Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[Ravenstar]

 

To agree with and bolster Orbit's point, I was heavily indoctrinated into the heaven-hell myth and they now carry no more emotional weight for me. I actually stopped believing in hell on my own prior to becoming an atheist. It simply isn't logically possible that an all loving god would send any one to such a place, especially for the crime of simply being honestly skeptical about something. If there is a non-all loving god who would send some to hell, then there is nothing I can do about it. I can't just choose to believe something, so sending me to hell would be a conviction based on judging me for something I can't control. Therefore, the probability of me being sent to hell is out of my control. Therefore, it's not worth worrying or caring about.

I guess this is another splitting of hairs, but IMO it is not actually possible to be apathetic about something that theoretically should matter greatly. I can be apathetic about chocolate vs vanilla, but I can't be apathetic about heaven vs hell. However, I can think that the probability that I or anybody I care about will go to hell is incredibly small and therefore I don't worry about hell.

 

So the argument I was trying to make is that apatheism is actual beliefs - not simply apathy.

 

I need to go back and reread everybody's posts. I know there are some important points that I am not understanding such as Florduh's distinction between saying "no thank you" to chocolate chip cookies vs "no thank you" to invisible unicorn cookies.

 

I don't want to be arguing when I should be agreeing.

 

I think this is the problem. You believe that heaven and hell are should theoretically matter greatly… and in a strictly philosophical context maybe that's right, but here is the crux, I have concluded that heaven and hell are figments of the imagination, myths, and I relegate them to the same place as Asgard, or Hades or the Summerland… they don't exist, not in reality… so being apathetic about them is the same, emotionally, as my not caring about fairies or leprechauns, or the Windigo or fictional invisible unicorn cookies, I just don't give it any thought or emotional weight. Apathy is the correct response to that which does not affect me.

 

We have basically 3 responses to things.. we either move towards something (can we eat it, does it bring comfort/pleasure?) Do we run from it, or attack it? (is it a threat?) or is it neutral (something we can ignore - like a tree or a rock) Apathy is the neutral position… there are things in the environment we can safely ignore.. they don't bring comfort or nutrition, and they don't pose a threat. We have to ignore some things or we would be on sensory overload all the time… the same holds for our emotional state, we have to ignore quite a bit or our systems would overload. Like all the people we are around who aren't loved ones or threats… we are pretty much apathetic to the hundred or so people in the mall when we go shopping - we really don't give them much thought, do we?

 

Since heaven and hell are imaginary the neutral response is the right one. Apathy.

[directionless]

Directionless, allow me to explain my indifference to hell for you.  I don't care if hell is real.  If someone offers me peer-reviewed, definitive proof that hell exists, I would accept that hell is real; but I still wouldn't care.  Even if someone presented me with solid, empirical evidence that my lifestyle will ultimately mean that I will go to hell post mortem, it still would not make slightest difference to me.

 

The reason I don't care whether hell exists or not is because if the christian doctrine of hell is true, then I am going to hell either way.  If I remain true to my honest doubts, my honest lack of belief, and true to myself, then god will throw me into hell (for being honest).  Contrariwise, if I betray myself, recant my doubts and my unbelief, then I will be forced to spend eternity with the very same god who forced me through threats of violence into betraying myself.  Moreover, I would be expected to worship that god and call him good.

 

You need to understand that the most important moral value I hold is my personal integrity.  For me to confess that jesus is lord cannot be anything other than a lie; because not only do I know it to not be true, I cannot truly believe it in my heart ever again.  Assuming then, that god is omninscient, it should be fairly easy for him to figure out that my confession of the lordship of jesus is not the truth.  Would he be willing to let me into heaven anyway, knowing that I have lied?  If so, I'm still no better off than I would be had I remained honest and went to hell.

 

Furthermore, the most important skill I have is my intellect, which is far from dazzling, but it works well enough for me to muddle through this life.  My intellect allows me to use logic in determining which arguments I will accept and which to reject.  My intellect allows me to employ reason in making sound decisions.  It allows me to objectively analyze all sides of a situation before determining which course of action to take.

