The Atheist and Agnostic

Originally posted by Starrman
What are you talking about? Are you saying I have to prove to you that the natural world exists before you will accept that it does? My arguement is not flawed at all. Unlike the natural world, the supernatural cannot be comprehended by natural means. Since, as a natural being, you do not have any supernatural senses, you cannot measure the supernatural ...[text shortened]... as evidence for its comprehension. However, with the natural, you have senses to comprehend it.

Allow me to elaborate on his point. You claimed that using the supernatural as evidence for itself is circular. But, you also see that the same holds for the natural. So, if you want to use that argument against the supernatural, then yes you must prove that the natural world exists (which cannot be done with absolute certainty) and that the supernatural does not.

You claim that we are natural beings. That is quite a statement to make. How can you be certain that we are not wholly or partially supernatural?

However, with the natural, you have senses to comprehend it.[/b]

This is true, but we all know that the senses are flawed. To rely strictly on them is to place your basis on uncertain evidence. Furthermore, the reality of a natural world outside of the mind is impossible to prove (or it has yet to be done). You can sense things, but this does not confirm even their existence outside of your mind. A common example is a dream.

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay here goes nothin'...

My definition of HAPPYNESS is contentment and inner peace. My happyness is based on my faith in God. I am content in life, because ultimately I know that God is in control. I cannot prove it, so don't ask me to. This contentment, together with a faith in the afterlife gives me inner peace.

Okay. Don't be insulted, but here ...[text shortened]... reasonable answers for in the athiestic worldview, that is why I take the position that it do.

My definition of HAPPYNESS is contentment and inner peace.

okay, i guess i can work with that. i'm not sure what you mean by 'inner peace' though. what is 'inner peace'? if, in your opinion, inner peace necessarily comes from belief in a god, then you are going to have a nice donut shaped argument that won't mean anything. so i assume that having 'inner peace' just means that one is calm, serene, and generally devoid of hostile feelings or turmoil.

My happyness is based on my faith in God.

given your definition of happiness, i seriously doubt that ALL of the happiness you experience is based on your faith. you know that way you feel when you have just finished a superb meal, or someone has just paid you a genuine and flattering compliment, or your son or daughter tells you that they love you, or pick any number of other such examples and insert here? -- those feelings are happiness under your own definition. this happiness you feel has nothing to do with god or your belief in god.

I am content in life, because ultimately I know that God is in control. I cannot prove it, so don't ask me to. This contentment, together with a faith in the afterlife gives me inner peace.

okay, so you have demonstrated that faith in god can be a sufficient condition for happiness (at least for you, it is sufficient). i am not going to dispute this. but this doesn't say anything at all about your claim that belief in god is a necessary condition for happiness. still waiting to see how you are going to pull that rabbit out of the hat.

If there is no God, and if the now, is all we have, then that is all we can aspire to enjoy and find happyness from, to the best of our definition of happyness.

okay. so you are saying that in the case that god does not exist, then only things that are not god can bring happiness, if happiness is to exist. no arguments so far.

If there is no God and no ultimate authority, then whatever feels good that we should do.

first, you seem to making an implicit assumption that stinks of the Divine Command Theory. namely, you seem to be making the assumption that if no god exists, then there is no basis for morality, and that, without god, men would just associate that which is 'right' or moral with that which 'feels good.' i consider this utter nonsense. if you are going to employ the Divine Command Theory in your argument, then you need to provide basis for that assumption; otherwise, i will quickly dismiss it based on arguments contained in the euthyphro dilemma (upon which i will expound if you desire). once i dismiss it, these arguments of yours are empty.

If it is drug or alcohol abuse, then so be it. But then why are drug addicts some of the unhappiest people in society? You can't really explain that from the athiest perspective.

from what i can tell, you have taken a completely pointless and specific example (drug addiction) and used it to prove absolutely nothing. and i disagree that you cannot explain the unhappiness of the drug addict 'from the athiest perspective'. even someone who has never even heard of god can tell you that the drug addict is an unhappy creature for any number of obvious reasons.

Like putting wood on a fire; trying to just do what feels better, you are stoking an unquenshible fire. Never will this fire stop needing wood, because you'll always be looking for the next thrill and ride; the next fix, the next being layed, the next smile out of your child; the next family reunion; the next practical joke on the inlaws; The list can go on. Some of the criteria can be more noble, but ultimately its a viscious circle that leaves one panting for the next kick.

i am still looking for even a shred of evidence that supports your claim that belief in a god is a necessary condition for happiness. nothing here in this paragraph...in fact, your examples here only seem to show that the atheist can find happiness by your own definition, but that such happiness may only be fleeting and transitory in nature. i disagree about the transitory part. for example, i have a huge family, certain members of which will surely live on long after i am gone. the happiness i derive from even being associated with my family is a happiness that will last me my whole life. i also derive happiness from the fact that i actively try to be a good and productive person (which i feel is a state of being that has nothing to do with the existence of, or the belief in, god). this happiness is very similar in nature to the happiness you derive from your faith -- it is a constant source of happiness, like a well that continually provides water.

