The Unreasonableness of Atheism

[_beastie]

That said, I think that any atheist who dismisses religious belief as nothing more than than a means to provide comfort and help believers cope with uncertainty is likewise ill-informed.

I absolutely agree. Belief is complex.

[_beastie]

Yeah, but the downside of the Telestial is that you get to dwell in hell for at least a thousand years before you get there. Hardly an effective escape route.

Yeah, and look who your loving god damns to hell for a thousand years:

D&C 76:

81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to ahell.

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;
99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.
102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

Lookie, lookie. God sends those who reject Mormonism to hell for a thousand years.

But hey, it's only a thousand years, right?

[_Moniker]

Ajax, can you answer the questions you say atheists can't answer to your satisfaction?

Why are we here? Where are we going? What is the purpose of life?

I'll answer.

Why are we here? We were conceived by the forces of nature. Is there a reason beyond that? I don't think so, and I don't think there has to be. Understanding natural forces created us and that we are at the same time at one with nature is actually awe inspiring, to me, and doesn't make me feel less than satisfied.

Where are we going? Back to nature. It's merely the cycle of life. I appreciate it for the simplicity, yet, at the same moment recognize the magnitude of how awe inspiring it is as life, death, and rebirth is what others look outward for and I can recognize it within the material world.

What is the purpose of life? This is the hardest one for me to answer, really, tonight -- I can give flippant answers about seeking happiness, fulfillment, etc... and how we individually choose our own purpose and yet, recognize that others never have that luxury. For me, the purpose of life is to recognize what precisely life is and how death awaits and to attempt to fill the time between with as much joy, pleasures, naps, strolls, -- moments that allow me to sigh and care not what happens later for the now is so satisfying. Also to recognize the now is all there is gives me prompts to help others and ease their troubles so that they may too seek their own joys in this life.

[_EAllusion]

dup

Hey. You edited Voltaire in your list. You sneaky, sneaky man. Now my comment just seems weird.

Tee hee. Actually, I probably have a couple more marginal deists or pantheists mixed in there. The thing is, one can read hundreds of pages of the philosophies of some of these guys and find no evidence that they are anything but atheists. They might espouse materialism, evolution, determinism, deny revelation, deny the church and the Bible, give a secular history of the rise of gods, devils and spirit as a consequence of primitive prescientific thinking and superstition, and then, later, declare themselves deists.
Go figure.

In any case, deists seem pretty close to atheists to me, especially when one considers that it often just amounts to the affirmation of some abstract impersonal first cause and even then it may just be, in some cases, just because the thinker predated Darwin.

In the case of Voltaire, the main difference between him and an atheist is that he bought into the arguments of natural theology. He was very much a product of his time in that respect. He was quite a vocal advocate of his deism. It wasn't difficult to see. If you've never read Candide, you should. It's great: http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/

In it he describes an ideal society. That'll give you a sense of what kind of religious world he favored.

One of the more contemptible and absurd crackpots that Daniel C. Peterson champions is a fellow by the name of Paul Vitz. Chances are you have not heard of him, but he is a minor celebrity among the fundamentalist protestant community that is also into people like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. He is famous for arguing that atheism is caused by a metaphysical oedipus complex that results from having defective fathers. You can read a short version of his thesis here: http://www.origins.org/articles/vitz_ps ... heism.html

Learn about the psychology of atheism.

Anyway, in order to establish this he looks at the life of several atheists and puts forward a case for how they experienced defective fathers. One of his examples is Voltaire. Voltaire obviously wasn't an atheist. He was a deist. But since he rejected belief in a male personal God, that's good enough. His case for Voltaire having a defective father is hilarious. I'll quote it:

The psychologically important thing about Voltaire is that he strongly rejected his father-so much that he rejected his father's name and took the name "Voltaire." It is not exactly certain where the new name came from but one widely held interpretation is that it was constructed from the letters of his mother's last name. When Voltaire was in his early twenties (in 1718), he published a play entitled "Oedipus" (Edipe), the first one of his plays to be publicly performed. The play itself recounts the classic legend with heavy allusions to religious and political rebellion. Throughout his life, Voltaire (like Freud) toyed with the idea that he was not his father's son. He apparently felt the desire to be from a higher, more aristocratic family than his actual middle-class background. (A major expression of this concern with having a more worthy father is the play Candide.) In short, Voltaire's hostility to his own father, his religious rejection of God the Father, and his political rejection of the king-an acknowledged father figure-are all reflections of the same basic needs. Psychologically speaking, Voltaire's rebellion against his father and against God are easily interpretable as Oedipal wish fulfillment, as comforting illusions, and therefore, following Freud, as beliefs and attitudes unworthy of a mature mind.

[_The Nehor]

Lookie, lookie. God sends those who reject Mormonism to hell for a thousand years.

But hey, it's only a thousand years, right?

Yeah, go figure. He dignifies our choices enough to let them matter. It's called justice Beastie. He lets those who want to stand on their own stand on their own. You get to pay for everything you've done wrong. Congrats. I personally am a coward and want someone else to do it for me. :)

[_beastie]

Yeah, go figure. He dignifies our choices enough to let them matter. It's called justice Beastie. He lets those who want to stand on their own stand on their own. You get to pay for everything you've done wrong. Congrats. I personally am a coward and want someone else to do it for me. :)

People reject Mormonism because they don't believe in it. So, in essence, your God sends people to hell to suffer for a thousand years because they couldn't believe in Mormonism, and all the baggage it brings along with it.

Your idea of justice is disturbing.

[_The Nehor]

Yeah, go figure. He dignifies our choices enough to let them matter. It's called justice Beastie. He lets those who want to stand on their own stand on their own. You get to pay for everything you've done wrong. Congrats. I personally am a coward and want someone else to do it for me. :)

People reject Mormonism because they don't believe in it. So, in essence, your God sends people to hell to suffer for a thousand years because they couldn't believe in Mormonism, and all the baggage it brings along with it.

Your idea of justice is disturbing.

You missed something Beastie. Those who accept it in the afterlife go to the Terrestrial and don't have to endure a thousand years in hell. Those who want to carry the burden of their own sins get to. It's a simple formula. I don't see what the objection is.

My idea of justice is strict. Do you not think people should be punished for their evil deeds?

[_Mad Viking]

Yeah, go figure. He dignifies our choices enough to let them matter. It's called justice Beastie. He lets those who want to stand on their own stand on their own. You get to pay for everything you've done wrong. Congrats. I personally am a coward and want someone else to do it for me. :)

People reject Mormonism because they don't believe in it. So, in essence, your God sends people to hell to suffer for a thousand years because they couldn't believe in Mormonism, and all the baggage it brings along with it.

Your idea of justice is disturbing.

You missed something Beastie. Those who accept it in the afterlife go to the Terrestrial and don't have to endure a thousand years in hell. Those who want to carry the burden of their own sins get to. It's a simple formula. I don't see what the objection is.

My idea of justice is strict. Do you not think people should be punished for their evil deeds?

The notion of an "atonement" flies in the face of a strict "idea of justice".

[_The Nehor]

The notion of an "atonement" flies in the face of a strict "idea of justice".

Yep, that's why I like it. However if you don't use it you get to face perfect justice. I have no desire to do that.

[_Mad Viking]

The notion of an "atonement" flies in the face of a strict "idea of justice".

Yep, that's why I like it. However if you don't use it you get to face perfect justice. I have no desire to do that.

Are you suggesting that there are varying degrees of jutice?