 

god would have me betray all of that, just to have the priviledge of spending eternity in heaven.  And it would truly be an eternity for me, because I would be there with the sound knowledge that I only got there by betraying myself and the things I hold most dear.  I would know that I was worshipping a god who extorted my best qualities, stole them from me, simply because he couldn't bring himself to tolerate the integrity and intellect of one honest man.  Again, how would this eternity be any different from eternal separation from god in hell?  If I am to spend eternity in torment either way, why would I not stay true to who I am?

 

Physical separation in hell somehow feels more right to me than emotional separation in heaven. 

 

Thus, since hell really is the only option I have, I really don't care.

O.k., so you are basically saying that you can't dismiss your reasonable doubts and you would be uncomfortable spending eternity with a God that expected that from you. Therefore, the nearly infinite difference in utility between heaven and hell is brought close to zero for you.

 

That makes sense. Sometimes I've imagined the judgement day as all the certified Christians line-up to enter the gates of heaven while they watch everybody else line-up to enter the gates of hell. But then as the Christians go through the gate, they are surprised to find that it was all a test and they have failed at the end. By entering heaven and abandoning their neighbors to hell, the certified Christians demonstrated their lack of love for their neighbors. The doors are mislabeled. Heaven is hell and hell is heaven.

[directionless]

O.k., everybody, I think I am starting to understand the atheist argument that they simply lack belief. If we look at religion as an explanation for the gaps in science, then atheists can argue that the gaps do not normally require an explanation. So a person can simply be apathetic to the gaps? Atheists simply believe science. Theists believe science too, but they add theism to fill the gaps. Atheists say leave those gaps open.

 

It's a struggle, but I think am starting to see the argument.

[mymistake]

O.k., everybody, I think I am starting to understand the atheist argument that they simply lack belief. If we look at religion as an explanation for the gaps in science, then atheists can argue that the gaps do not normally require an explanation. So a person can simply be apathetic to the gaps? Atheists simply believe science. Theists believe science too, but they add theism to fill the gaps. Atheists say leave those gaps open.

 

It's a struggle, but I think am starting to see the argument.

 

I look at the gaps and call them unknown.  Most of them are not important.  Some might be unsolvable.  Science is working on a few of them that might be useful or interesting.  I could guess but my guess won't be meaningful even if I guess right.  It takes the work by scientists to confirm their results.  That is what will be meaningful.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Directionless, allow me to explain my indifference to hell for you.  I don't care if hell is real.  If someone offers me peer-reviewed, definitive proof that hell exists, I would accept that hell is real; but I still wouldn't care.  Even if someone presented me with solid, empirical evidence that my lifestyle will ultimately mean that I will go to hell post mortem, it still would not make slightest difference to me.

 

The reason I don't care whether hell exists or not is because if the christian doctrine of hell is true, then I am going to hell either way.  If I remain true to my honest doubts, my honest lack of belief, and true to myself, then god will throw me into hell (for being honest).  Contrariwise, if I betray myself, recant my doubts and my unbelief, then I will be forced to spend eternity with the very same god who forced me through threats of violence into betraying myself.  Moreover, I would be expected to worship that god and call him good.

 

You need to understand that the most important moral value I hold is my personal integrity.  For me to confess that jesus is lord cannot be anything other than a lie; because not only do I know it to not be true, I cannot truly believe it in my heart ever again.  Assuming then, that god is omninscient, it should be fairly easy for him to figure out that my confession of the lordship of jesus is not the truth.  Would he be willing to let me into heaven anyway, knowing that I have lied?  If so, I'm still no better off than I would be had I remained honest and went to hell.

 

Furthermore, the most important skill I have is my intellect, which is far from dazzling, but it works well enough for me to muddle through this life.  My intellect allows me to use logic in determining which arguments I will accept and which to reject.  My intellect allows me to employ reason in making sound decisions.  It allows me to objectively analyze all sides of a situation before determining which course of action to take.

 

god would have me betray all of that, just to have the priviledge of spending eternity in heaven.  And it would truly be an eternity for me, because I would be there with the sound knowledge that I only got there by betraying myself and the things I hold most dear.  I would know that I was worshipping a god who extorted my best qualities, stole them from me, simply because he couldn't bring himself to tolerate the integrity and intellect of one honest man.  Again, how would this eternity be any different from eternal separation from god in hell?  If I am to spend eternity in torment either way, why would I not stay true to who I am?