I still find it hard that man, as an evolved animal would need happyness. From the athiestic perspective, what are these emotional persuits? What are they for? Why do you need happyness, if all we are geared towards is survival and passing on our genes? Why do we need to do noble deeds, if they are in their very essence going against evolution (e.g. the firefighters during 9/11)? Did they just do that for a bigger pay cheque? What is noble anyway, other than the daydream of a greek philosopher? What would lead him to think "noble" thoughts?

i was under the impression that you were going to provide an argument that belief in a god is a necessary condition for happiness (from which it follows that the atheist cannot be truly happy). i don't see anything in what you have written that supports or even works toward such a conclusion.

taking your own definition of happiness, i can demonstrate that such a conclusion is false anyhow. consider me, an atheist -- i lack belief in a god. however, by your own definition of happiness, there are many things in my life that bring me happiness (contentment and 'inner peace'😉: my family, my friends, my interests and hobbies, mother nature, etc., etc (no, drug addiction didn't make the list). therefore, i am an atheist who experiences happiness by your own definition of happiness. therefore, your claim that belief in a god is a necessary condition for happiness is false. how do you counter?

Originally posted by Halitose
Still happily waiting for that rebuttal LemonJello... 😉

patience is a virtue...you realize that this post came less than 9.5 hours after the post in which i said that i was in dire need of major sleep.

Originally posted by LemonJello
patience is a virtue...you realize that this post came less than 9.5 hours after the post in which i said that i was in dire need of major sleep.

Yeeeeeeeeees. Hope you slept well... Will be working on my rebuttal. I was just laying some ground-work for the debate. Will try to be more specific.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]My definition of HAPPYNESS is contentment and inner peace.

okay, i guess i can work with that. i'm not sure what you mean by 'inner peace' though. what is 'inner peace'? if, in your opinion, inner peace necessarily comes from belief in a god, then you are going to have a nice donut shaped argument that won't mean anything. so i assume ...[text shortened]... aim that belief in a god is a necessary condition for happiness is false. how do you counter?
[/b]

Time Zones. What can I say?

Okay. Happyness...

It would be presumptious to say that God is the only source of happyness. By my definition there are many things that supply contentment; be it only fleeting. One does get hungry after a meal. One compliment wont last a lifetime. Drat! It harldy lasts a couple hours with me. Family and friends will dissapoint at one time or the other.

Now here comes my theory. I believe that God created us with an emotional, spiritual, call it what you like, emptyness or niche, that only He can fill.

Proof. Okay its not entirely empiracle science either. Many people who have reached the pinnacle of fame and fortune step onto the summit and realise that they are still not happy. Okay. I'll admit that those who I've spoken to were few and can't talk for the rest. Sure there are also those who seem to be quite happy. Noted.

My second proof, comes from personal experience. Before turning to God, happyness was fleeting. My life was like one huge neural synapse that needed a bigger and better hormonal dose. Peace and fullfilment was like grasping at the wind.

By turning to God, I am content, with the assurance, that God is in control, the niche has been filled, and of course, life after death and eternity have been solved. Yeah. I know. Thats from my confused thiestic perspective. Fine.

I noticed that you mentioned the DCT. Personally I think that goodness is an inherent part of God's character and so God can only command goodness. But we'll need to start another thread for that.

I don't want to prescribe to the athiest, but by my reasoning a purist athiest will only be able to form a Utilitarian Ethical Code. But that is also something that can go on another thread.

Next proof. Hence purist Utilitarianism and its many derivitives can be applied to the sphere of happyness, thats where I reached the point that whatever feels good, do it. Doing drugs does feel good. If it didn't, nobody would do it. Although I agree that there is a certain amount of chemical dependancy involved, searching for happyness is also a factor. I used drug addiction, because I know many drug addicts, many who have also been delivered from their addiction who agree with me. True fulfillment was only reached through God. But substitute drugs with whatever you like, sport, glamor, gluttony, lust, humanitarian outreaches, the list is endless and growing.

Man without God never seems to be completely happy. They don't seem to have that peace that surpasses all understanding. There's always that one lacking element that you just don't seem to be able to place your finger on.

