something that they already were a part of?), but they can help spread atheism, which I think they are doing just now. To what level of success I have no idea.
But now, to answer the question you're driving at. Are atheists prone to crowd psychology and do they cause other people (who come into contact with them) to become atheists, not necessarily because those others have thought deeply about the issue but just because "there seems to be something to it".
The answer is: certainly.
However, I would argue that atheism is far less corrupt in this regard. Atheists don't have organizations, they don't have rituals, they don't have rules by which to live your life. In other words, atheism is not spread in any way similar to how religion is spread. When atheist couples have children they do not take them to an "atheist baptism", then to an "atheist first communion" and so on. And they do not call their kids "atheists". Weddings don't happen in the Temple of Atheism, there are not special atheist meals, it just doesn't have any kind of cultural content similar to that of religion.
So in that sense atheism is not trying to get into people conscience "the back door", that is by cultural means, rather the only way it can is through rationality. Incidentally, rationality is religion's weakest link, I have been exposed to Catholicism for 15 years and I have never been sold any kind of rational foundations for religion.
So, in conclusion. Is someone more likely to leave his faith if he has heard about atheism, know that there are other people who don't believe and so on? Absolutely.
But this does in no way negate the fact that some percentage of people never believe the story of religion in the first place, so they never leave atheism for religion. And I'm one of them. Incidentally, I only started reading books on atheism after I had clarified my position on the subject. I did not use the books to persuade me.
Now, I don't say that just to be picky. Answer coming later.
Yes, it does apply to everything. Just look at this forum, by being in here people see the passion and commitment other fans have to the cause and it deepens their feelings about Juve. And then they express their feelings and so it goes in circles.
Certainly. People specialize in "being influential" by picking certain careers. Politicians, lawyers, advertisers, missionaries, clerics perhaps.
I think this is an absurd statement. Like I said above, there is no possible world where everyone believes the same thing. Humans are not robots, they differ. Whenever it was that religion was first proposed, there were people who didn't fall for it. Didn't believe the prophets, didn't buy into it, for whatever reasons they had.
Atheists authors did not create atheism (of course this is a self contradiction, how could they have created something that they already were a part of?), but they can help spread atheism, which I think they are doing just now. To what level of success I have no idea.
But now, to answer the question you're driving at. Are atheists prone to crowd psychology and do they cause other people (who come into contact with them) to become atheists, not necessarily because those others have thought deeply about the issue but just because "there seems to be something to it".
The answer is: certainly.
However, I would argue that atheism is far less corrupt in this regard. Atheists don't have organizations, they don't have rituals, they don't have rules by which to live your life. In other words, atheism is not spread in any way similar to how religion is spread. When atheist couples have children they do not take them to an "atheist baptism", then to an "atheist first communion" and so on. And they do not call their kids "atheists". Weddings don't happen in the Temple of Atheism, there are not special atheist meals, it just doesn't have any kind of cultural content similar to that of religion.
So in that sense atheism is not trying to get into people conscience "the back door", that is by cultural means, rather the only way it can is through rationality. Incidentally, rationality is religion's weakest link, I have been exposed to Catholicism for 15 years and I have never been sold any kind of rational foundations for religion.
So, in conclusion. Is someone more likely to leave his faith if he has heard about atheism, know that there are other people who don't believe and so on? Absolutely.
But this does in no way negate the fact that some percentage of people never believe the story of religion in the first place, so they never leave atheism for religion. And I'm one of them. Incidentally, I only started reading books on atheism after I had clarified my position on the subject. I did not use the books to persuade me.
Fair enough. One more question, if you did not have any justification for your atheistic beliefs as you do now through books, media, and so on, do you think you would remain an atheist?
You say you are an atheist before being exposed to atheistic arguments, but here's my question. How can you believe in something you have no rational basis for? Sure, you may reject religion for a number of reasons, but what made you so sure that God does not exist prior to reading those books?
Don't you believe that your position of atheism is based a little more on your emotions of hatred for religion rather than a rational, logical perspective on the question of God's existence?