 

Physical separation in hell somehow feels more right to me than emotional separation in heaven. 

 

Thus, since hell really is the only option I have, I really don't care.

O.k., so you are basically saying that you can't dismiss your reasonable doubts and you would be uncomfortable spending eternity with a God that expected that from you. Therefore, the nearly infinite difference in utility between heaven and hell is brought close to zero for you.

 

That makes sense. Sometimes I've imagined the judgement day as all the certified Christians line-up to enter the gates of heaven while they watch everybody else line-up to enter the gates of hell. But then as the Christians go through the gate, they are surprised to find that it was all a test and they have failed at the end. By entering heaven and abandoning their neighbors to hell, the certified Christians demonstrated their lack of love for their neighbors. The doors are mislabeled. Heaven is hell and hell is heaven.

 

This is the thought process which brought me to the conclusion that, even if the christian doctrine is true, I really don't care whether I go to heaven or hell.  However, since no one has yet to offer me any compelling reason to accept the christian doctrine as true, and since no one has offered me any compelling evidence that heaven and hell exist; I am completely justified in ignoring the issue altogether.  Furthermore, as there is no compelling evidence to support the claim that a god or gods exist, there is also no need for me to accept that they do.  So, my position is one of indifference.

[Neverlandrut]

Another reason I'm apathetic is because if an all-loving god exists, as taught in Christianity, then there is no possible way such a being would send me to hell for being an atheist. The bible says god is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. It also says that god's love knows no limits (of course, there are versus which clearly contradict these, but that's a selerate issue). If these notions are true, then I should be going to heaven either way. If god would send me to hell for honestly searching or answers, hoping they would strengthen my faith, but then losing my faith in the process, then that god is mean and not worth of worship anyway.

[directionless]

Another reason I'm apathetic is because if an all-loving god exists, as taught in Christianity, then there is no possible way such a being would send me to hell for being an atheist. The bible says god is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. It also says that god's love knows no limits (of course, there are versus which clearly contradict these, but that's a selerate issue). If these notions are true, then I should be going to heaven either way. If god would send me to hell for honestly searching or answers, hoping they would strengthen my faith, but then losing my faith in the process, then that god is mean and not worth of worship anyway.

That makes sense to me. It's interesting that universalism is so taboo in Christianity, because it makes God seem so much more good and fair.

[mymistake]

 

Another reason I'm apathetic is because if an all-loving god exists, as taught in Christianity, then there is no possible way such a being would send me to hell for being an atheist. The bible says god is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. It also says that god's love knows no limits (of course, there are versus which clearly contradict these, but that's a selerate issue). If these notions are true, then I should be going to heaven either way. If god would send me to hell for honestly searching or answers, hoping they would strengthen my faith, but then losing my faith in the process, then that god is mean and not worth of worship anyway.

That makes sense to me. It's interesting that universalism is so taboo in Christianity, because it makes God seem so much more good and fair.

 

 

 

I think universalism is taboo in Christianity because it means there is no reason to give money or power to pastors/priests.  If you get salvation simply for being created by God then why would you attend or fund church?  If nobody attends church then pastors would have to get real jobs and there would be no indoctrination.

[Neverlandrut]

 

Another reason I'm apathetic is because if an all-loving god exists, as taught in Christianity, then there is no possible way such a being would send me to hell for being an atheist. The bible says god is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. It also says that god's love knows no limits (of course, there are versus which clearly contradict these, but that's a selerate issue). If these notions are true, then I should be going to heaven either way. If god would send me to hell for honestly searching or answers, hoping they would strengthen my faith, but then losing my faith in the process, then that god is mean and not worth of worship anyway.

That makes sense to me. It's interesting that universalism is so taboo in Christianity, because it makes God seem so much more good and fair.

The last transition within my faith before I became an atheist was universalism. As I mentioned, I stopped believing in hell before I stopped believing in god. It would take a little bit of explaining, but the concept of a literal hell where people go when they die is not well aupported even by the bible! Every mention of hell in scripture is symbolic, parabolic, or metaphoric in some way. Even phrases such as "eternal punishment" don't mean what we think they do in the original language. The word for "eternal" actually means an undertermined amount of time. In some cases it refers more to an intensity of experience rather than a reference to time at all. There are actually versus where the same word is used, but it is not translated "eternal" because it would not make sense in context. The verse might say, "I will send them into "eternal" exile, until they turn their hearts back to me and I restore them." Obviously that does not mean eternal by the definition we use.

