Faithful Atheist

[Ethos]

There was the young atheist who shared my concern about the proliferation of pornography, especially its availability to children. He knew of my Christian beliefs but didn’t want to talk much about it. I prayed for him for several years. One morning, he called me from an airport in tears. I wondered why he was crying when things had been going so well for him—a better job, a bigger house and a new baby. He said, “Jan, I’m terrified of flying because I’m afraid to die.” We cut to the chase because he was about to board another plane. “You need Jesus.” I explained the Gospel in the words of the Apostle Paul, and my friend opened his heart to Christ.

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

He called later from the next airport saying that he had flown for the first time without fear. “I knew if it crashed I would be with Jesus.” Now that’s a friendly sky. My friend has grown in his faith and reminds me each year on the date of his call.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JanetMLaRue/2007/10/30/faithful_atheists?page=full&comments=true

The daily atheist backlash on Townhall does not let us down. In this episode we have punditry from a lawyer:


As a lawyer, I’ve spent my career studying evidence. I’m quite confident that any objective and open-minded person who seriously considers the case for the empty tomb will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ is the Lord of Life as He claimed.

I'm not sure why the commentary is titled "Faithful Atheist", although I suppose a more appropriate title "Faithful Christian" is only preaching to the choir - and an anti-atheism editorial would have to be written by someone else.

My reasons for posting the quote above are less obvious. In contrast to the author's intent, I am providing this particular segment about her atheist friend's fear of flying (and his subsequent acceptance of Christ) as a further recognition of what can be a positive aspect of religion.

Now we could quibble over whether her friend was a "true" atheist or not. I don't fear death, nor can I find any rational reason to do so, and I'm not aware of another atheist who does (though admittedly it's not a question for conversation and there are no doubt plenty who do). The point is that this gentlemen had a paralyzing phobia, which quite obviously inflicted considerable psychological strain and no doubt impeded his life in untold ways. If a belief in god relieves that stress - as such beliefs do for millions of Americans and perhaps billions of people world-wide - why should it be any less a viable means of coping with daily life than a more secular passion?

There is an inherently comforting aspect of knowing you will be taken care of, even in death. People gain strength from faith in a god who "doesn't give us more hardship than we can handle." As far as I am concerned, any belief system that gives a person the means of living life in a proactive way (provided they don't harm others in the process) is a beneficial psychological defense with inherent merit, regardless of its origins.

Unfortunately my more popular atheist friends (such as Dawkins, who we can thank in part for the daily barrage of generally erroneous anti-atheist babble) seem to have forgotten that not everyone needs to think or even believe the same way. And while it is fine to protest those who might use the hand of god as a weapon against non-believers, moving too far in the other direction - protesting the hand of god in all instances, even when it helps or calms - is as ill-conceived as it is counter-productive.

Ethos

[eugene40]

"protesting the hand of god in all instances, even when it helps or calms - is as ill-conceived as it is counter-productive."

This is I think a great example of how religion is the opiate of the masses. And though Dawkins does sometimes go a bit over the top. But for me if someone is using "god" in this way then it is just a crutch.

Also lazy, yes the man called and was reassured by "christ" sure. He did not have the intellect to realize that planes are statistically the safest way to travel, or say to himself "you know after this flight, I am going to take flying lessons so that I can learn and conquer my fear" Nope he was reassured by an imaginary friend.
I used to be afraid of heights as a child, then to conquer that I began to bungee jump and then learned to skydive. I didn't seek out some imaginary friend to console me. I found the solution within myself.

And as far as fear of the afterlife goes. I have always found that Christians are more afraid of death then anyone, religious or otherwise. I have faced death a number of times and it never inspired me to call out to a "god". I have seen people do it and hesitate and sit there and be afraid. It maybe me realize that the saying of "there are no atheists in foxholes" is a bunch of crap.

[Ethos]

"protesting the hand of god in all instances, even when it helps or calms - is as ill-conceived as it is counter-productive."

This is I think a great example of how religion is the opiate of the masses. And though Dawkins does sometimes go a bit over the top. But for me if someone is using "god" in this way then it is just a crutch.

So is aspirin. Do you object to its use?



Also lazy, yes the man called and was reassured by "christ" sure. He did not have the intellect to realize that planes are statistically the safest way to travel, or say to himself "you know after this flight, I am going to take flying lessons so that I can learn and conquer my fear" Nope he was reassured by an imaginary friend.

I used to be afraid of heights as a child, then to conquer that I began to bungee jump and then learned to skydive. I didn't seek out some imaginary friend to console me. I found the solution within myself.


