Zone1 Is Atheism Depressing?

[Meriweather]

What you do is switch it around. And not just that tried to argue that your claim doesn't need to be proven, (tested). Simply telling me I need to "seek him", and rejecting my assertion that you're claiming I simply need to assume it true.

The reason it is not being switched around is that first there must be something before you to measure. If someone were to say to me, "I don't understand density, so I don't believe in it," I would ask them to find eggs, water and salt. You want to question God, so likewise, find God and bring what you found to me. Any science experiment--even the easiest--requires work. If someone told me they couldn't be bothered to bring eggs and water to the table, that is a clear statement they could not care less about learning about density. Those who cannot bring God to the table could not care less about learning of or knowing God.

 

[Meriweather]

When I was in middle school, I had a great science teacher. His VERY first lesson was focused on one notion. Question everything. Throughout the year he routinely gave wrong information, to drill home the point the check your notes. He changed how I look at the world today by making me understand, that critical thinking requires healthy skepticism especially your own preconceptions. I don't think the science curriculum has changed to such an extent, that that's not part of it anymore?

(Bold added by me.) Bring me the "thing" you about which you have a question. At the very least, bring knowledge of what you wish to question. Your science teacher would have said the same thing. I know. I teach science. Science is a very hands on class.

 

[forkup]

I know how science works. It begins with what is measurable and observable of physical objects and phenomenon. Then it presents a testable hypothesis. From these tests theories are formed. What it does not begin with are questions such as, "Why do unicorns have horns?"

To have a question about God is to have some knowledge of God and or belief. As God is not a physical being, there is nothing physical to observe or measure.

ding presents valid arguments for a creator, using the formation of the universe as something physical, something measurable.

As God is not a physical being, there is nothing physical to observe or measure.

Also of course not true. You can measure the amount of people gaining benefits from being prayed for. You can observe that there's ten's of thousands of different religions and schism within religions. All making different God claims. At best only one can be actually true. You can observe that you can't find geological evidence of a global flood. You can calculate how animals would spread among the world if they started out from 2 specimens in one place. As I said you can throw out Genesis. Something that you claim is simply a work of literature. A view that would have gotten you burned at the stake in previous centuries by your fellow Christians. Etc. etc. You even make the same claim I'm making here.

@ding presents valid arguments for a creator, using the formation of the universe as something physical, something measurable.

You are getting stuck in your own logic here.

Let's just assume you mean, you can prove something by indirect means. As I just shown this is true. But does creation prove the existence of a creator? I don't think so. Since it assumes a form of intelligence behind the process. Not to mention, assuming that creation requires a creator means God has to have had a creator, and that creator has to have a creator, etc.etc. And since you are a science teacher I assume you know that there are other possibilities for creation being considered? Not only that, it makes the God idea so nebulous it becomes almost meaningless and the idea that this God somehow is a part of people's lives or even worse worthy of veneration totally unaddressed.

In any case, "I don't know" is in my view the only intellectually honest answer to explain creation.

 

[forkup]

The reason it is not being switched around is that first there must be something before you to measure. If someone were to say to me, "I don't understand density, so I don't believe in it," I would ask them to find eggs, water and salt. You want to question God, so likewise, find God and bring what you found to me. Any science experiment--even the easiest--requires work. If someone told me they couldn't be bothered to bring eggs and water to the table, that is a clear statement they could not care less about learning about density. Those who cannot bring God to the table could not care less about learning of or knowing God.

As I said in my previous posts. I gave you several things that you can measure about God claims. And I gave you a very easy test. One that you rejected by claiming that you can't test God. Why you can't? Because he's "immeasurable". So you rejected a test because I can't test him. Perfectly circular argument.

In your density experiment. What would you say to the student who rejected your experiment because you're not allowed to test the non-existence of density?

That would make it non-falsifiable now wouldn't it? And what's the value of a non-falsifiable hypothesis?





Just because you reject those things (in my view completely arbitrarily) that doesn't make them "immeasurable." It just means that you don't want to measure them that way.

 

[forkup]

(Bold added by me.) Bring me the "thing" you about which you have a question. At the very least, bring knowledge of what you wish to question. Your science teacher would have said the same thing. I know. I teach science. Science is a very hands on class.

I've posed the same question. Several times, in several ways. I'll do it again.
.
"Can you give a scientifically sound reason to believe in the God hypothesis in general and your own Christian God in particular?

 

[Meriweather]

Also of course not true. You can measure the amount of people gaining benefits from being prayed for. You can observe that there's ten's of thousands of different religions and schism within religions. All making different God claims. At best only one can be actually true. You can observe that you can't find geological evidence of a global flood. You can calculate how animals would spread among the world if they started out from 2 specimens in one place. As I said you can throw out Genesis. Something that you claim is simply a work of literature. A view that would have gotten you burned at the stake in previous centuries by your fellow Christians. Etc. etc. You even make the same claim I'm making here.