 

So, I was a universalist for a short time. If god is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, then there is nothing we can do about whatever the outcome may be. He has predetermined all things. Therefore, human choice is an illusion and god is responsible an directly caused everything that has or ever will happen. If all of that is true, there is no sense in worrying or caring at all because there is nothing that can be done. We might as well live our lives the best way we can and let come what may. It's interesting that this "omni" view of god that most theists hold actually leads to the same fatalistic way of approaching life as not believing in god (at least for me). If god is "omni," then that idea has the same effect as simply saying things are what they are and there is nothing we can do about it. This leads me to live my life apathetic about the things in cannot change.

[Neverlandrut]

As I said before, atheism is not some philosophy which informs my life choices like religion is for theists. It is simply one fact about me and nothing more. I think the best way to live my life is as honestly as possible, doing the best I can with the limited time I have. This acceptance of the fact that time is limited leads me to stop waisting time on doing stupid things, things Christians would call sin. There were habitual behaviors I "struggled with" as a Christian. I think, unconsciously, I did those things because I believed there was a god who would forgive me for it, a kind of free pass concept, even though I knew that that was not what god's grace was supposed to be about. Now that I don't believe in an afterlife or a god of forgiveness and judgment, I have a desire to live true to myself, doing what I see to be what is best for me and those I care about, not because of what some cosmic being thinks of me, but because living that way puts me at peace and ease, and makes me happy. For the first time, I am being good because I WANT to and not because I'm SUPPOSED to. I firmly believe that my loss of belief in god has made me more moral and happier.

[directionless]

 

O.k., everybody, I think I am starting to understand the atheist argument that they simply lack belief. If we look at religion as an explanation for the gaps in science, then atheists can argue that the gaps do not normally require an explanation. So a person can simply be apathetic to the gaps? Atheists simply believe science. Theists believe science too, but they add theism to fill the gaps. Atheists say leave those gaps open.

 

It's a struggle, but I think am starting to see the argument.

 

I look at the gaps and call them unknown.  Most of them are not important.  Some might be unsolvable.  Science is working on a few of them that might be useful or interesting.  I could guess but my guess won't be meaningful even if I guess right.  It takes the work by scientists to confirm their results.  That is what will be meaningful.

 

I wonder if knowledge of science makes the gaps seem larger or smaller? Do you suppose scientists think there is more room or less room for a God of the gaps? (regardless of whether they think imagining Gods to fill these gaps is a good idea or not)

[Orbit]

 

 

O.k., everybody, I think I am starting to understand the atheist argument that they simply lack belief. If we look at religion as an explanation for the gaps in science, then atheists can argue that the gaps do not normally require an explanation. So a person can simply be apathetic to the gaps? Atheists simply believe science. Theists believe science too, but they add theism to fill the gaps. Atheists say leave those gaps open.

 

It's a struggle, but I think am starting to see the argument.

 

I look at the gaps and call them unknown.  Most of them are not important.  Some might be unsolvable.  Science is working on a few of them that might be useful or interesting.  I could guess but my guess won't be meaningful even if I guess right.  It takes the work by scientists to confirm their results.  That is what will be meaningful.

 

I wonder if knowledge of science makes the gaps seem larger or smaller? Do you suppose scientists think there is more room or less room for a God of the gaps? (regardless of whether they think imagining Gods to fill these gaps is a good idea or not)

 

Only 7% of members of the National Academy of Science are theists. 

"Additionally, the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study."

 

from: http://creationwiki.org/National_Academy_of_Sciences

[mymistake]

 

I wonder if knowledge of science makes the gaps seem larger or smaller? 

 

 

Neither.  Science exposes more gaps.  The more we understand the more questions we think of.  It just keeps going.

 

 

 

Do you suppose scientists think there is more room or less room for a God of the gaps? (regardless of whether they think imagining Gods to fill these gaps is a good idea or not)

 

Far less.  God just doesn't make sense from an educated point of view.