I agree he took a far easier "way out" than someone who might spend months (if not years) in counseling to determine the source of their fears and develop more practical means of eradicating them.

However to this I must ask - so what? If a man wishes to simply rely on an "imaginary friend" than take skydiving lessons, who are you to say his effort is any more or less legitimate than your own?

Ethos

[AgentM]

And as far as fear of the afterlife goes. I have always found that Christians are more afraid of death then anyone, religious or otherwise. I have faced death a number of times and it never inspired me to call out to a "god". I have seen people do it and hesitate and sit there and be afraid. It maybe me realize that the saying of "there are no atheists in foxholes" is a bunch of crap.

It's an interesting contradiction there. That religion makes people less afraid of death, but you say that Christians you know are more afraid of dying than other people. I too have faced death at least once (almost hit by a car), but neither did it give me a psychological need for God, it merely made me extremely angry. Perhaps Christians are, on the whole less afraid of death, but afraid of judgment. What if they've messed up and sinned in the eyes of God? What if they happened to choose the wrong denomination or even religion (sorry, Hindu's only)? It's an interesting psychological phenomena.

[Ethos]

It's an interesting contradiction there. That religion makes people less afraid of death, but you say that Christians you know are more afraid of dying than other people. I too have faced death at least once (almost hit by a car), but neither did it give me a psychological need for God, it merely made me extremely angry. Perhaps Christians are, on the whole less afraid of death, but afraid of judgment. What if they've messed up and sinned in the eyes of God? What if they happened to choose the wrong denomination or even religion (sorry, Hindu's only)? It's an interesting psychological phenomena.

I don't believe the actual fear is one of death or judgement. Humans in general are simply afraid of the unknown, whether it be from a group of outsiders entering a closed community, or what might happen to us when our hearts stop beating. Religion then becomes a way to both make the unknown knowable and (paradoxically) give us a method by which to be less afraid of those things we still can't understand - Faith.

To me it is only a matter of asking, "why be afraid of something you don't know?" I don't want to make it sound easy, however on a rational basis, it doesn't seem to make much sense to fear an unknown quality or quantity. I believe far too many people fill that space with imagined monstrosities as a part of basic animal nature. (Believing a dark cave is indeed filled with snakes assists survival when one doesn't yet own a torch).

Ethos

[AgentM]

I don't believe the actual fear is one of death or judgement. Humans in general are simply afraid of the unknown, whether it be from a group of outsiders entering a closed community, or what might happen to us when our hearts stop beating. Religion then becomes a way to both make the unknown knowable and (paradoxically) give us a method by which to be less afraid of those things we still can't understand - Faith.

To me it is only a matter of asking, "why be afraid of something you don't know?" I don't want to make it sound easy, however on a rational basis, it doesn't seem to make much sense to fear an unknown quality or quantity. I believe far too many people fill that space with imagined monstrosities as a part of basic animal nature. (Believing a dark cave is indeed filled with snakes assists survival when one doesn't yet own a torch).

Ethos

That's also true. Maybe I was looking into it too much. :)

[Groucho]

What is wrong with wanting people not to believe in things that can't be proven? Why can't atheists wish for people to "see the light" too, to live in a world where logic and evidence rules and people make decisions not based on gods or astrology or tarot cards?

On an individual basis, if someone wants to believe in UFOs or imaginary friends or ghosts or whatever, it doesn't bother me -- let them. The problem is that many of these people have power over me. They are politicians and judges and business leaders and so on, who can through their actions discriminate against me for not believing or at the worst pass laws based on their irrational beliefs. That's the problem.

[Ethos]

What is wrong with wanting people not to believe in things that can't be proven? Why can't atheists wish for people to "see the light" too, to live in a world where logic and evidence rules and people make decisions not based on gods or astrology or tarot cards?

We can, but to what end? So that everyone can hold the same philosophy as anyone else? As much as I detest religious fundamentalism, the world would be a far less rich and interesting place without religion in general.



The problem is that many of these people have power over me. They are politicians and judges and business leaders and so on, who can through their actions discriminate against me for not believing or at the worst pass laws based on their irrational beliefs. That's the problem.

Yes, and this is exactly what we must fight against, without spreading that opposition to those who would simply go about their lives in a less obtrusive manner.

As long as our recovered pteromerhanophobe doesn't start trying to legislate his new found faith, he should be welcome to it.

Ethos

[Groucho]

We can, but to what end? So that everyone can hold the same philosophy as anyone else? As much as I detest religious fundamentalism, the world would be a far less rich and interesting place without religion in general.