So thats my theory. Will be expecting your scathing, but comprehensive rebuttal.

Originally posted by Halitose
Time Zones. What can I say?

Okay. Happyness...

It would be presumptious to say that God is the only source of happyness. By my definition there are many things that supply contentment; be it only fleeting. One does get hungry after ...[text shortened]... l be expecting your scathing, but comprehensive rebuttal.

Time Zones. What can I say?

indeed...bedtime for me again (quite late here, as i am a nightowl)...will be sure to rebut tomorrow. i'll make it extra scathing for you. 😀

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Time Zones. What can I say?

indeed...bedtime for me again (quite late here, as i am a nightowl)...will be sure to rebut tomorrow. i'll make it extra scathing for you. 😀[/b]

Thanks 😏

Originally posted by Halitose
Thanks 😏

It's HAPPINESS. With an "I" not a "Y".

Originally posted by David C
It's HAPPINESS. With an "I" not a "Y".

Drumroll! Cymbal! Hey Presto! Right Again! 😉 Thanks.

Originally posted by Halitose
Time Zones. What can I say?

Okay. Happyness...

It would be presumptious to say that God is the only source of happyness. By my definition there are many things that supply contentment; be it only fleeting. One does get hungry after a meal. One compliment wont last a lifetime. Drat! It harldy lasts a couple hours with me. Family and friends will dissa ...[text shortened]... n.

So thats my theory. Will be expecting your scathing, but comprehensive rebuttal.

It would be presumptious to say that God is the only source of happyness.

okay. so then what exactly is your position? from what i can tell, you aim to argue that although the atheist can experience at least transitory happiness, he is incapable of experiencing the type of lasting, complete happiness that you derive from your faith in god. is this an accurate description of your position?

Now here comes my theory.

thanks for the warning. lol.

I believe that God created us with an emotional, spiritual, call it what you like, emptyness or niche, that only He can fill.

so god's 'love' is very similar in principle to the monopolizing practices of exclusionary companies like microsoft -- it would be like providiing someone with an operating system that only works properly if they also install your browser software. lol. well, of course, since you cannot prove god even exists, i see no reason to accept this belief of yours. i doubt any atheist would. since i think it is quite likely that no god exists, i also consider it quite likely that this belief is nonsense.

Many people who have reached the pinnacle of fame and fortune step onto the summit and realise that they are still not happy.

i agree with your own admission that this is a specific observation and cannot be accepted as a general truth. but more importantly, i disagree with the way in which you are systematically limiting the scope of possible sources of happiness. 'fame and fortune' are luxuries that can bring about happiness in certain cases, but only greedy people would seek out fame and fortune exclusively in order to find happiness. what about family, friends, my career, my hobbies, nature, pets, etc? these are all sources of happiness that i consider more fulfilling than money and spotlight. are you saying that all atheists are money-grubbing egomaniacs?

My second proof, comes from personal experience. Before turning to God, happyness was fleeting. My life was like one huge neural synapse that needed a bigger and better hormonal dose. Peace and fullfilment was like grasping at the wind.

personal experiences of the supernatural are just not convining in matters of debate. for all i know, you may have been a money-grubbing egomaniac yourself before you got faith and that is the reason why you couldn't seem to secure any lasting happiness. for all i know, you may have been a serial killer and child molester too before you got your faith, and that may be why you couldn't seem to find happiness. you cannot safely extrapolate your own experience out to pinpoint truths about the human condition. in particular, your own inability to find happiness when you were without faith does not imply that other people without faith cannot find happiness; perhaps you just weren't very good at finding happiness relative to other people without faith in god.

By turning to God, I am content, with the assurance, that God is in control, the niche has been filled, and of course, life after death and eternity have been solved. Yeah. I know. Thats from my confused thiestic perspective. Fine.

first, there is no reason to think any 'niche' exists in the first place. second, this only shows that belief in god can in some cases be a sufficient condition for happiness (such as in your case). that's fair enough, and i see no reason to dispute that. but it doesn't help your case against the atheist at all.

Personally I think that goodness is an inherent part of God's character and so God can only command goodness. But we'll need to start another thread for that.

i disagree strongly with this belief of yours. and there is already a thread on the euthyphro dilemma around somewhere.

by my reasoning a purist athiest will only be able to form a Utilitarian Ethical Code.

it seems rather odd to me that you would argue that the atheist cannot find happiness and then simultaneously argue that the athiest must necessarily subscribe to an ethical code that explicitly stives to achieve the greatest amount of happiness. so, in effect, you are saying that the atheist necessarily tries to collectively maximize that which he cannot possess. so if we were to compare atheists in the pursuit of happiness in life to children in the pursuit of easter eggs in an easter egg hunt, which scenario do you envision:

1. lost children wandering around aimlessly searching in vain for invisible eggs?
or
2. seemingly content children with their pockets stuffed full of found 'eggs' which are really deer turds that have been cleverly disguised as eggs?
or
3. the eggless atheist children consoling each other and taking comfort in the fact that at least the christian children found all the eggs?

