• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Intellectual Laziness of Atheists

Jhon said:

So I freely admit that I seek to put finality and closure to this question, in as short an order as possible, in fact, so I can spend my time thinking about things that I feel are relevant to my life.
Click to expand...

"Who cares what happens when you die?
Life's too short to wonder why!"

- Pennywise

:)
 
I'm interested in what happens when I die but I don't believe it has anything to do with a "higher entity".
 
What makes you rule out that possibility, inasmuch as it has been an integral part of many belief systems (e.g. buddhism), which happen to offer us many other answers that are up to us to accept? To what degree can you put finality and closure to the question of what happens after we die?
 
I'm not so sure buddhism involves a "higher entity"...we are all just universal consciousness, looking upon itself from a particular perspective.

ebola
np: skinny puppy
 
You're right, buddhism doesn't really involve any "higher entity".

Besides, look at it this way: We're *all* atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever.
 
Yeah they do. There's Chenrezeig (sp?), Maitreya, that White Tara chick (well wisher of widows or sumthn)..
last time I went to Buddha house they had hundreds maybe thousands of 'higher entities' with lots of heads and arms.

Buddhist philosophy/practice is an attempt at liberation into the 'void', the Brahmajyoti, where all individuality is lost.
The Brahmajyoti is compared to God as what sunlight is to the sun.
 
Xherrus said:
To what degree can you put finality and closure to the question of what happens after we die?
Click to expand...

who said i wanted to put finality and closure to the question??? what kind of stupid remark is that ( sorry i dont wanna get rude )

if u really wanna know just kill urself and if not...well i guess in that case u could discuss in this thread untill the fuckin end of time.....better smoke a blunt and continue drinkin
 
Cos' reply made me laugh out loud. A nimble-minded brainiac indeed.

Sadly, contributors like Cos and Mike DMA consider themselves sufficiently intelligent to contribute, but it's not a big deal. As I said before, this thread doesn't need to get ugly at all. Thankyou again to everyone whose replies have been well thought out and well written.
 
i havent read any of the other posts,.. but i would say most people that believe in a religion and dont question a thing about it are 10x more intellectually lazy than say me, an athiest.
 
actually, atheists are just as "lazy" as theists. Both hold beliefs that they did not choose. Beliefs are not "choices." They are voluntary states of mind based on many things like desire for the truth of the belief, the language used in discussing beliefs, etc.

I cannot "choose" to believe in god, anymore than I can "choose" to believe that there are pots of gold underneath rainbows. So for a god-person to tell me that I am "misguided" and need to "choose" God, is ignorant.
 
Technic said:
i havent read any of the other posts,.. but i would say most people that believe in a religion and dont question a thing about it are 10x more intellectually lazy than say me, an athiest.
Click to expand...

Isn't not reading the other posts a touch... well... lazy?!?!
 
>>I cannot "choose" to believe in god, anymore than I can "choose" to believe that there are pots of gold underneath rainbows. So for a god-person to tell me that I am "misguided" and need to "choose" God, is ignorant.>>

In defense of these theists, they probably mean something closer to "choose not to sin" and "choose not to ignore or alternately explain empirical data indicative of God" than just "choose to believe in God".

ebola
 
killarava2day said:
Isn't not reading the other posts a touch... well... lazy?!?!
Click to expand...

haha. not at the time. i was busy and just wanted to add my opinion quickly.

anyway i read the thread and i would have still said the exact same thing..
 
Three possibities exist

One is that there is no God. So therefore, there 's no evidence of his existance. How can you have evidence of something that doesnt exist?
Two is that there is a God. But He didnt leave any physical evidence behind. So even though he exist, there's no way to prove it or know about it.
Three, there is a God, and there are evidences out there.

If possiblity one and two are true, then there is no point in thinking or believing in God.
We're left with possiblity three.
Now run off and find those evidences you deists. Dont be lazy now.
 
Pornaddict since '92 said:
So what you are saying is that's it's all about spelling??
=D
Click to expand...
N.b. "well thought out." Selective blindness? LOL!

Judas << "Just give me a sign!" Is that what you're after? Doesn't quite work that way. As I said before, if something satisfies you that God doesn't exist, then there's your disproof for you and it's clearly subjective. At the moment, neither of us knows 99.999...% of everything that can be possibly known, do you agree? It's not a question of "evidences," as it were, it boils down to abandoning faulty "disproofs" and preconceptions -- don't these distort our ability to understand things clearly? No matter how conclusive a bit of logic may seem to you, it will never be incontrovertible. Btw, deist and theist are two completely different things.

i havent read any of the other posts,.. but i would say most people that believe in a religion and dont question a thing about it are 10x more intellectually lazy than say me, an athiest.
Click to expand...
Technic << Maybe, but "people that believe in a religion and dont question a thing about it" have nothing to do with this discussion. We have also abandoned the idea of intellectual laziness and are concentrating on the question of "finality and closure." It's often worth ascertaining how the discussion has progressed!

Beliefs are not "choices." They are voluntary states of mind based on many things like desire for the truth of the belief, the language used in discussing beliefs, etc. ...So for a god-person to tell me that I am "misguided" and need to "choose" God, is ignorant.
Click to expand...
??? Who's doing that anyway?

protovack << "Voluntary" does imply choice, by definition, so there's no real differentiation here. Yes beliefs are multi-faceted. More often than not, the desire for the truth of the belief distorts it, making it more of a bias.

I think there was a link posted here before to Summa Contra Gentiles by St. Thomas Aquinas, addressing these very issues with great depth and insight. Here it is again. Indubitably worth the read.
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm
 
judas christ super star;)

1. there is no god
2. there is one but he's a mean mothafucker
3. there are more than one , but they hate each other
4. there is more than one and they are best friends and lovers
5. there is one and he loves you, but thinks he should punish you because in a previous life you were a monkey on the planet of the apes.

hope this has enlightened judas a little;)

it's very very easy to be vague , it seems to me. it's easy to say " if there is one god ...blablabla" but what kind of god would that be? could you please be more specific. what you were saying is quite irrelevant and/or extremely obvious and/or not very wise.;)
 
I dont believe we can ever tell if God exists or not, ever.
Thats why I am agnostic. I have no problem with people believing theres a God and with people that believe there isnt.

But I just wanted to point out that in this type of situation and others like it, the burden of proving lies with the claimer.
The person who believes there is no God isnt claiming anything.
He cant substantiate something that doesnt exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top