I think I can state fairly certainly that not all atheists think alike. There is plenty of philosophy to go around. Atheists are liberal and conservative, rich and poor, black and white, and have much more variety than any one religion. We're not going to all agree on everything. We're not all going to like the same cultural things; we're not going to all like the same movies or music or anything.

Life is full of things to discuss and disagree about. And I think debates and discussions will be a lot more interesting when one side doesn't fall back on the "you just have to have faith" defense.

[Demon of Light]

Atheists are liberal and conservative, rich and poor, black and white, and have much more variety than any one religion.

Some of them are even Christian and Jewish. :D

[eugene40]

So is aspirin. Do you object to its use?
Nope just its over use. And Aspirin has a medicinal purpose, a chemical reaction within the body. Belief in "Hey sus" doesn't.



I agree he took a far easier "way out" than someone who might spend months (if not years) in counseling to determine the source of their fears and develop more practical means of eradicating them.
Not really,, mine was a good case in point. Scarred of heights, answer face fear and jump off bridge. No counseling needed, no therapists used.

However to this I must ask - so what? If a man wishes to simply rely on an "imaginary friend" than take skydiving lessons, who are you to say his effort is any more or less legitimate than your own?
Not saying that it is illegitimate, I am saying one looks within for the answer, to try to stengthen themselves and come out stronger and more self reliant. Where the other does not. It is the same as those 12 step programs for addiction, that make people believe that they are not strong enough to beat it, they have to seek the "lord" for strength. It is one of the major problems I have with religion. You are weak without the lord. I think that it is crap. Sorry I don't mean to begrudge people like that. But strength comes from within, not some imaginary friend.

[eugene40]

It's an interesting contradiction there. That religion makes people less afraid of death, but you say that Christians you know are more afraid of dying than other people. I too have faced death at least once (almost hit by a car), but neither did it give me a psychological need for God, it merely made me extremely angry. Perhaps Christians are, on the whole less afraid of death, but afraid of judgment. What if they've messed up and sinned in the eyes of God? What if they happened to choose the wrong denomination or even religion (sorry, Hindu's only)? It's an interesting psychological phenomena.

It has always been a contradiction that I have noticed. If god is so great, and heaven is so great. And all you need to do to get their is accept that some guy 2000 years ago is your savior. Then why fear death. They should be prepped for it. Looking forward to it. To me it is like the supposed atheists that when the fit hit the shan starts to pray for god. For me it is either you believe or you don't. I don't believe in god and nothing has shook it. Not facing my own death, nor the death of family and friends. I don't it is just odd.

[eugene40]

Oh and by the way. The new psychologist in me sees the first post and focuses in on the fact that the atheist just had a baby. Which I think is the reason for his new found fear. Did this new found appreciation for Christ come from the need to fill this new found feeling of impotence that he felt because he was scared of dying because his new baby wouldn't know him.

See articles like this that proclaim conversion leave out so many things. Such as, has he always been afraid of flying or is this something new. Was this before or after 9/11 and if so how long. Or has there been a recent plane crash. Or has a acquaintence or friend that also has a child recently died. etc etc etc So many variables, so many different reasons and solutions. But for the religious there is only one. GOD. And what kind of friend was this. I mean you buddy calls you freaked out about flying on the plane and the thing you say to him is you need christ. As if christ is going to pop out of the sky like Superman and stop the plane if it crashes. Why not say, bud, you have been on dozens of plane rides, you are a little freaked out because this might be the first one since the baby. And their is this big unknown now. But it is going to be ok, just like it has always been. I don't know about his friend, A lot of my religious friends look to convert me at any given opportunity, like I am their white whale. I wonder his friend just didn't exploit his fear. Like thousands before him to make another convert.


Little rant there, but some valid points I think.

[Ethos]

Nope just its over use. And Aspirin has a medicinal purpose, a chemical reaction within the body. Belief in "Hey sus" doesn't.

The act of worship causes a chemical release in the brain that is actually far more effective than aspirin. If anything I would consider aspirin more of a "crutch" since it is a foreign substance, while worship is self-generated.



Not really,, mine was a good case in point. Scarred of heights, answer face fear and jump off bridge. No counseling needed, no therapists used.

What you managed to do was a form of positive reinforcement. The adrenaline and dopamine rush (among others) is an extremely enjoyable combination. Rather than looking for and defeating the root cause of your fear (therapy), you simply tricked your brain into relating a cocktail of feel-good neurotransmitters with high places.