Won't work. Begin at the beginning with God cannot be tested. Second, one cannot control all variable with prayer for healing. One cannot measure sincerity or faith. Finally, healing is not always the option God chooses. Take Paul for example. He prayed that he might be healed of the "thorn in his side". Jesus said, No, that is power was already perfect in this weakness of Paul's.

 

[Meriweather]

"Can you give a scientifically sound reason to believe in the God hypothesis in general and your own Christian God in particular?

Asked and answered several times.

 

[forkup]

Won't work. Begin at the beginning with God cannot be tested. Second, one cannot control all variable with prayer for healing. One cannot measure sincerity or faith. Finally, healing is not always the option God chooses. Take Paul for example. He prayed that he might be healed of the "thorn in his side". Jesus said, No, that is power was already perfect in this weakness of Paul's.

It's interesting how you continuesly ignore things that you don't want to answer.

You keep on repeating that God can't be tested while I state quite simple objective tests.

The problem that arises from adhering to an organized religion is that those religions come with claims. Claims that can be tested.

There's a lot of claims in the book associated with your preferred religion. Claims that can be disproven by the science you say you teach.

I understand that whenever a claim in that book is invalidated by advances in science, you guys simply adjust your interpretation of that book. Pretending that the previous interpretation was allegorical instead of literal. To me that's simply an ad hoc argument, to avoid the more simple conclusion. "It's all bullshit."

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know how science works. It begins with what is measurable and observable of physical objects and phenomenon. Then it presents a testable hypothesis. From these tests theories are formed. What it does not begin with are questions such as, "Why do unicorns have horns?"

To have a question about God is to have some knowledge of God and or belief. As God is not a physical being, there is nothing physical to observe or measure.

ding presents valid arguments for a creator, using the formation of the universe as something physical, something measurable.

Thing is with God not being a physical being.

The claim is that God made the physical world. So God can interact with physical things in a manner that allows him to make these things.

That's not just spiritual. If it were then the universe was created and God just gets into people's heads and talks to them. That's not really what any Christian seems to believe.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Atheism and agnosticism are depressing.

I am NOT saying atheists are wrong because atheism is depressing.

I am only suggesting atheism is a bleak philosophy.

Some quotes:

“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” Bertrand Russell



“I know no study which is so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity, as it is set forth in the annals of history. Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than the other brutes, a blind prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to destruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle.” Thomas Huxley



“Humanity has in the course of time had to endure from the hands of science two great outrages upon its naive self-love. The first was when it realized that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable; this is associated in our minds with the name of Copernicus, although Alexandrian doctrines taught something very similar. The second was when biological research robbed man of his peculiar privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world, implying an ineradicable animal nature in him: this transvaluation has been accomplished in our own time upon the instigation of Charles Darwin, Wallace, and their predecessors, and not without the most violent opposition from their contemporaries. But man's craving for grandiosity is now suffering the third and most bitter blow from present-day psychological research which is endeavoring to prove to the ego of each one of us that he is not even master in his own house, but that he must remain content with the veriest scraps of information about what is going on unconsciously in his own mind. We psycho-analysts were neither the first nor the only ones to propose to mankind that they should look inward; but it appears to be our lot to advocate it most insistently and to support it by empirical evidence which touches every man closely.” Sigmund Freud

Atheism and agnosticism, or agnostic-atheism, can also be liberating and empowering. If the only option to being an atheist or agnostic is believing a religious lie, that undermines one's integrity and perception of reality, then refraining from blind, emotionally charged, and fear-based beliefs, will only liberate you, strengthening your resolve and effort to improve yourself. You'll become more mature and genuine, than someone who believes in religious dogma to escape from reality.

I'm an agnostic but I lean towards pantheism, or the belief that reality itself is God. God isn't an individual person, but the totality of reality. I find solace, peace, and fulfillment by committing myself to causes that serve the public good and make the world a better place. That's cliche and hoaky, I know, but nonetheless, that's how I imbue my life with value and purpose, it's by dedicating and focusing this life to that which is good and resisting that which is destructive and evil. I don't need a personal, religious deity, to be a moral, thoughtful person. I'm not depressed at all, I just consume and savor whatever I have left of my life.

My favorite dish is fettuccini carbonara:

When I eat it, I enjoy it, irrespective of the fact that I know that once I finish eating, my plate will be empty. The fettuccini is temporal, perishable, it's "mortal", it exists and then it's in my stomach being digested, no longer on my plate to be consumed and enjoyed. This life might very well, be the only life we have, however, don't let that depress you, just enjoy it. consume it to the fullest. Life is precious, even if it's perishable and has its end. Make the most of it and when death comes for you, you will smile in its face, content and fearless, without any regrets.

