Has atheism been proved?

[ERCougar]

I'm not going as far as Chadillac, but I won't say his questions are entirely unfounded either. If you truly believe that we are nothing more than random accidents, then your only rational purpose is to get yours while you're alive to get it. Yet, few "atheists" will espouse that kind of ethic, at least openly. So what other meaning to your life are you adopting? I can't think of a single one that doesn't imply some sort of larger meaning to human existence, and to me, that's a "God", albeit not the white-bearded kind that childish versions of religion worship.

I think atheists and religionists are more alike than they are different, if you really get down to the base of their beliefs.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Look, Dude, when you sign up for a church that declares that its message will roll forth 'boldly,' to every corner of the planet, you are just going to have to accept that some people will assume you aren't 'doing it right' when, as a grown man, you withhold information (on a mostly anonymous internet discussion forum) that could inspire others to see the world from your vantage, because you are afraid that someone (mostly anonymous) might make fun of you.

What you call 'religious sensitivity' looks indistinguishable from 'religious timidity,' or every-day-cowardice.

At least that is the way it looks from here.

Bully for you.

Let's bookmark this post and revisit next time you are wondering why people mention you as one of the primary reasons many of our more religious posters don't participate in CUF anymore or have substantially cut back on participation (yes, I get those PMs quite frequently). Kind of ironic coming from a guy who went apeshit when someone said that a Hollywood actor looks like a horse. Your sensibilities are remarkably selective.

[Danimal]

I'm not going as far as Chadillac, but I won't say his questions are entirely unfounded either. If you truly believe that we are nothing more than random accidents, then your only rational purpose is to get yours while you're alive to get it. Yet, few "atheists" will espouse that kind of ethic, at least openly. So what other meaning to your life are you adopting? I can't think of a single one that doesn't imply some sort of larger meaning to human existence, and to me, that's a "God", albeit not the white-bearded kind that childish versions of religion worship.

I think atheists and religionists are more alike than they are different, if you really get down to the base of their beliefs.

I don't know why an atheist can't have a life, guided by values and beliefs, that are independent of God existing. Values by themselves aren't dependent on the existence of anything.

[RobinFinderson]

Bully for you.

Let's bookmark this post and revisit next time you are wondering why people mention you as one of the primary reasons many of our more religious posters don't participate in CUF anymore or have substantially cut back on participation (yes, I get those PMs quite frequently). Kind of ironic coming from a guy who went apeshit when someone said that a Hollywood actor looks like a horse. Your sensibilities are remarkably selective.

I had always wondered if I was one of the people 'attacking' folks. I stand by my record -- I am pretty sure that I have NEVER said anything that could be interpreted as mocking people's spiritual experiences. And to the contrary, I have encouraged people to share their own spiritual experiences, and have tried to lead the way by sharing my own 'spiritual' experiences (even though I wouldn't characterize them that way). You can bookmark this post all you like, but be sure to also link to my story about a 'miracle baptism,' or the story of my son receiving a gift banjo from our visiting teacher. Be fair.

The only thing I have 'mocked' (and I wouldn't characterize it that way) is 'religious sensitivity,' (whatever that is... until you used the term, I don't think I have ever heard it used that way), and the only reason I 'mock' is because the timidity I see stands in such stark contrast to the stated mission of the church.

You are basically saying that people are reluctant to post here, and they mention me by name, because I make fun of their reluctance to post here. It is like a snake swallowing itself by the tail. But I don't make fun of people's spiritual experiences, and I never have.

[ERCougar]

I don't know why an atheist can't have a life, guided by values and beliefs, that are independent of God existing. Values by themselves aren't dependent on the existence of anything.

He/she obviously can, but not rationally. I'm open to convincing, but once you insert any sort of value or ethic besides self-serving, you insert some meaning to your existence. For that "meaning" to have any weight beyond some self-created fantasy (sounds sort of like what atheists call religion, no?), you can't be an accident.

EDIT: I'm actually curious less in the argument here than to walk down this path with someone. So avowed atheists, insert your chosen ethic and explain how it can be a rational one while still maintaining an accidental meaningless existence. I can't figure out a way. I certainly have plenty of atheistic moments, but as soon as I start doing anything that isn't immediately self-interested, I find that I'm only trading in one set of beliefs for another.