Not saying that it is illegitimate, I am saying one looks within for the answer, to try to stengthen themselves and come out stronger and more self reliant. Where the other does not. It is the same as those 12 step programs for addiction, that make people believe that they are not strong enough to beat it, they have to seek the "lord" for strength. It is one of the major problems I have with religion. You are weak without the lord. I think that it is crap. Sorry I don't mean to begrudge people like that. But strength comes from within, not some imaginary friend.

What you don't understand is that the strengths associated with religion do come from within, they are simply derived in a manner that you apparently can't appreciate.

Take the example of three unhappy individuals. The first turns to anti-depressants and is feeling better within a few weeks. The second makes a choice to try something new each and every day, and within a couple of months she is in an entirely different frame of mind. The third happens upon god, and in short order finds an inner joy she has never known.

Regardless of how you feel about the individual methods used, the absolute core chemistry that operates a change in perspective is precisely the same. The only difference is the means by which they reached their ends.

Ethos

[Ethos]

Little rant there, but some valid points I think.

Many very valid points. However the purpose here wasn't to pick apart the commentary itself, but to turn the intent of the author into something else.

After all, I could probably spend the better part of a day discussing how a lawyer could manage to so thoroughly confuse faith with evidence.

Ethos

[Turenne]

So is aspirin. Do you object to its use?

Ethos

Hardly a fair comparison. Aspirin is a very real medicine that helps us get over headaches and makes us better when we are ill. Its positive effects are not unfounded or imaginary, unlike the existence of God. Its tempting to say that if it makes someone happy to believe in God, despite being incapable of proving this God's existence, then there is no problem - indeed its positive - with people putting their faith behind an unproven supernatural entity. However I think this argument can be rebuked by pointing to the dangers to rationalism in allowing self delusion and blind faith to go unchecked.

[Ethos]

Hardly a fair comparison. Aspirin is a very real medicine that helps us get over headaches and makes us better when we are ill. Its positive effects are not unfounded or imaginary, unlike the existence of God. Its tempting to say that if it makes someone happy to believe in God, despite being incapable of proving this God's existence, then there is no problem - indeed its positive - with people putting their faith behind an unproven supernatural entity.

As I've already pointed out, the chemical reactions are equivalent. It is only the source that differs.

Ask yourself - since there is no god, how exactly do people "feel better" when praying? When you find the answer, you discover the process is not so different from taking an aspirin.



However I think this argument can be rebuked by pointing to the dangers to rationalism in allowing self delusion and blind faith to go unchecked.

Rationalism isn't an issue so long as one person's dogma doesn't start biting other people. (Okay, so I found it funny.)

My mother is very religious, and she has found a great deal of comfort in her faith. She has never harmed anyone else in the process. I'm not willing to condemn her beliefs simply because someone else might take their own too far.

Ethos

[eugene40]

The act of worship causes a chemical release in the brain that is actually far more effective than aspirin. If anything I would consider aspirin more of a "crutch" since it is a foreign substance, while worship is self-generated.
Fair enough, however there also has been several studies that prayer and worship doesn't do anything, but we can consider that moot point. Oh and I feel the same way about Aspirin,, I don't like taking any type of drugs.


What you managed to do was a form of positive reinforcement. The adrenaline and dopamine rush (among others) is an extremely enjoyable combination. Rather than looking for and defeating the root cause of your fear (therapy), you simply tricked your brain into relating a cocktail of feel-good neurotransmitters with high places.
I actually knew the root cause of my fear of hates, My unkle hung me by my ankles over snoqualmie falls when I was a child. Was scared of heights until the age of 18. I agree about the adrenaline an the dopamine. And parts of me still do not like heights. But I overcome that everytime I jump out of a plane or dive off a cliff or whatever.


What you don't understand is that the strengths associated with religion do come from within, they are simply derived in a manner that you apparently can't appreciate.
You are exactly right, I don't understand how you can say you are internally strong when the root of that strength is an imaginary being that does not exist within you. I understand faith is strong. But I look at it this way, if the concept of God was disproven and I know that is an impossibility. but if god was. I would be ok tomorrow. Where as others wouldn't, there entire world would be shattered, their mental faculties would be left in ruins. etc etc etc.

