Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

I understand the frustration as I feel exactly the same way in discussing my Christianity with non-Christians who have decided ahead of time what it is that I believe. (Just look at my discussion with the originator of this thread.)Largely I was using atheism to mean what I hear from people like Dawkins and Hitchens. I have recently been listening to a number of debates between those two and people like John Lennox.Dawkins and Hitchens seem pretty clear that they their belief is that after death there is simply oblivion. However, I get your point that it is conceivable that if there is no god, death, (at least as we perceive it), might not be the end. Mind you, I would still contend that if there is no god and that we have only mindless origins, then it is hard to believe that there would be an absolute standard on which an ultimate form of justice could be based.I assume that if I were to ask you what it is that you believe about what happens after death you would say that you don't know. I still maintain that if we are solely the result of mindless processes then it is hard to see us as teleological beings. Sure we can find meanings in our own lives in careers, kids etc but if the sun were to go supernova tomorrow what would any of it matter then?However, I get your point that disbelieving in the existence of a deity does not preclude some form of life after death but I do find find it hard to accept that going from there to the concept that there might be an ultimate purpose or justice when we look for an ultimate purpose or justice when all life as we know it has ceased to exist.

Theists like to talk about ultimate purpose without ever explaining what it is, what that actually means, and how they know it.

And again, Dawkins and Hitchens stipulating their views in this regard are not in any way a reflection of 'atheism' per se. These are men who happen to be atheist stating a particular point. Keep in mind that as alluded to earlier, atheism in its strictest sense is merely a response to a claim: "do you believe in god"? Anything beyond that goes into personal beliefs or other religious tenets.For example, Buddhists are technically atheists. There is no concept of a personal god in their faith. Yet clearly, not all atheists are Buddhist. Just like not all theists are Christian. I can understand your view. But in the end, this is more akin to wanting a particular outcome than having evidence to back it up. It's not that different from religious individuals believing in god, an afterlife or cosmic justice because it is hard for them to process the notion that bad people get away with doing bad things. So religion fills the void by putting forth the notion that there is 'judgement' in the end for bad deeds.

I apologize for that remark, I regret making it.
I think I was trying to be funny, but in retrospect, it seems more mean. I understand it can be more difficult to see the differences within atheism than it is to see the differences within theism. But I like how Diomedes explained it in Message 93.In this context... "their belief in oblivion after death" as a part of their atheism would be similar to, say "your belief in the resurrection of Christ" in your theism. Many other religious people are also theists... but do not believe in Jesus Christ. Many other people are also atheists... but do not believe in oblivion after death. What was going through my mind would be a creator of this universe that set an ultimate form of justice as well... but this creator simply isn't God.I suppose it would depend on your definition of "ultimate" form of justice... if you mean "one from God"... then, well, yeah... obviously something "from God" cannot exist if God does not exist. But, if you mean something more along the lines of "from the intelligence that created the universe with purpose..." then "God" isn't necessary. For all we know it could be a school-science project for some other being's to create universes like ours and give them "purpose" and "ultimate forms of justice" and see what happens... Good guess I have yet to die, and neither have I found any trustworthy sources for such a thing, either. Maybe nothing. Maybe something. I don't know... again, I don't have much experiences with "the human race being wiped out."
Personally, though... I think that if your "sense of meaning" depends on it being remembered forever in any fashion... then I think it's a bit shallow and... "impure."But, that's just me and my subjective idea of "meaning" ...if you can offer any objective scale for "meaning," I would be more willing to accept the idea that an absolute one could possibly exist at all.I really don't have a problem with a sense of meaning that is temporary.
In fact, in some circumstances, I can see how a temporary meaning that is remembered by no one is more honourable than one that is saved forever and ever for all to see... Here's another way for me to put it:If you can think of a being that has certain powers and abilities and also think of this being as "God"...
Then I can think of a being that has the same certain powers and abilities, but is just lacking the "God" factor.You can think of a "God" that does x, y and z.
I can think of a "non-God" that does x, y and z and is just one of many...
I can think of a "non-God" that does x, y and z and is just a pupil doing a throw-away assignment in some advanced education we are not capable of fathoming...
...etc...
...would you consider such "non-Gods" to still be "God?"

