This is the guy that wrote the famous book “The denial of death” and I haven’t been able to find a clear answer to this question. You would think that after writing a book on death it would be easy to find his view on an afterlife or lack there of but I haven’t really found much.

Sometimes it sounds like he believes we’re just worm food after death and other times he seems to have more faith. When he was on his death bed he was using words like “god” and “the divine” but maybe thats because he was literally facing death and was just coping.

Curious to hear thoughts from people that have looked further into his work. Was he an atheist? Afterlife? No afterlife? Worm food? Agnostic? Did the guy ever say what he believed when it came to death and the afterlife?

Hi r/askanatheist,

Can you provide some feedback on a question I have? Where does Ultimate Justice come from in a world where God doesn't exist? As a Christian, I can point to a "Judge" that will hold evildoers accountable at the end of the day.

However, if God didn't exist, it makes me wonder about some of the more extreme/complex questions that come up. For example, what about people who commit evil and then end themselves so that they don't face accountability? How do you all navigate examples like this?

Thanks in advance for the feedback!

Let's take a look at two ideas central to western monotheism: Divine simplicity and Ex-nihilo creation. These two are taken as brute-fact and rarely examined.

God is assumed to be the most perfect form of the following qualities: knowledge, justice, love, power. This is what's known as the attributes/essence of God. In God these qualities are eternal, self-subsistent, and unchanging

Truth is, if God is defined to be these qualities, he simply couldn't exist in before creation.

The hallmark of monotheism is the belief that abstract objects have sovereignity and is seperate from the material. Upon closer inspection, however, almost all abstract objects are factual, viz, they are mere descriptors of the world and not anything beyond the world.

A good question to challenge it is this: Could knowledge exist had there been no object to be studied? If not, then what makes knowledge what it is? Why do we have the concept of a supremely knowledgeable deity? What could it possibly know about anything if there was nothing he could learn before creation? Futher, if God is not all-knowing, how could he possibly create this complex world?

Could justice exist if there was nothing to this world except rocks and stones? Could beauty exist if there was no object to be perceived and no perceiver to judge its beauty? Could power exist if there was no space and time (and therefore no causality)?

All properties or attributes of God (all-knowing, all-just, all-merciful, all-beautiful, all-consequential) will cease to have any meaning, any significance, and any distinction without humans and without the world. Yet somehow monotheists put God as being seperate from creation. God, in reality, does not even begin to fulfill its own criteria as the eternal. spaceless, timeless, unchanging ground of being.

It is not that reality is contingent upon the supreme being, rather the very properteis of this supreme being is contingent upon there being existing reality.

Can we then still assume its existence if it has shown to be completely devoid of the properties it is claimed to have? Could a God that resembles nothing of the all-powerful God concept still do something as wishing reality into existence? (Ex nihilo creation). Therefore God cannot possibly be the self-sustaining creator of creation, for God cannot exist without creation.

All of it is just an archaic misconception about the nature of abstract objects. God is not "out there", God is in our minds. Abstract objects/universals are not things by themselves, but they are at most circumstantial.

Logically it goes like this:

1. If the monotheistic God exists, there are such things as unchanging, independent abstract objects, as these are the creator's essence.
2. All abstract objects can neither exist nor remain the same thing without the created world and the human mind
3. Ergo, the monotheistic God does not exist.

If P, then Q.

Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

I call this the argument from nominalism. Let me know what you guys think, and what do you think would be the best argument for strong atheism?

I always believed that being a good person should be a primary goal for people. However, the justification part fell short a bit. Just like happiness, it sort of became a tautology. "Why do I have to strive to be happy/good*" "Because you simply have to." Recently, I started delving deeper and came across the divine command theory which seemed surprisingly plausible. It sort of states that in order for an objective morality to exist, the existence of an all powerful creator that created everything is absolutely necessary. I cannot say I fully agree, but I'm certainly leaning towards it.

I always saw the logical conclusion of atheism to be nihilism. Of course, nihilism doesn't mean to live a miserable life, as proven by Camus, but to search for a real meaning that isn't there doesn't make sense for me.

Either there are a set of ethical rules intrinsic to the universe (which I find too mystical but is possible if god exists) that we are discovering, just like the laws of physics; or morality is nothing more than a few rules that we inherited from evolution and invented to create a meaning. That's why I find it absolutely absurd when Sam Harris tries to create a moral basis throughs science. The fact is, the moment you bring a normative statement into the equation, it stops being science.

If morality is subjective, I can't find an objective reason to criticize stuff in the books that we find immoral because they can always say "those are morally ok for me?". this might be a reason to reject these religions but it wouldn't be purely subjective.

What do you guys think? would love to hear your thoughts

edit: I apologize for not clearly stating the theory. The theory just states that morality can be either objective or subjective. If it is objective, some sort of god is needed to make it real, just like the laws of physics. If it's the latter, then there's no problem. The theory is NOT an argument for the existence of a god, but it is sort of a rebuttal to atheists who claim that objective morality exists.