Take the example of three unhappy individuals. The first turns to anti-depressants and is feeling better within a few weeks. The second makes a choice to try something new each and every day, and within a couple of months she is in an entirely different frame of mind. The third happens upon god, and in short order finds an inner joy she has never known.
Define unhappy, is one Clinically depressed say does one lack chemicals in the brain that makes them depressed, or just sad because someone moved away. Are they superficial with being "unhappy" one second and "happy" the next depeding on what materialistic thing is going on in their life. Do they come from an environment that belief in god is associated with happiness. And how does one "happen upon god " did they trip over a bible left on the floor, been diagnosed with schizophrenia recently, did a burning bush appear in their yard, do they currently live in southern california. "God" unfortunately is too prevelant in society to just happen upon it. Also, instantly happy with the finding of god, what about the constant battle of the faithful in their dealings with god. What about the conflict of living your entire life without the belief of god until they "happened" upon it. Maybe it isn't just an opiate, maybe it is the greatest placebo ever created.


Regardless of how you feel about the individual methods used, the absolute core chemistry that operates a change in perspective is precisely the same. The only difference is the means by which they reached their ends.

Possibly, but between giving someone who is clinically depressed an MAOI or a bible I am going to choose the MAOI.

[eugene40]

Many very valid points. However the purpose here wasn't to pick apart the commentary itself, but to turn the intent of the author into something else.
I agree, but I am saying that if the man had called a friend who was an aeronautical engineer, there would have been an entirely different conversation and we wouldn't be discussing it now. Same thing if he would have called a psychologist familiar with phobias or the concept of new children and fear.

After all, I could probably spend the better part of a day discussing how a lawyer could manage to so thoroughly confuse faith with evidence.
And I could thoroughly refute them but I got other things to do. Plus lawyers can word anything the way they want to. Heck they got OJ off.

[Dangerrmouse]

"Ask yourself - since there is no god, how exactly do people "feel better" when praying? When you find the answer, you discover the process is not so different from taking an aspirin."

I did, and I said to myself, the Aspirin has a predictable therapeutic action related to dosage, whereas any improvement due to prayer, being subject to the intensity of the belief of the prayee, is more akin to the placebo effect, seen when a subject is given an inert chalk tablet which they are led to believe to have painkilling capabilities.

[Ethos]

Fair enough, however there also has been several studies that prayer and worship doesn't do anything, but we can consider that moot point.

I believe the studies you refer to are about whether prayers create an external influence - such as praying for a relative to get well. The general calming effects of prayer on the individual self are well documented.



You are exactly right, I don't understand how you can say you are internally strong when the root of that strength is an imaginary being that does not exist within you. I understand faith is strong. But I look at it this way, if the concept of God was disproven and I know that is an impossibility. but if god was. I would be ok tomorrow. Where as others wouldn't, there entire world would be shattered, their mental faculties would be left in ruins. etc etc etc.


Which is one reason why faith is a very strong mechanism that receives constant reinforcement. (It may also be a reason why such beliefs are in fact designed from the ground up to be impossible to disprove.)



Maybe it isn't just an opiate, maybe it is the greatest placebo ever created.

How does it feel to have just fallen over one of the great truths in life?



Possibly, but between giving someone who is clinically depressed an MAOI or a bible I am going to choose the MAOI.

So would I. Unfortunately the human race hasn't had access to decent artificial sources of increasing seratonin or monoamine levels for more than a few decades. We were forced to develop other types of coping mechanisms. Thus one evolutionary basis for religion.

Ethos

[Ethos]

"Ask yourself - since there is no god, how exactly do people "feel better" when praying? When you find the answer, you discover the process is not so different from taking an aspirin."

I did, and I said to myself, the Aspirin has a predictable therapeutic action related to dosage, whereas any improvement due to prayer, being subject to the intensity of the belief of the prayee, is more akin to the placebo effect, seen when a subject is given an inert chalk tablet which they are led to believe to have painkilling capabilities.

You haven't really answered the question.

When the placebo works, what is the actual biochemical process that takes place within the body?

[eugene40]

I believe the studies you refer to are about whether prayers create an external influence - such as praying for a relative to get well. The general calming effects of prayer on the individual self are well documented.
Ok, but so has meditation. Who is to say that it is the prayer itself but maybe the act. The mechanisms in the brain that the person shuts down or starts up when they stop, and even just think for a period of time.


Which is one reason why faith is a very strong mechanism that receives constant reinforcement. (It may also be a reason why such beliefs are in fact designed from the ground up to be impossible to disprove.)
Well I go for the more has been classically conditioned so well that it takes a long while before extinction could occur, if ever.



How does it feel to have just fallen over one of the great truths in life?
I am pretty happy with it.



So would I. Unfortunately the human race hasn't had access to decent artificial sources of increasing seratonin or monoamine levels for more than a few decades. We were forced to develop other types of coping mechanisms. Thus one evolutionary basis for religion.