First off I am sorry that I haven't responded to all posts but I've been short of time and was also away from my computer for several days. My view as a Christian is that we are part of God's plan that ultimately this world will be renewed, and that the existence that comes out of that will be eternal and free of sorrow.That would be it in VERY broad brush strokes.

That's what will happen ultimately. What is the purpose, ultimately?

I didn't take it that way but apology accepted anyway. That sounds fair. Well sure but wouldn't that be God? Theistic religions are mankind's attempt to understand the nature of the entity that is responsible for our existence. We are limited in imagination so the only way that we can conceive this intelligence is anthropomorphically.Even as a Christian monotheist I accept that God may even be a collective intelligence with a consistent nature, but again as a Christian I believe that we have been given the understanding of that nature in the person of Jesus Christ. In addition of course I also believe that as part of that that we have been given a pointer through the fog so we can grasp the ultimate purpose for our lives. Well I don't know either but I do have my beliefs. Do you believe anything about what happens after death or are you content with simply saying I don't know and will wait to see what happens? I agree but I the idea of doing something meaningful that is intended for all to see to give it meaning or purpose is contrary to the Chriostian message. (See my signature.)I believe that somehow when God renews this world and "His Kingdom comes on Earth as it is in Heaven" that all of the loving and edifying things done by mankind will somehow be part of that new heaven and earth.My favourite Christian scholar N T Wright puts it something like this.He talks about a stone mason who has been told by the master stone mason to carve a brick in a particular shape, size and pattern. He has no idea why but he does it anyway. Some time later the master stone mason takes him to this beautiful new cathedral and way up there he is able to see his brick and how it fit in to this new beautiful creation. Unless I am missing your point the answer would be yes.

Essentially I agree but how do you differentiate then between an atheist and an agnostic? It seems to me that to just say we can't know whether god exists or not, (agnostic), is not the same as believing that there is no god, (atheist). However that does depend on the definition that is used for the term god. That is a bit like the opiate of the masses statement. When I look at my own life I'm not actually at all sure that I want perfect justice. (I'm much keener on seeing it applied to others than I am to myself.)I'm not so sure that it is a case of wanting ultimate justice but more a case of the belief that there should be. Yes, my religion does tell us that our lives here and what we do with them does ultimately manner, and that belief does fill a void but maybe it is because there is a void that needs to be and will be filled.

That we will all live happily ever after. Our purpose is to build for that new world and that within that eternal world there will be meaning that lasts ultimately.

I thought god was going to do all that? In any event - what does it mean for there to 'meaning that lasts ultimately'? I can't interpret that in any way.

It is God that does it utilizing what it is that we do as stewards of creation. To go back to the metaphor I used with Stile, (not to be confused with style ) - we mould the bricks and God builds the cathedral with them. Probably not all that well put, but if our renewed world is eternal, (multiple dimensions of time as I imagine it), then that is our final or ultimate destiny.Webster's definition of ultimate: happening or coming at the end of a process, series of events, etc.

Atheists (of the skeptical naturalist variety) also believe we have an ultimate destiny.

But does it have purpose?