I’m trying to figure out how to word this without being completely insulting so I’ll just say it and it is what it is.

Atheist content creators like to target your low hanging fruit among theists. AIG, science deniers, Jordan Peterson, small time content creators, or run call in shows where a majority of the callers are fundamentalists.

Now I don’t think there is a good argument for god, but who makes the “best” arguments for god? Or does such a person even exist? The best arguments for god I’ve heard have been made by atheists presenting a steel man argument.

If you had to recommend the say top 5 theist powerhouses that make the most compelling arguments, who are they?

One of the reasons I don’t believe in certain religions is partially based on my intuition. I read the Bible and the Quran and to me they just scream “human made”. If a God exists and he wants to give a book to humanity I imagine it would look very different from any Holy Book we currently have

I imagine it would be simple rather than complex, not open for interpretation and able to be read by anyone regardless of any physical limitation, language, or literacy level. Criteria all Holy Books that I know of completely miss

I’m curious what ya’ll think a true Holy Book would look like

That's all.

I've been thinking lately of the 'I don't know' or 'I don't know, yet' answer to the question of the existence of something like a god. So, I would like your thoughts on the following. Suppose humanity thrives and becomes a seemingly immortal intergalactic species. Then, suppose trillions of years pass by and humanity still doesn't have the answer to everything and the origin of the universe. How willing would you be, in this situation, to consider that there might as well be something about all this that we just can't put our finger on? What would it take for the 'I don't know' or 'I don't know, yet' stance to become unsatisfying?

Here's the examples of cases

1. Angelica zambrano "died" 1 day and she sees heaven and hell link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJmY34kvaFAxVIQPUHHQgrDSwQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Firp.cdn-website.com%2F540907fb%2Ffiles%2Fuploaded%2FAngelica%2520Zambrano%2520-%2520Prepare%2520To%2520Meet%2520Your%2520God%2520pdf%2520v0.1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3fW5B43Uz_yHvtUJs4FJ7G&opi=89978449

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=627545554670921

2. Bekele from ethopia miraclous claims,

https://globalchurchmovements.org/never-alone-from-ethiopian-villager-to-global-leader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TLVKkrLBAM&ab_channel=GlobalChurchMovements

Like, did you consciously decide to believe or not believe what you do? Or did it just kind of happen? Obviously for theist, they were taught, but, many athiest once were religious. So they have the same information, but it just didn't stick as a belief. But is that a choice or just how their brains worked it out? And if it's the latter, then isn't that true for people who still believe? Do we really have a say one way or the other, if our brains just process things differently?

Especially if you’ve come out of the closet on both fronts to a religious family, how did the two experiences compare? I’m an atheist but I’m not LGBT. Well, I’m demi, but when I tried to tell my family that they dismissed it as me making stuff up, so that isn’t really the same type of experience. The amount of judgement, talking behind my back, just complete abandonment that’s happened from my family for being an atheist is frankly crazy and I’m just wondering if this is what it’s like coming out as LGBT, or if the two experiences are completely different. I may be an atheist, but I’m still a straight white male in the Bible Belt USA so that comes with a lot of blind spots, but understanding the similarities and differences between the two experiences could help me understand what it is like in another person’s shoes to some extent.

TIA for your responses.

Edit: everyone’s responses have been so genuine and honest. Thank you all so much.

I'm asking seriously.

Like why? What turned you away from believing in “god”? I believe in a creator and I feel I could explain away any of your points (just putting it out there, I feel I could prove your views wrong, but…). So, like, could you tell me why you don’t believe and what the reason for your disbelief is? I am curious and I want to see the differing views amongst all of you. There are many different key reasons for every atheist that were the turning point for their views. What were yours? I don’t quite understand why some people don’t believe… so, explain?

EDIT: Sorry everyone, it’s been over 11 hours and within that time we have 135 comments!!! I was sleeping as it was night in my area and I had no idea this would blow up so much! I will do my best to keep my word and respond to each one of you. If I hold up my end of the bargain, please don’t be hostile with me.

I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious.

One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. He also says he doesn't criticize Israel because they are democracy and they support the correct ideology that he believes in as a new atheist. So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists because Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community so I assumed he had a large influence on their views.

This is the quote

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns."

1. If you experienced other entities, what would you say they are? Figments of your own imagination?

2. What do you think about this statement: Consciousness is a subjective experience. Everything we could be experiencing could all be a simulation and not physically exist, but our experience would be the same. So when you have a profound subjective experience on magic mushrooms you lose touch with shared scientific objective reality. In the same way that you lose touch with objective reality in a dream. Do you think science will eventually be able to quantify these subjective experiences into an objective understanding?