 

[Thunderbird]

Atheism and agnosticism, or agnostic-atheism, can also be liberating and empowering. If the only option to being an atheist or agnostic is believing a religious lie, that undermines one's integrity and perception of reality, then refraining from blind, emotionally charged, and fear-based beliefs, will only liberate you, strengthening your resolve and effort to improve yourself. You'll become more mature and genuine, than someone who believes in religious dogma to escape from reality.

I'm an agnostic but I lean towards pantheism, or the belief that reality itself is God. God isn't an individual person, but the totality of reality. I find solace, peace, and fulfillment by committing myself to causes that serve the public good and make the world a better place. That's cliche and hoaky, I know, but nonetheless, that's how I imbue my life with value and purpose, it's by dedicating and focusing this life to that which is good and resisting that which is destructive and evil. I don't need a personal, religious deity, to be a moral, thoughtful person. I'm not depressed at all, I just consume and savor whatever I have left of my life.

My favorite dish is fettuccini carbonara:

View attachment 974114​

When I eat it, I enjoy it, irrespective of the fact that I know that once I finish eating, my plate will be empty. The fettuccini is temporal, perishable, it's "mortal", it exists and then it's in my stomach being digested, no longer on my plate to be consumed and enjoyed. This life might very well, be the only life we have, however, don't let that depress you, just enjoy it. consume it to the fullest. Life is precious, even if it's perishable and has its end. Make the most of it and when death comes for you, you will smile in its face, content and fearless, without any regrets.

I continue to be impressed by atheist self-regard. Atheists so often self-report as uniquely rational, mature, fearless, noble, fulfilled, and very very very happy and not at all solipsistic, miserable, and terrified.

Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think

‘I don’t believe in God, I believe in science,’ atheists often argue. But that doesn’t mean their thinking is evidence-based.

theconversation.com

Practicing Christians give more to charity than non-Christians: study

Practicing Christians are far more likely to give to charity than non-Christians, according to a newly released study as part of the American Bible Society s State of the Bible USA 2023 report

www.christianpost.com

First you tell us that theism is irrational. Then you say you lean toward a form of theism.

Maybe losing a loved one under tragic circumstances is more unsettling than finishing a plate of fettuccini carbonara.

 

[Crick]

Atheism and agnosticism are depressing.

I am NOT saying atheists are wrong because atheism is depressing.

I am only suggesting atheism is a bleak philosophy.

Some quotes:

“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” Bertrand Russell



“I know no study which is so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity, as it is set forth in the annals of history. Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than the other brutes, a blind prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to destruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle.” Thomas Huxley



“Humanity has in the course of time had to endure from the hands of science two great outrages upon its naive self-love. The first was when it realized that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable; this is associated in our minds with the name of Copernicus, although Alexandrian doctrines taught something very similar. The second was when biological research robbed man of his peculiar privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world, implying an ineradicable animal nature in him: this transvaluation has been accomplished in our own time upon the instigation of Charles Darwin, Wallace, and their predecessors, and not without the most violent opposition from their contemporaries. But man's craving for grandiosity is now suffering the third and most bitter blow from present-day psychological research which is endeavoring to prove to the ego of each one of us that he is not even master in his own house, but that he must remain content with the veriest scraps of information about what is going on unconsciously in his own mind. We psycho-analysts were neither the first nor the only ones to propose to mankind that they should look inward; but it appears to be our lot to advocate it most insistently and to support it by empirical evidence which touches every man closely.” Sigmund Freud

No.
For one thing, I don't have the fear of eternal damnation hanging over my head or the jealousy of those who do for those who do not.

 

[Meriweather]

It's interesting how you continuesly ignore things that you don't want to answer.

You keep on repeating that God can't be tested while I state quite simple objective tests.

The problem that arises from adhering to an organized religion is that those religions come with claims. Claims that can be tested.

There's a lot of claims in the book associated with your preferred religion. Claims that can be disproven by the science you say you teach.

I understand that whenever a claim in that book is invalidated by advances in science, you guys simply adjust your interpretation of that book. Pretending that the previous interpretation was allegorical instead of literal. To me that's simply an ad hoc argument, to avoid the more simple conclusion.

Let's try these analogies: If one cannot sew a quilt with a hammer and a wrench, then it is not possible for a quilt to exist. Or, if one cannot build a livable mansion that lasts through the ages with a needle and thread, there can be no mansion. Likewise, when I testify that God is not found through setting up through the usual science experience, one should not conclude God does not exist--only that he is not found through the usual tests we use for measuring physical objects/phenomenon.

You are handing me a hammer and a wrench and claiming that as I cannot provide you with a quilt using these tools, then I don't know anything about quilting.