[Jacob]

He/she obviously can, but not rationally. I'm open to convincing, but once you insert any sort of value or ethic besides self-serving, you insert some meaning to your existence. For that "meaning" to have any weight beyond some self-created fantasy (sounds sort of like what atheists call religion, no?), you can't be an accident.

EDIT: I'm actually curious less in the argument here than to walk down this path with someone. So avowed atheists, insert your chosen ethic and explain how it can be a rational one while still maintaining an accidental meaningless existence. I can't figure out a way. I certainly have plenty of atheistic moments, but as soon as I start doing anything that isn't immediately self-interested, I find that I'm only trading in one set of beliefs for another.

This is interesting. You are accusing atheists of being irrational while maintaining implicitly that your religious belief is rational.

[Indy Coug]

This is interesting. You are accusing atheists of being irrational while maintaining implicitly that your religious belief is rational.

Regardless of your religious persuasion, I'm accusing you of poor reading comprehension.

[Non Sequitur]

He/she obviously can, but not rationally. I'm open to convincing, but once you insert any sort of value or ethic besides self-serving, you insert some meaning to your existence. For that "meaning" to have any weight beyond some self-created fantasy (sounds sort of like what atheists call religion, no?), you can't be an accident.

I'm struggling to understand where God fits into your equation? How does God give any more meaning to one's actions than just following an ethic that gives one satisfaction?

[Joe Public]

He/she obviously can, but not rationally. I'm open to convincing, but once you insert any sort of value or ethic besides self-serving, you insert some meaning to your existence. For that "meaning" to have any weight beyond some self-created fantasy (sounds sort of like what atheists call religion, no?), you can't be an accident.

Isn't it self-serving, then, to be a good parent (uphold good name, ensure furtherance of genetic line, etc.), to respect the elderly (propagating a cultural norm that will benefit oneself in one's later years), or to be an honest, hard worker (increasing the chances of job retention, promotion, wage increases, etc.)? For that matter, isn't it self-serving to follow religious rules with the end goal of receiving a glorious hereafter with loved ones? It is in a sense, but that's such a broad definition that it becomes all-encompassing and useless.

I think it's rational for a person to act according to the worldview the person holds. If that worldview is to live the teachings of the LDS church to have eternal life with God and loved ones, then living like that is rational. If that worldview is that self, family, and community benefit from abiding by certain rules, even if those rules are not held to be from a god, then it is still rational for that person to abide by those rules.

You said that athiests and religionists are more alike than different, but I think the source of the rules is a significant difference.

[ERCougar]

This is interesting. You are accusing atheists of being irrational while maintaining implicitly that your religious belief is rational.

No, not really.

I'm struggling to understand where God fits into your equation? How does God give any more meaning to one's actions than just following an ethic that gives one satisfaction?

The definition of God is certainly hazy here, but I'd argue it's pretty hazy to any thinking person that belongs to a religion as well. I guess I'd say that in this scenario, God is the force behind the "meaning" or the "ethic"--it's the force that gives order to the "accident" of life. See below for my thoughts on self-serving ethics.

Isn't it self-serving, then, to be a good parent (uphold good name, ensure furtherance of genetic line, etc.), to respect the elderly (propagating a cultural norm that will benefit oneself in one's later years), or to be an honest, hard worker (increasing the chances of job retention, promotion, wage increases, etc.)? For that matter, isn't it self-serving to follow religious rules with the end goal of receiving a glorious hereafter with loved ones? It is in a sense, but that's such a broad definition that it becomes all-encompassing and useless.

I think it's rational for a person to act according to the worldview the person holds. If that worldview is to live the teachings of the LDS church to have eternal life with God and loved ones, then living like that is rational. If that worldview is that self, family, and community benefit from abiding by certain rules, even if those rules are not held to be from a god, then it is still rational for that person to abide by those rules.

You said that athiests and religionists are more alike than different, but I think the source of the rules is a significant difference.