Could be that, I still view it as something that was developed to keep the masses in check and the rest is just an offset of it.

[Ethos]

Ok, but so has meditation. Who is to say that it is the prayer itself but maybe the act. The mechanisms in the brain that the person shuts down or starts up when they stop, and even just think for a period of time.

I may have been unintentionally implying that "prayer" is the literal mechanism. I actually consider prayer the mental equivalent of meditation, so you are essentially correct.



Could be that, I still view it as something that was developed to keep the masses in check and the rest is just an offset of it.

Certainly a worthy point of discussion. In this case I would respond by asking how the development of religions that don't lend well to political conquest fit with this paradigm?

Ethos

[eugene40]

Certainly a worthy point of discussion. In this case I would respond by asking how the development of religions that don't lend well to political conquest fit with this paradigm?

Ethos

Well you could probably correlate the religions that do not lend well to political conquest, to those that actually seek power. Or those that developed because along side politics. And so on and so forth. Because not all religions seek or are associated with power. Some are actually against it.

[Dangerrmouse]

You haven't really answered the question.

When the placebo works, what is the actual biochemical process that takes place within the body?

The biochemistry of the placebo is less concerning to me than the deception implicit in its use.

[Ethos]

The biochemistry of the placebo is less concerning to me than the deception implicit in its use.

How so? Self deception is a necessity of life. Without it, most of us could not function.

[steveksux]

The biochemistry of the placebo is less concerning to me than the deception implicit in its use.If it works, why would the deceprion be a problem. Choosing between a real drug with potential bad side effects, and a placebo, wouldn't the placebo be better when it works? Whether you trigger the appropriate physiological responses to treat the patient by chemical or psychological trigger mechanisms is irrelevant to me. If hope is related to positive outcomes, and a lie is needed to provide hope, the lie is part of the treatment regimin, no?

Not to be confused with lying to obtain informed consent, of course...

Randy

[serenity]

There is a problem with placebo methodology, however. For example, it is frequently ineffective.

And this certainly brings up an important issue:

If a doctor medicates me, let’s say to cure my pain, and it fails to work…well, I know the doctor has tried his best, using scientific medical knowledge, to help me.

However, if the doctor administers a placebo instead, and it doesn’t work….well, let’s just say I’d be extremely angry at him. The two attempts are NOT unequivocally equal.

[lawman]

So is aspirin. Do you object to its use?
No. I would, however, object to the use of invisible, intangible aspirin, and object rather more strenuously to the regular and formalized worship of said imaginary aspirin.

...so what? If a man wishes to simply rely on an "imaginary friend" than take skydiving lessons, who are you to say his effort is any more or less legitimate than your own?
"So what," indeed: if your argument is merely that every person ought to be free to believe what he likes, whether it's rational or merely emotional, I have little argument with that, nor do most nonbelievers. But you're well aware that the anti-atheist backlash isn't merely a matter of defending such "free exercise," because it's not really under attack in the first place.

The problem is with institutional religion, and its attempts to dominate the culture in which it's situated (including the behavior of nonbelievers) with formalized irrationality, and the pervasive sense of entitlement of its adherents that they have some inherent right to do this -- so much so that merely to question that right is perceived as an attack.

(Oh, and FWIW, just to throw a monkey wrench in the various generalizations being offered up -- I, personally, have to 'fess up that I'm terrified of death, both the suffering that usually precedes it and the very concept of nonexistence afterward. The sense that an afterlife -- i.e., continued conscious existence -- was a consummation devoutly to be wished was one reason it took me years longer to give up on my religious upbringing than reason alone might have dictated. I would very much like to live forever, if a reasonable means to do so can ever be found.)

[Groucho]

Concerning Lawman's comments about death: I agree completely.

As one who does not believe in an afterlife, I wonder if that has affected my actions in other ways. I have never ever considered suicide, I am a semi-vegetarian (I do eat fish), do not smoke, drink in moderation and have never been drunk, take no drugs, and try to do everything I can to live a long and healthy life because this is the only one I will have.

I wonder if people who did not believe in an afterlife would be as willing to go to war, fly airplanes into buildings, and take other deadly actions if they knew that was the end.

... but maybe that should be a separate topic.

[marv]

I too am an atheist, not to be confused with Atheist. Whatever one wishes to believe is fine with me so long as noharm or injury results from that belief.

My wife of 28 years is a devout Southern Baptist, BTW.