That, I suppose, would depend on how you think of "God."I don't think it's a stretch to say that the popular definition of God does not see Him as an inferior being in the ways I mentioned. Fair enough.
Like I said, if your definition of God breaks down to "the one who gives us our existence and our sense of ultimate justice..." Then, it is impossible to get such a thing from anywhere else by definition, and I wouldn't try to do so.This just then opens the possibility of "God" being many inferior things such as immature, uneducated, unintelligent, evil... all sorts of qualities that could be part of "the one who gives us our existence and our sense of ultimate justice..."If you then want to say that "God" must also be good and a paragon for us to look up to... then my point is that these virtues are not required for a being to be responsible for the creation of our universe and our sense of ultimate justice... if you think "a being" is even able to ever do such a thing. I would like to be clear that I don't have an issue with any of your beliefs.
In fact, I think a lot of your beliefs are rather healthy, even.
My point is really only valid against those who want to claim their beliefs as "the way things definitely are" and not allow for any other possibility. I wouldn't say I "believe" in anything after death, no. But I would say that I do "hope" for certain things.
I am, however, very content with simply saying I don't know and waiting to see what happens. It just doesn't bother me at all. I've been very lucky in my life to have many excellent experiences and no exceedingly detrimental ones. If I died tomorrow and that was the end... well, I had a wonderful life. If I died tomorrow and another adventure started... well, let's see what that's all about. If I died tomorrow and eternal torment started... well, at least I had a wonderful life while I could. Any way it goes... I don't have an issue, so yes, I am very content in just waiting to see what happens.As for my personal hopes for what would happen:

• sometimes I hope for eternal life in the sense that I can watch and learn all the things I am not able to experience in this life due to my limitations (time, money, responsibilities...)
• sometimes the thought of "eternal life" scares me... what if I get bored? What if it's shitty? Is there any way to end it? Then I hope for "an afterlife as long as I wish it to continue..."
• sometimes I hope it's all just done and I return to "non-existence"
• sometimes I hope for a calm, warm, satisfying existence for all of those who didn't have such a thing in this life
• sometimes I hope for "something else" and I like the sense of unknown newness to look forward too (kind of like shopping around for a new car...) something that is so different from this life that we cannot comprehend it right now. Such an idea is very exciting to me.
• sometimes I hope to be a sort of ghost or phantom and I could go around correcting wrongs in the world that are otherwise difficult for the living to correct themselves
• sometimes I hope to be a piece of a larger intelligence, and when I die I will return to it, feel at home, add my experiences to the whole and remember all the other experiences that have been logged since time began
• sometimes I hope to be reincarnated as a raven or other cool bird
• sometimes I hope to able to travel through time and see what dinosaurs really looked like and how they acted

...I don't really have one hope I always go back to. When I don't have anything to work off of for information, I like to keep my mind jumping around, imagining and thinking up possibilities. Then I think I missed the point of this question: If you don't care if the ultimate purpose is remembered for all time or not... what difference does it make if the sun were to go supernova tomorrow and none of it mattered anymore?I took that question to mean you think the sun going supernova tomorrow is an issue for "ultimate purpose" in some way (that is, if the "ultimate purpose" was temporary... then it is worth less or something like that).
The only way I can see an all-ending supernova being a problem for ultimate purpose is if you care whether or not things are remembered/counted for all time...

This is actually a good question and a common misconception when people use the terms.To provide a little more breadth to the discussion, theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are actually conveying different things. Theism and atheism talk about 'belief' while gnosticism/agnosticism actually speak about 'knowledge'.For for example: an individual may ask someone the following question: "Do you believe in bigfoot?" The person may respond and say 'yes'. Then they are asked a followup question: "Are you certain bigfoot exists?" The individual may now respond 'No'. What is essentially occurring is that two questions are posited: one asking about the belief in a thing and the other asking about knowledge of a thing. Both yielded different answers.So from the belief/knowledge standpoint, in the above example, this individual is indicating they have a belief in something, but not necessarily stipulating absolute certainty.Now if we move over to the question of god, the style of questions are still the same. One can 'believe' in god but not be entirely certain. One can also not believe in god and also not be entirely certain. Both are displaying an 'agnostic' view on the knowledge portion but stipulating different answers to the belief question.To itemize, as it pertains to the discussion on god, you can basically classify individuals into the following brackets:Gnostic Theist - Believes in god and is absolutely certain he exists
Agnostic Theist - Believes in god but is not entirely certain he exists
Gnostic Atheist - Does not believe in god and is absolutely certain he does not exist
Agnostic Atheist - Does not believe in god but is not absolutely certain that he does not exist(Note I left out the Deism view in this case, but the that is adding a third parameter to the question)People often think that atheist and agnosticism are mutually exclusive when in fact, they are not. They are different responses to different questions.