Hence purist Utilitarianism and its many derivitives can be applied to the sphere of happyness, thats where I reached the point that whatever feels good, do it.

i disagree with your assertion that the atheist must necessarily be utilitarian, but putting that aside (maybe for another thread), this 'do whatever feels good' attitude is better classified as hedonism infused with anarchy. a utilitarian would not do whatever feels good; rather, he would do whatever he thought maximized collective happiness. if i rape a young girl it might 'feel good', but honestly how much happiness do you think she would derive from the experience?

Doing drugs does feel good. If it didn't, nobody would do it. Although I agree that there is a certain amount of chemical dependancy involved, searching for happyness is also a factor.

doing drugs is another form of hedonism. i agree with you that the kind of 'happiness' that is derived from drugs is probably of a transitory or fleeting nature. but the fact of the matter is that probably not too many atheists derive their happiness solely from drug use. when are you going to address more plausible sources of enduring happiness for the atheist, such as family, friends, etc., etc.?

But substitute drugs with whatever you like, sport, glamor, gluttony, lust, humanitarian outreaches, the list is endless and growing.

no, it does not suffice to just substitute whatever we like into your drug analysis. like i said, i agree with you that drugs are probably a source of only transitory happiness. therefore, you may be able to substitute in things that also provide only transitory happiness. but you need to explicitly address other credible sources of happiness for the atheist that are not as patently absurd as drug use.

Man without God never seems to be completely happy.

i disagree. i know many atheists and agnostics who seem perfectly happy and content in their lack of belief. by contrast, i know some christians who constantly complain and whine about their existence. (of course, i also know many christians who are altogether wondeful and happy people too).

They don't seem to have that peace that surpasses all understanding.

i could say the same for many christians i know.

There's always that one lacking element that you just don't seem to be able to place your finger on.

i could say the same about those with faith, except that i can place my finger on it -- that which they lack is called reason.

Originally posted by LemonJello and Halitose
Man without God never seems to be completely happy.

i disagree. i know many atheists and agnostics who seem perfectly happy and content in their lack of belief. by contrast, i know some christians who constantly complain and whine about their existence. (of course, i also know many christians who are altogether wondeful and happy people too).

Not that I'm trying to through a wrench in your (pl.) machinery, but I think both sides of this very interesting conversation are overlooking something that may or may not be of relevence....not all atheists are alike. For one, some atheists believe in a spirit or other soul-like portion of existence. They merely do not believe in god[s].

Originally posted by LemonJello
yadda, yadda, yadda...

Why on earth do you have more recs than moves? Quit wasting time in the forums. 😉

Originally posted by David C
Why on earth do you have more recs than moves? Quit wasting time in the forums. 😉

you're manipulating my words. i clearly said 'blah blah blah', not 'yadda yadda yadda'. with respect to moves: i'm pacing myself.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It would be presumptious to say that God is the only source of happyness.

okay. so then what exactly is your position? from what i can tell, you aim to argue that although the atheist can experience at least transitory happiness, he is incapable of experiencing the type of lasting, complete happiness that you derive from your faith in god. is ...[text shortened]... aith, except that i can place my finger on it -- that which they lack is called reason.
[/b]

I guess we can agree to disagree that happiness in life is also based on what you believe. You probably can't ask Kurt Cobain why life was so miserable that he had to end it all. Well just another pointer here... Why so many suicides among people who don't believe in God?

I'm sure there are many reasons. Somehow the believer just seems to have more peace of mind in the whole deal. The athiest does not believe in the afterlife, although I'm sure they wonder about it from time to time. THe believer, believes in the afterlife (remember we can't prove this either way), but for him the afterlife holds Heaven. (still can't prove a thing here, because all those who have died and spoken of heaven are dismissed for the institution) For the athiest, the afterlife is non-existance, which Hey Presto, nobody can prove either. I guess facing life with that in mind, true happiness is achieved by believing in life after death. It all comes down on what you believe. "God" or "non-god". "Being saved from your sins" or "what the heck are sins"."joy everlasting in heaven" or " ".

If theists are all blithering irrational fools, how come some of the greatest names in Science where theists. Einstein, Newton, Rutherford... The prerequisite for reason is definitely not athiesm.