What do you mean remain? You always talk about religion as some sort of inevitability. Why wouldn't I remain? If I hadn't read any books and I hadn't gotten more interested in religion, then I would have just lived my life being an atheist. It's not like I have people coming to my house or kidnap me on the street to convert me to their religion.
At this point after all that we've been through I can only take it that you are deliberately trying to troll me by saying "no rational basis". I've given you my rational basis in spades.
But to answer your question, it went something like this (all ages approximate):
Age 1: Baptized.
Age 2: First time in church after I had developed speech and understanding of language.
Age 4: First conversations about religion with parents.
Age 7-8: Reading illustrated bible for kids.
Age 8: First Communion.
Age 8-14: "Sunday school" one afternoon after school per week with a priest. Very liberal content, mentions of historical rituals and heavy focus on the "mystical" aspects of theology. I quite liked these. Once played football on church premises with the priest.
Age 14: Confirmation.
Age 15: First serious reflections on the question of theology and god. Decided I could not remember ever actually believing god. At best I "could not be sure". Decided to stop going to church since the basis of that whole activity is faith. Other than the faith part, I had nothing against the church, except Mass always bored me. Official status: agnostic.
Age 21+: Started getting interested in religion again, but from a different perspective. "Discovered" atheism as an intellectual movement, not merely someone telling me they did not believe in god.
Age 25: Redefined agnostic to atheist, for all practical purposes. "Soft atheism" some people call this. Influence: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris.
Age 27: Given a reference to George Smith's book by aca, where I found a complete argument for atheism and a refutation of agnosticism. Redefined as "strict atheist".
So I was a late starter, a lot of kids I knew had decided this issue for themselves years before I had. But as with many people brought up in a religious tradition, I just went along with it because it seemed the "normal" thing to do.
Nope, but it's hardly unusual for people on opposite sides to suspect each other of ulterior motives. Frankly I would be more willing to admit that emotion comes into it, but that ultimately defeats my purpose, because I know your debating style is such as to jump on flaws and blow them out of proportion. If I saw that yes I do feel a certain emotional pull in this matter, although it is in no way the main thrust, you will turn around and claim that I'm being completely irrational and overcome by emotion, right?
I wish you wouldn't resort to such guerrilla tactics.
At this point after all that we've been through I can only take it that you are deliberately trying to troll me by saying "no rational basis". I've given you my rational basis in spades.
But to answer your question, it went something like this (all ages approximate):
Age 1: Baptized.
Age 2: First time in church after I had developed speech and understanding of language.
Age 4: First conversations about religion with parents.
Age 7-8: Reading illustrated bible for kids.
Age 8: First Communion.
Age 8-14: "Sunday school" one afternoon after school per week with a priest. Very liberal content, mentions of historical rituals and heavy focus on the "mystical" aspects of theology. I quite liked these. Once played football on church premises with the priest.
Age 14: Confirmation.
Age 15: First serious reflections on the question of theology and god. Decided I could not remember ever actually believing god. At best I "could not be sure". Decided to stop going to church since the basis of that whole activity is faith. Other than the faith part, I had nothing against the church, except Mass always bored me. Official status: agnostic.
Age 21+: Started getting interested in religion again, but from a different perspective. "Discovered" atheism as an intellectual movement, not merely someone telling me they did not believe in god.
Age 25: Redefined agnostic to atheist, for all practical purposes. "Soft atheism" some people call this. Influence: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris.
Age 27: Given a reference to George Smith's book by aca, where I found a complete argument for atheism and a refutation of agnosticism. Redefined as "strict atheist".
So I was a late starter, a lot of kids I knew had decided this issue for themselves years before I had. But as with many people brought up in a religious tradition, I just went along with it because it seemed the "normal" thing to do.