Your point on the source of rules is a good one.

As for the other two paragraphs...
I've thought some more since my post and I'll shift the argument a little bit. Yes, it's rational to follow an ethic that brings one satisfaction, and that ethic doesn't necessarily follow from some overarching meaning to life in general. But if that ethic always brings satisfaction, is it really an ethic? Or just a more elaborate way of getting yours? Specifically, is there an atheistic ethic that would ever ask you to give your life up for something, i.e. your country, your community, your family, anything outside yourself?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I had always wondered if I was one of the people 'attacking' folks. I stand by my record -- I am pretty sure that I have NEVER said anything that could be interpreted as mocking people's spiritual experiences. And to the contrary, I have encouraged people to share their own spiritual experiences, and have tried to lead the way by sharing my own 'spiritual' experiences (even though I wouldn't characterize them that way). You can bookmark this post all you like, but be sure to also link to my story about a 'miracle baptism,' or the story of my son receiving a gift banjo from our visiting teacher. Be fair.

Or how about the time when someone was fishing for ideas on a sacrament talk on prayer and several suggestions were given and you went on for several pages mocking the concept of miracles and arguing that the whole concept of God answering some prayers and not others was offensive to you? That's one of several that immediately come to mind.

The only thing I have 'mocked' (and I wouldn't characterize it that way) is 'religious sensitivity,' (whatever that is... until you used the term, I don't think I have ever heard it used that way), and the only reason I 'mock' is because the timidity I see stands in such stark contrast to the stated mission of the church.

You don't see how repeatedly mocking people's reluctance to share what they consider to be sacred would be offensive or intimidating to some people? Seriously?

You are basically saying that people are reluctant to post here, and they mention me by name, because I make fun of their reluctance to post here. It is like a snake swallowing itself by the tail. But I don't make fun of people's spiritual experiences, and I never have.

Yes you have.

Listen, you go ahead and knock yourself out and mock away as I don't really have energy or interest to debate this further. I apologize to everyone for the hijack to an otherwise interesting discussion.

[Joe Public]

Your point on the source of rules is a good one.

As for the other two paragraphs...
I've thought some more since my post and I'll shift the argument a little bit. Yes, it's rational to follow an ethic that brings one satisfaction, and that ethic doesn't necessarily follow from some overarching meaning to life in general. But if that ethic always brings satisfaction, is it really an ethic? Or just a more elaborate way of getting yours? Specifically, is there an atheistic ethic that would ever ask you to give your life up for something, i.e. your country, your community, your family, anything outside yourself?

This seems to imply that sacrifice for the benefit of a larger group cannot be satisfying. Is it not masochism otherwise? Perhaps I misunderstand.

[CardiacCoug]

He/she obviously can, but not rationally. I'm open to convincing, but once you insert any sort of value or ethic besides self-serving, you insert some meaning to your existence. For that "meaning" to have any weight beyond some self-created fantasy (sounds sort of like what atheists call religion, no?), you can't be an accident.

EDIT: I'm actually curious less in the argument here than to walk down this path with someone. So avowed atheists, insert your chosen ethic and explain how it can be a rational one while still maintaining an accidental meaningless existence. I can't figure out a way. I certainly have plenty of atheistic moments, but as soon as I start doing anything that isn't immediately self-interested, I find that I'm only trading in one set of beliefs for another.

Here's the way I see it: Life is ultimately all about pursuit of self-interest, but a large component of that self-interest is the feeling/knowledge that you are helping other people, making the world a better place, treating others fairly, etc. I think that is true for almost everybody.

"Herd instinct" is tremendously powerful in humans -- the desire to help family members and others with whom we come into contact is really high for most people regardless of whether they ultimately believe that life has any "meaning" in a religious sense.

[Indy Coug]

So what is the "added value" of atheism?

[ERCougar]

This seems to imply that sacrifice for the benefit of a larger group cannot be satisfying. Is it not masochism otherwise? Perhaps I misunderstand.

By sacrifice, do you mean giving one's life, or just giving of one's goods? The latter, I can understand as being a rational decision outside of any overarching meaning to life; the former, I can't.