I'm an atheist simply because (1) I was never socialized into religion, and (2) by the time I learned about religious views in any depth, they struck me as completely absurd, and they've never stopped seeming so to me.

For example like Fresco - if people really join God after death, then you should be happy that they died! — Agustino

That makes me think of this:

I am agnostic, what type of atheist are you?

I am agnostic, what type of atheist are you? — Cavacava

I am not an atheist.

So then what kind of belief do you hold, is it the perfect being god, a personal god. or? and why?

I didn't realize absurdism and pragmatism were mutually exclusive...

But what's a new atheist and how would I know if I am one?

Are you a douche, obsessed with making fun of the Christian Old Testament, do you think Richard Dawkins represents the real presence of Christ, do you enjoy being a dick toward people who are religious, do you think that your disbelief in God makes you better, smarter, cooler? If you check boxed any of these, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot O:)

So then what kind of belief do you hold, is it the perfect being god, a personal god. or? and why? — Cavacava

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Christian God - and not the God of the philosophers.

and why? — Cavacava

Because that's the conception of God that makes most sense of the world and that puts the human being in their right place - both exalted as the image of God - and as a finite creature who owes its existence to God (think of the story of Job).

Are you a douche?... Well that depends on whose genitals I'm meant to wash!

Obsessed with making fun of the Christian Old Testament?... I wouldn't say obsessed, but I do tend to enjoy myself when the OT gets pitted against me...

Do you think Richard Dawkins represents the real presence of Christ? More like the presence of posh Britain, but am I allowed to agree with any of his ideas and not be an idiot?

Do you enjoy being a dick toward people who are religious? No, but what if I was an equal opportunity dick instead of just to religious people?

Do you think that your disbelief in God makes you better, smarter, cooler? Well "cooler" is subjective, "better" is undefined (better at what?), and as far as "smarter" goes, belief or lack of belief doesn't make you stupid or smart either way, although I would hazard a guess that extremity in ideological beliefs of any kind correlate with stupidity.

Are you a douche, obsessed with making fun of the Christian Old Testament, do you think Richard Dawkins represents the real presence of Christ, do you enjoy being a dick toward people who are religious, do you think that your disbelief in God makes you better, smarter, cooler? If you check boxed any of these, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot O:) — Heister Eggcart

>:O >:O >:O

A pity 180 Proof isn't here, he'd be great batting for the Absurdists :P . Feel free to discuss any of the ideas present in this OP. — Agustino

Speaking of which, where is 180 Proof anyway?

I think I can represent an absurdist agnosticism - the uncertainty of God's existence adds an additional absurdity into the equation. It is a recognition of the unlikelihood of God's existence but also that the answer to this is outside the boundaries of human understanding.

I'm an atheist for the same reasons as Terrapin. I like some religious people, but doubt they understand atheism well enough to classify sub-divisions of it meaningfully. I accept certain sorts of experience as religious experience.

Where would you place Schopenhauer?

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Christian God - and not the God of the philosophers. — Agustino

This sounds like a false distinction to me, depending on how you define these terms.

if people really join God after death, then you should be happy that they died! — Agustino

Eh, not so fast. It all depends on the spiritual state of the person who dies. If someone dies after living righteously before God then you ought to be happy for them indeed. The scripture below describes the inconceivable joy that awaits such a person.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - 1 Cor. 2:9

But if someone dies without earnestly repenting of their sins then you ought to mourn for them; for they are unprepared for God's judgment. The two scriptures below vividly describe the dreadful state of such a person.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. - Mos. 2:38

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell. For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. - Morm. 9:4-5

Clearly, not everybody is going to be better off in the afterlife.

Hume, Camus, Dawkins, and Hitchens (to name those I know more about) have all made good points on this topic, and my thinking on the topic is a combination of elements from each of the aforementioned that I happen to agree with. What I find "dumb" is the dismissal and refusal to even discuss or seriously include the latter two on account of being "New Atheists".

