By atheists' own logic, they should belive in God

Believing in a God or higher power makes life feel happier than believing that we are just an accident, atheists even admit this but say that it's just an "ignorance is bliss thing".

But since atheists' believe that life is an accident and has no greater meaning, then there's no reason for them to care whether or not it really is true that there's a God, it would be better to just adopt belief in a God and have a happier outlook on life.

Therefore by atheists' own logic it would be better for them to believe in a God and feel happier, since it wouldn't matter either way if live has no greater purpose.

 

I don't believe in god and have always had a happy and positive outlook on life.

 

The Bible is full of stories about people believing in gods. But it also says that those gods are frauds. The bottom line is that even if a person does believe in a god someone else will claim that his god is the only real one. Now get busy worshiping Thor!

 

What's your point?

 

Worshipping Thor will make you happier than worshipping Jesus. Thor's all about mindless sex and violence. So convert today! You've certainly convinced me to start believing!

Facetiousness aside, this thread is stupid. I actually care about the truth, unlike you.

 

The point is that you believe in the wrong god. Now get busy and start worshiping Thor!

 

A number of things make me happy. One of them is learning the truth behind the travesty that is Christianity.

 

This would be more like a hedonistic outlook. I attend church and absorb all the benefits of Christianity, in a self-serving, hedonistic way, as you describe. But your mistake is your belief that I can somehow "change" my own beliefs at will. If I could, I would, for the very self-serving, hedonistic reasons we have already established. But changing what makes sense and seems true to me personally is impossible. I don't pick and choose what the truth is, I simply interpret it to the best of my knowledge. I can admit that I may be wrong, but I can't make an actual decision on what I believe. It just happens in my head. I'm funny like that, I guess.

I don't think all atheists are hedonists though. Plenty of atheists go to great lengths to avoid earthly pleasures... I don't know why, I suspect just for the chance at rubbing the Christian's nose in that fact. Personally, I want to live up to all the stereotypes of the sinful, overindulgent atheist. But that's not really what atheism is. I would be more precisely described as a atheist hedonist nihilist... but I'm not big on labels anyway.

I also believe that everyone is a self indulgent hedonist and that all other forms of philosophy are mere rationalizations for various manifestations of hedonism. I explain instances where ethical codes were adhered to even to the detriment of the subject by pointing out the potential for feelings of pleasure gained from adhering so strictly to a perceived noble standard. And of course, the only thing which distinguishes me from anyone else is that I am honest about it. It is also as likely that none of you others exist to begin with and none of it even matters. But I don't live by that. I do live assuming that other people exist. But I wonder sometimes.

 

Just wanted to clarify my previous post. The first sentence of the second paragraph should only allow that all atheists do not claim hedonism. I still suspect that we are all ultimately motivated by our own selfish desires and that most of our philosophical activity is devoted to rationalizing these desires in ways which make us seem more benevolent to others.

 

Atheism doesn't have set ideas thus atheists don't share a logic.

 

I agree, having the belief in a higher purpose "a God's Plan" to blame the wrongs in life on does make the bad things in life easier to digest

but just like a sugar pill can heal you if you believe... you still can't force yourself to believe in the sugar pill once you know it's just a sugar pill


.

 

I don’t know if gods exist or not or what there like if they do pretending 1 existed even one I like would not make me feel better because I would know I’m just pretending. Furthermore god can’t grant grater purpose to life it would just be like us, It exists because It exists its goals would be just as arbitrary as are own.
Everything is ultimately meaningless but if you’re going to have your own personal concerns any way they should come from yourself

 

So, as is quite often the case, the error lies in this line:

"But since atheists' believe that life is an accident and has no greater meaning, then there's no reason for them to care whether or not it really is true that there's a God, it would be better to just adopt belief in a God and have a happier outlook on life."

The notion that life has no _ultimate_ meaning is not the same as saying that it lacks all meaning. Humans are quite capable of producing their own meaning. Therefore, obtaining bliss and ignorance is not necessarily beneficial for atheists. After all, if nothing matters, then bliss doesn't matter either, and there is no reason to chose the bliss of ignorance over anything else.

 

Generally, though it does depend on exactly what you believe about God and how you live your life as a result. There can be a load more consequences of theism than the impact on the theists own mindset, good, bad and indifferent.

That's not necessarily true. It's possible to believe there is some fundamental meaning to life without belief in a deity. I suspect that most people who don't believe in any gods probably don't give any thought about the consequences of that at all.

Nobody can choose to believe (or not believe) in a god. It's a subconscious thing and while you can influence the information your mind basis it on, you can't make yourself change what you believe. It's like saying taller people are happier so I should make myself grow.

 

Another pathetic post.

Atheist logic: Evidence based.
Premise of God: Not evidence based.
A-Theist: Without gods

It is not that difficult.

 

Which of the following definitions of 'truth' are you referring to?
"truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."

 

Have you ever actually had a debate where it doesn't devolve into a semantic circle jerk?

 

What is rational? That we just appeared in our present form? If you are so smart…then do tell us how it all went down. Start with the First Cause. What happened? Scientists have been trying to figure this one out since the beginning of time. But since you are so smart….let us in on your secret.

Whatever you believe….you believe by faith…you have no way of proving there is no God. To do so would take all the knowledge the world has every known. AGain…do you possess all knowledge? Oh I can't wait to hear this one. This is not a stupid thread…it calls you to the table to account for your beliefs and why?

First of all the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in God. There is no God, never was, never will be. I do not think anyone can be an atheist just based on the definition. You can't prove it so how can you be it. The best anyone can be that denies the existence of God is an agnostic. They don't think God exists but they can't prove it and admit it.

So what is that First Cause? How did everything start?

 

The scientific answer to that question is "we don't know". Simply saying "goddidit" is invalid.

No faith required.

And again to repeat something that I have said a dozen times on this forum: atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with your personal knowledge, atheism deals with beliefs. Agnostic atheists say "I don't know if there is a god or not, but I don't believe in one."

 

Seeking clarification of a speakers intended message is an accepted part of debate. If you are frowning on the acceptable parts of debate, then what part or parts of a debate scenario are you not frowning??? Because the term 'truth' is ambiguous (even in its definitions), there is probable cause for me to seek such clarification.

 

Uh, no. You can't just choose to believe something. Can you choose to believe I'm superman? Can you choose to believe you can fly? Prove it.

And I was no happier when I believed in god anyway. I think the Christian god is a vile, disturbing idea. As for any other god, it would not make me happier to pretend to believe in something that made no sense and I had no evidence for.

And if you think people can choose to believe in god and that it would make them happy, and yet, people aren't doing it, there's obviously a problem in your logic and you need to rethink it.

This is my one and only reply in yet another ridiculous thread of yours.

 

And when he provides a definition based on that list you gave, you would have attacked the words in that definition in the next regression of your semantic bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It's what you do in pratically every thread.

 

AT the highlighted text: Are you suggesting that the behavior of Atheists is the result of things which they 'believe'?

 

Nope.

This has been explained to you one more than once occasion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, they lack a belief, they do not claim that there is no God. Just an absence of evidence for such.

 

No. I'm saying that atheists are atheists because of their beliefs about god, specifically their lack of belief in a god.

Their behavior is determined by the beliefs that they have that provide positive beliefs, such as their values and philosophy. Atheism says nothing about how people should or should not act.