[Ethos]

No. I would, however, object to the use of invisible, intangible aspirin, and object rather more strenuously to the regular and formalized worship of said imaginary aspirin.

On what grounds? If the intangible aspirin works for a person as well as regular aspirin, what is the fundamental difference for that individual?



"So what," indeed: if your argument is merely that every person ought to be free to believe what he likes, whether it's rational or merely emotional, I have little argument with that, nor do most nonbelievers. But you're well aware that the anti-atheist backlash isn't merely a matter of defending such "free exercise," because it's not really under attack in the first place.

The problem is with institutional religion, and its attempts to dominate the culture in which it's situated (including the behavior of nonbelievers) with formalized irrationality, and the pervasive sense of entitlement of its adherents that they have some inherent right to do this -- so much so that merely to question that right is perceived as an attack.

I absolutely agree. However I must still draw a line between those who worship within an institutionalized religion, yet do not hold personal aspirations of cultural domination, in much the same way a person can vote for a republican without necessarily mirroring all republican ideals.



(Oh, and FWIW, just to throw a monkey wrench in the various generalizations being offered up -- I, personally, have to 'fess up that I'm terrified of death, both the suffering that usually precedes it and the very concept of nonexistence afterward. The sense that an afterlife -- i.e., continued conscious existence -- was a consummation devoutly to be wished was one reason it took me years longer to give up on my religious upbringing than reason alone might have dictated. I would very much like to live forever, if a reasonable means to do so can ever be found.)

Not really a monkey wrench; I fully expect many (if not most) atheists do fear death - although that fear isn't based on a rational position. If it were medically feasible, I myself would like to live for a very long time. Forever? Most certainly not. The actual concept of living a literal eternity is far more frightening in its implications to me than death.

Ethos

[marv]

Just a brief note: having almost died or been killed so many times in my 68 years, I would almost welcome some peace and quiet. I'll never understand why anyone would want to live forever - anywhere, under any circumstances.

[lawman]

If it were medically feasible, I myself would like to live for a very long time. Forever? Most certainly not. The actual concept of living a literal eternity is far more frightening in its implications to me than death.
Well, by my use of the word "forever," please read "as long as I please." Should I at some point get genuinely tired of life, I would of course want to be able to decide voluntarily to abandon it. I'd like the decision to be mine, though... and for the foreseeable future, I'd like to stick around to see how the story develops, as it were.

[Ethos]

Well, by my use of the word "forever," please read "as long as I please." Should I at some point get genuinely tired of life, I would of course want to be able to decide voluntarily to abandon it. I'd like the decision to be mine, though... and for the foreseeable future, I'd like to stick around to see how the story develops, as it were.

This make far more sense.

In this case, we agree.

Ethos

[Groucho]

Just a brief note: having almost died or been killed so many times in my 68 years, I would almost welcome some peace and quiet. I'll never understand why anyone would want to live forever - anywhere, under any circumstances.

And are you an atheist?

This is my only shot at life. I can't start over, like a computer game. When I'm gone, that's it. Why would I look forward to that?

[eugene40]

I wonder if people who did not believe in an afterlife would be as willing to go to war, fly airplanes into buildings, and take other deadly actions if they knew that was the end.

... but maybe that should be a separate topic.

I went over there, And I am an atheist. Have been in countless "deadly" situations and have no problem with it. However I view myself as a warrior, which is a little bit different than the average person. To die in battle, no matter the battle. Would be a great thing. Do I want to die, not in the least, I would like to live as long as I can. But I have lived, seen the world, experienced many a thing. And have led a pretty good life. So if I were to die tomorrow it wouldn't be a wasted life. Though my relatives would get the benefit of my good choices and keen business sense. And would inherit all the money I have accumulated.

Would I fly a plane into a building? No.. Would I march thousands of miles to a land to slaughter thousands of people that don't believe the same things I do? NO

[TomAZ]

And are you an atheist?

This is my only shot at life. I can't start over, like a computer game. When I'm gone, that's it. Why would I look forward to that?


Groucho; Being in my 7th decade on this earth, I can understand what marv is saying. I refer to this period in my life as "the falling apart years". Although I'm in good health TODAY, tomorrow is another day.
As an atheist I place a high value on life too, but in these twilight years, life can become miserable for many. Last year I watched my 67 year-old spouse die a little bit each day until she died, only having two years to enjoy her retirement.

Right now I can do as I please and go wherever I want to, but tomorrow I may be drooling all over myself and wearing an adult diaper. These are "the golden years". (For those in the medical profession).