Edit: also worth a mention are Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, the latter of whom influenced Camus.

Clearly, not everybody is going to be better off in the afterlife. — lambda

It's not clear, though. The Catholic Church, for example, hasn't definitively declared that anyone is in hell and one is allowed, even encouraged, to pray that all may be saved.

The universe is balanced perfectly or at least pretty good until our sun explodes. Is life on earth a coincidence or we are the luckiest creatures around? I believe we are lucky – overwhelmingly. There is just too much coincidence, balance and fortuitousness everywhere – too much good luck – not to believe in a divine hand. And I think we are lucky God does not require us to believe in it - or not. In fact, God does not seem to care if we believe in it. Although - religions do a very good job of cajoling us about God’s – existence – dictates and admonishments. God does not seem insecure – humans are insecure. From my point of view, God sets a life equation in motion and says – “see what you can do with this environment and tools”. I feel the equation of God, but I am not overwhelmed with spiritual awareness. God does not pressure me to be aware of “it’s” equation, and, I think this is part of its equation.

I have morals and ethics, but they come from my Mother and Father and society – not God. In my view God’s existence is subtle. The morals and ethics of God are beyond my understanding. God does not prescribe what is right and wrong on this planet. Consider for a moment what happens when a huge star goes supernova. A galaxy can be destroyed. How many times has a supernova happened - millions – trillions? Don’t you think there is intelligent life in those galaxies? I bet there is life and it probably is much more advanced than ours. And yet God allowed or caused that life to be extinguished. I think we are one of ten billion experiments by God – probably more. What is the reasoning – I don’t presume to know – do you – does anybody? I can speculate, but I think only God knows.

What I do think it signifies is that we are not exceedingly significant or important in God’s eyes. As we speak a lot of the universe is exploding. I think we are expendable. God has bigger fish to fry. Should we feel insignificant and insecure? I don’t think there is an alternative. However, we are not insignificant either - we have been provided for – a great planet, atmosphere and most importantly the tools of consciousness in a wonderful body. These are gifts - not accidents.

I do not think it is in the providence of humans to define God. I do not believe God has spoken to us directly. I think all bibles are man-made. I do believe God speaks to us indirectly – subtly. It sets a stage – in which we are allowed to evolve. I think we are required to define our own purpose. I do not think God is concerned with the human concepts and conditions of good and evil. What is good or evil to God is beyond our understanding. I do not know how we got here or what happens after we die. The reward of life is here now. We have been given a wonderful environment and great tools – this is what I call the equation of God. The stage has been set – each character has been cast – and we are performing – seeking our destiny. I think most of our existence is determined, but through the gift of emotion we are given a degree of freedom.

180 Proof was here briefly (they're still in the members list), sometime ago, only made a few comments though. I think it was before PF collapsed. Perhaps we were just not interesting enough at the time (or even now). We did/do have less variety than PF did.

Yeah, I recall seeing Proof here a long while but only briefly. Shame, I would have wanted to discuss some things with him.

Ah, but you forgot my favourite 'type' of atheism - serene atheism, in which the problem of God simply... isn't one; in which the only proper orientation to God is sheer indifference, where God's 'existence' or 'non-existence' are not even problems, beneath consideration, a triviality: "A tranquil atheism is a philosophy for which God is not a problem. The non-existence or even the death of God are not problems but rather the conditions one must have already acquired in order to make the true problems surge forth" (Deleuze, Dialogues). Put otherwise: the very idea of a God is a grammatical mistake - it doesn't qualify as a coherent object of serious reflection - either positive or negative.

It will be interesting to see if it still works in foxholes.

I am flat out on a project at this point, so will only be able to make the odd scattered contribution. However one backgrounder I think is really useful and sober analysis by Thomas Nagel, Secular Philosophy and the Religous Temperament. Among many reasons why Nagel's contributions are valuable, is that he himself professes atheism but nevertheless seems obliged to admit the force of what might be called 'philosophical theism'. Also his comments on the 'serene atheism' of David Hume and many analytical philosophers are on the mark in my view. More later, duty calls.