Nope, but it's hardly unusual for people on opposite sides to suspect each other of ulterior motives. Frankly I would be more willing to admit that emotion comes into it, but that ultimately defeats my purpose, because I know your debating style is such as to jump on flaws and blow them out of proportion. If I saw that yes I do feel a certain emotional pull in this matter, although it is in no way the main thrust, you will turn around and claim that I'm being completely irrational and overcome by emotion, right?
I wish you wouldn't resort to such guerrilla tactics.
So?
If sun was green you'd still ask why it isn't yellow.
Why would God do that? How would I know, I'm on the chessboard remember?
Lets just remember we aren't in the chessboard by a choice, I was Null before 1980, with God at least we know that one day one would be rewarded for the good things and penalized for the bad he done through his entire life.
I can't think of anything more logical to the chessboard... can you?
If sun was green you'd still ask why it isn't yellow.
Why would God do that? How would I know, I'm on the chessboard remember?
Lets just remember we aren't in the chessboard by a choice, I was Null before 1980, with God at least we know that one day one would be rewarded for the good things and penalized for the bad he done through his entire life.
I can't think of anything more logical to the chessboard... can you?
Indeed. The point is that there is no reason the sun has to be yellow. And there is no more reason you are alive, even if you apparently want a reason.
But you just said you don't like the idea that there is no reason for you to be alive. And now you say you don't know what the reason is. So what progress have you made?
But we are rewarded and punished already in life on a "livescore.com" instant basis, so we don't need any extra arbitration.
Nope.
But you just said you don't like the idea that there is no reason for you to be alive. And now you say you don't know what the reason is. So what progress have you made?
But we are rewarded and punished already in life on a "livescore.com" instant basis, so we don't need any extra arbitration.
Nope.
No reason to be alive isn't convincing... your sun example is completely irrelevant IMO.
You are mixing two different questions here.
Why did God create us? I don't know.
What is the point of our live? We are on the chessboard to behave according to ethics and principle, our good and bad acts won't go unnoticed. One would certainly rewarded and penalized.
There is no extra arbitration, "livescore.com" is part of the overall accounting system
Don't you think something as sophisticated as our lives in chessboard is worthy of an answer.
And please don't tell me "maybe but that doesn't justify creating God to have answers..." please give an answer regardless of the God debate.
You are mixing two different questions here.
Why did God create us? I don't know.
What is the point of our live? We are on the chessboard to behave according to ethics and principle, our good and bad acts won't go unnoticed. One would certainly rewarded and penalized.
There is no extra arbitration, "livescore.com" is part of the overall accounting system
Don't you think something as sophisticated as our lives in chessboard is worthy of an answer.
And please don't tell me "maybe but that doesn't justify creating God to have answers..." please give an answer regardless of the God debate.
lok ok. So if there is no reason to the color of the sun why would there be a reason for our lives? Either everything is the way it is for a reason, or nothing is. Isn't that logical?
Fine, but none of this has anything to do with god. All this exists in our natural world.
This question is based on lack of understanding. Tom tried to explain this earlier.
Why does the sun not ask why it is yellow? Because it has no consciousness.
Why do you ask why you're alive? Because you have consciousness and self awareness.
That is the only difference. Any organism that has these properties will sooner or later ask itself questions of meaning and purpose. But meaning and purpose originates in our minds. The only purpose we will ever have is that which we decide ourselves, or other people give us. There is no purpose coming to us from the universe anymore than the sun knows why it's yellow.
This is really not that hard to understand, I wish you would understand it.
Fine, but none of this has anything to do with god. All this exists in our natural world.
This question is based on lack of understanding. Tom tried to explain this earlier.
Why does the sun not ask why it is yellow? Because it has no consciousness.
Why do you ask why you're alive? Because you have consciousness and self awareness.
That is the only difference. Any organism that has these properties will sooner or later ask itself questions of meaning and purpose. But meaning and purpose originates in our minds. The only purpose we will ever have is that which we decide ourselves, or other people give us. There is no purpose coming to us from the universe anymore than the sun knows why it's yellow.
This is really not that hard to understand, I wish you would understand it.