[Groucho]

Groucho; Being in my 7th decade on this earth, I can understand what marv is saying. I refer to this period in my life as "the falling apart years". Although I'm in good health TODAY, tomorrow is another day.
As an atheist I place a high value on life too, but in these twilight years, life can become miserable for many. Last year I watched my 67 year-old spouse die a little bit each day until she died, only having two years to enjoy her retirement.

Right now I can do as I please and go wherever I want to, but tomorrow I may be drooling all over myself and wearing an adult diaper. These are "the golden years". (For those in the medical profession).

I can certainly understand that. My wife has been fighting cancer for 10 years now, and her life has deteriorated greatly. (We're both 49 and atheists, by the way.) I too would rather not live forever in a crippling condition or in constant pain.

Please understand that my comments were meant in general, hoping for something that can never happen -- immortality.

One of my favorite quotes, from Woody Allen: "Some people wish to achieve immortality through their work, or their children. I prefer to achieve it by not dying."

[TomAZ]

I can certainly understand that. My wife has been fighting cancer for 10 years now, and her life has deteriorated greatly. (We're both 49 and atheists, by the way.) I too would rather not live forever in a crippling condition or in constant pain.

Please understand that my comments were meant in general, hoping for something that can never happen -- immortality.

One of my favorite quotes, from Woody Allen: "Some people wish to achieve immortality through their work, or their children. I prefer to achieve it by not dying."


At 49 years old I'd say that your wife still has youth on her side, and tomorrow's another day. The thing I love about science is it never quits searching for answers. Too bad it's stifled by quacks in so many areas of research.

[BrokenDoors]

And are you an atheist?

This is my only shot at life. I can't start over, like a computer game. When I'm gone, that's it. Why would I look forward to that?

IMO, scarcity applies to time as well. The less time you have, the more valuable the remaining time becomes.

[TomAZ]

IMO, scarcity applies to time as well. The less time you have, the more valuable the remaining time becomes.

Not necessarily so. The transition from life to death can be horrible for some.
Having worked in a hospital many years ago, I've had quite a few requests from suffering patients to help them end their lives.

Ever hear of Huntington's disease?

[whatever]

Groucho; Being in my 7th decade on this earth, I can understand what marv is saying. I refer to this period in my life as "the falling apart years". Although I'm in good health TODAY, tomorrow is another day.
As an atheist I place a high value on life too, but in these twilight years, life can become miserable for many. Last year I watched my 67 year-old spouse die a little bit each day until she died, only having two years to enjoy her retirement.

Right now I can do as I please and go wherever I want to, but tomorrow I may be drooling all over myself and wearing an adult diaper. These are "the golden years". (For those in the medical profession).

I'm in my 20's, but I already feel like I don't want to live too long (above 70 or 80). I quite admire someone who live to old age, to me it's like, if you can battle against life for that long, you deserve respect. If you can stay happy and not be disillusioned by all the things you must have faced (for example the lost of loved ones) by that age, then you're like a decorated vet. :)




I wonder if people who did not believe in an afterlife would be as willing to go to war, fly airplanes into buildings, and take other deadly actions if they knew that was the end.

I think so, for a cause they truly believe in. It's all about how much you value your life vs the thing you will die for. I'm sure alot of atheists died for their cause in the past.


To be honest, I think people tend to tie religion to fear of dying too often. There's no rule that says that if you are religious you have to fear (or not fear) dying, and if you're atheist then you will fear (or won't fear) dying. Just this topic alone shows that there's really no correlation between the two, it's just our own individual preconception.

I mean, I don't think that there's god and after life, and I take more comfort from the idea of non-existence after death, so I don't let the possibility of dying restrict my actions too much. Though the thoughts of how I might hurt the people who love me should I hurt myself, or die, do make me think twice about jumping off a clift (just for fun, not suicide or anything), but that's two different things.

[TomAZ]

I'm in my 20's, but I already feel like I don't want to live too long (above 70 or 80). I quite admire someone who live to old age, to me it's like, if you can battle against life for that long, you deserve respect. If you can stay happy and not be disillusioned by all the things you must have faced (for example the lost of loved ones) by that age, then you're like a decorated vet. :) [QUOTE]



Whatever. Thank you for your kind comments.:)

[BrokenDoors]

Not necessarily so. The transition from life to death can be horrible for some.
Having worked in a hospital many years ago, I've had quite a few requests from suffering patients to help them end their lives.

Ever hear of Huntington's disease?

Just because the time gets more valuable doesn't mean there isn't a mitigating factor that would lead one to suicide anyway.