I wonder WHY - all of us, sharing the exact same experience - there are so many different denominations when it comes to religious belief.

Are atheists being too damned materialistic? Have theists abjectly surrendered to wishful thinking? Are agnostics blind to the evidence or lack thereof? What is going on?

To speak for myself, I'm an agnostic. I don't think there's any hard evidence to warrant a firm belief in god BUT there's ample room in our knowledge framework for spirituality, a non-materialstic POV of some sort.

I would probably label myself agnostic, though I may start saying I am an atheist to people I know are religious because I have found, personally, that they tend to read "I am unsure about whether a god exists" to mean "I am unsure about whether your particular branch of whatever religion you hold is true."

Many of the new atheists are annoying, though I think that this is a case of "the minority tends to be more vocal than the majority," such that many atheists simply are not vocal about their viewpoints unless asked about them or otherwise provoked.

There seems to be a growing trend of atheists gone agnostic. Are they realising the whole superiority complex that leads to digressions in virtually every discussion is preventing them from actually thinking?

One told me he identifies as atheist despite being agnostic because it was 'more convenient' with his anti-religion approach to life.

That and the clichés are getting as overused as their unsubstantiated, oft-repeated, charges of logical fallacies with whosoever they discuss 'God' with.

I'm an atheist for the same reasons as Terrapin. I like some religious people, but doubt they understand atheism well enough to classify sub-divisions of it meaningfully. I accept certain sorts of experience as religious experience. — mcdoodle

A befitting #666 post.

Where would you place Schopenhauer? — Thorongil

Schopenhauer did not adhere to any religion, but he was a religious man nonetheless. He affirmed the existence of the transcendent through his philosophy.

180 Proof was here briefly (they're still in the members list), sometime ago, only made a few comments though. I think it was before PF collapsed. Perhaps we were just not interesting enough at the time (or even now). We did/do have less variety than PF did. — TheWillowOfDarkness

180 had stopped posting, except very rarely, at old PF too. 180 did not like the format of the forums here.

Speaking of which, where is 180 Proof anyway? — darthbarracuda

He's become 360 Proof- the Human Panopticon, and...He's Watchin' you...
>:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O >:O :-O
Holy Shiiiit!

Hahaha, he's moved to another level. But let's be real -


Are you on that level?! >:O

Sorry, Agustino, I don't understand the question (presuming for the moment that it was intended to be a serious question).

When you type in Google "philosophy forums" one of the suggested results is "philosophy forums 180 proof" - why do you think that is? Because many people have been searching for 180 proof when they're searching for philosophy forums. Why have they? Because 180 Proof was saying some unique shit that was sellin' like water in the dessert dawg :P

It seems the point of contention is over the narrative that explains man's desire for the transcendent. Whether this occurs due to the real existence of a transcendent realm, or merely as a way to counteract and somehow blind man from what his reason has revealed in order to enable survival. — Agustino

That's a question which can never be answered. Which puts us in the position of having to take the "salto mortale".

There are a few possible narratives here. There are some religious who believe only for the sake of self-calming There are atheists who disbelieve only for the sake of self-calming. One thing, though, is that atheism requires no great commitment (unless you really suspect that you might burn in hell on account of it). To be truly religious requires great commitment; the willingness to forgo everything that humans value in this life.

If you can believe, and believing enhances your life; then what possible reason could you have for not believing, since you can never know the truth one way or the other? Actually it might be possible to know the truth one way (the religious way) if Gnosis is real; but one would need to experience it to know.

Even if you could know (per impossibile) that religion is false, and yet you were nonetheless able (per impossibile) to believe that it is true, and to do so would greatly enhance your joy of living, would it then be wrong somehow to believe?