God can be found...but distracting oneself with science test is not the way to go about it, just as picking up a needle and thread to build a house is not the way to go about constructing that dream home.

 

[Meriweather]

Thing is with God not being a physical being.

The claim is that God made the physical world. So God can interact with physical things in a manner that allows him to make these things.

That's not just spiritual. If it were then the universe was created and God just gets into people's heads and talks to them. That's not really what any Christian seems to believe.

Correct. The part that is missing is that people are not just made up of heads (physical bodies). Christians believe that humans are made up of both body and spirit/soul. Ronan Keating wrote the song When You Say Nothing at All. Its opening verse:

… It's amazing how you can speak right to my heart
… Without saying a word, you can light up the dark
… Try as I may, I can never explain
What I hear when you don't say a thing

Just as love can work as Keating describes in the above verse, God communicates with us heart-to-heart, spirit to spirit.

 

[Thunderbird]

the metaphysical forces of the universe -

View attachment 973211

as sadly our neck of the woods is anything but a beautiful universe - beyond our own atmosphere.

Is that the moon?

You don’t think the moon is beautiful?

 

[Thunderbird]

It's called the unified field theory.

Have they come up with a grand unified field theory?

The question remains: why should there be beautiful equations which govern an orderly universe?

 

[TruthNotBS]

I continue to be impressed by atheist self-regard. Atheists so often self-report as uniquely rational, mature, fearless, noble, fulfilled, and very very very happy and not at all solipsistic, miserable, and terrified.

Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think

‘I don’t believe in God, I believe in science,’ atheists often argue. But that doesn’t mean their thinking is evidence-based.

theconversation.com

Practicing Christians give more to charity than non-Christians: study

Practicing Christians are far more likely to give to charity than non-Christians, according to a newly released study as part of the American Bible Society s State of the Bible USA 2023 report

www.christianpost.com

First you tell us that theism is irrational. Then you say you lean toward a form of theism.

Maybe losing a loved one under tragic circumstances is more unsettling than finishing a plate of fettuccini carbonara.

I continue to be impressed by atheist self-regard. Atheists so often self-report as uniquely rational, mature, fearless, noble, fulfilled, and very very very happy and not at all solipsistic, miserable, and terrified.

After departing from my Christian faith, I was indeed miserable, and terrified. But one eventually comes to terms with the situation and begins to see life as an amazing gift and opportunity. There are a lot more possibilities and life is much richer and interesting than it was before, when I had to mindlessly suspend my disbelief, under threat of being tortured in hell forever, by a heavenly tyrant that claims to love me. I freed myself from all of those contradictions.

Unlike when I was a fundamentalist Christian, I now question everything, and I've become much better informed and educated on how the world actually works. I'm not a know it all and I don't assume that there's no God or life after death, I just don't have enough evidence yet to believe in a personal God or life beyond the grave.

I focus on the life that I actually have, not one that I might have in the future in "another dimension". My responsibilities, priorities and obligations are here hence I'm going to make the most out of this life.

 

[Thunderbird]

No.
For one thing, I don't have the fear of eternal damnation hanging over my head or the jealousy of those who do for those who do not.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

C. S. Lewis wrote: “the doors of hell are locked on the inside".

Have you heard of Christian Universalism? That’s the belief that all Christians are eventually reconciled with God.

 

[Thunderbird]

After departing from my Christian faith, I was indeed miserable, and terrified. But one eventually comes to terms with the situation and begins to see life as an amazing gift and opportunity. There are a lot more possibilities and life is much richer and interesting than it was before, when I had to mindlessly suspend my disbelief, under threat of being tortured in hell forever, by a heavenly tyrant that claims to love me. I freed myself from all of those contradictions.

Unlike when I was a fundamentalist Christian, I now question everything, and I've become much better informed and educated on how the world actually works. I'm not a know it and I don't assume that there's no God or life after death, I just don't have enough evidence yet to believe in a personal God or life beyond the grave.

I focus on the life that I actually have, not one that I might have in the future in "another dimension". My responsibilities, priorities and obligations are here hence I'm going to make the most out of this life.

So you acknowledge that atheism made you miserable and terrified, at least for a while.

Why would a universe without design or meaning, a chaotic and dreary mess of a universe, be “amazing” or “rich”?

Wow you must be so informed and educated now!

Loving your neighbor in this life is a central aspect of Christianity. Many Christians are active in charity work.

Some atheists are so disgusted and terrified by the world they avoid it at all costs. Not you of course. You are too wonderful.

 

[Thunderbird]

Here’s Nietzsche, the most profound atheist:

King Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the wise Silenus.... When Silenus at last fell into his hands, the king asked what was the best and most desirable of all things for man. Fixed and immovable, the demigod said not a word, till at last, urged by the king, he gave a shrill laugh and broke out into these words: "Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of chance and misery, why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is—to die soon."