3. For me personally the experience was extremely profound and felt more real than my day to day life. How do you reconcile this feeling with the scientific / atheist worldview of objective reality?

Please specify whether you have taken psychedelics, preferably including the type and dosage. I personally took about 2g of magic mushrooms, I'm not sure how much psilocybin that would be exactly.

I'm sure many of you are interested in discussing these things even if you haven't tried psychedelics, and I am happy to hear your opinions. Feel free to answer one or all questions.

I am specifically interested in the perspective of people who have tried at least some form of psychedelic. The experience is personally hard to comprehend if you haven't personally experienced it.

Thank you for your time and thoughts, I genuinely appreciate it.

I am an atheist, naturalist, and skeptic. I am looking for opinions from other atheists on a relationship question.

I don’t believe in “soul mates” or some divine “the one” for me. I am extremely rational and logical and it may be causing a problem for me in the romance department.

I have been separated/divorced for six years now and finally decided that I would be interested in a long term romantic partner. My marriage was awful but I’ve done a lot of work and am in a good place in my life to be a loving partner. I met a man about three months ago who fits all my criteria for a good partner. He is giving, kind, open, honest, willing to be vulnerable, atheist, liberal, gentle, successful, responsible, hard working, affectionate, affirming, and he thinks I’m wonderful just the way I am. We have great sexual chemistry and he’s handsome and fit. Basically, he meets or exceeds everything on my “list” for a partner.

The problem is that I don’t yet feel a “zing” for him. I can tell, intellectually, that he is everything I want but my emotions are not yet on board. My questions are this: how long do you wait to feel love for someone? Do I keep dating him and expect the feelings to come? It is better to enter a relationship with someone you know is good for you even if you don’t yet feel a lot of emotion about it or is it better just to be single and wait for that zap of feelings to come? It is better to follow your logic or feelings in a romantic situation?

In the past I was told God would choose my partner for me. Obviously, that is dumb but I’m having trouble figuring out how to do this dating n thing as an atheist. All opinions welcome. I’m lost.

TL;DR: I met a guy who is “perfect” for me but I’m not developing feelings like I think I should. Do I keep going or end it?

Let's say the christian god existed and he burned people in hell for not believing him.

If we had undeniable proof he existed would you worship him or rebel against him for being evil?

I’m looking for some recommendations of discussions and debates online. Do you have any favorites?

I like the Peterson-Harris discussions and I’ve been looking for talks with Hitchens or others that are similar.

Thanks so much! :0)

In decades of discussions in forums dedicated to skepticism, atheism and freethought, every time the term scientism comes up people dismiss it as a vacuous fundie buzzword. There's no such thing, we're always told.

But it seems like it truly is a thing. The term scientism describes a bias whereby science becomes the arbiter of all truth; scientific methods are considered applicable to all matters in society and culture; and nothing significant exists outside the object domain of scientific facts. I've seen those views expressed on a nearly daily basis in message boards and forums by people who pride themselves on their rigorous dedication to critical thinking. And it's not just fundies who use the term; secular thinkers like philosopher Massimo Pigliucci and mathematician John Allen Paulos, among many others, use the term in their work.

You can't have it both ways. If you believe science is our only source of valid knowledge, and that we can conduct our lives and our societies as if we're conducting scientific research, then that constitutes scientism.

Am I wrong here?

Is it possible within the Atheist scene to build a community? The Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple are attempts to organize non-believers into a kind of meta community based on Occult inconography. I've often wondered if organizing Atheism into a institution would be a good idea or not, religious organizations, like the Catholic Church, are notoriously corrupt. And the current controversies about Megachurches and dishonest pastors stealing money from their unwitting flocks, is more than enough reason to be cynical about the prospect of institutionalizing Atheistic values seem unappealing. However there can be many benefits to organizeing a group and taking direct action against Christian Nationalism and religious based political institutions in general. But the question stands, would that ultimately lead Atheism into a kind of orthodoxy?

As you are surely aware, many religious people, including myself, tell other people about our religious beliefs, hoping to convert them to our religions. It is quite rare, though, that an atheist tries to convince me that God does not exist. Do you try to "convert" religious people to atheism?

This was a question I asked during my questioning phase.

The earth is a tiny speck in the universe but religion acts like humans are the center and the most important thing in the universe.

what do you guys think?

Greetings all! A small exposition first. I am a DM for a table top game set in the settings of "World of Darkness" - a fictional version of our world where supernatural lurks behind the mundane.

In that setting Caine does the "rock + brother" thing and invents murder, lies to God about it and for the lying gets punished with fear of sun and cursed to never feed from crops he grew or meat ever again to only drink blood and see his progeny kill each other. He also findsa loophole gets superpowers.

In that universe "God" or "Weaver" as an entity does exist in some capacity (depending on who you ask). Vampires who get their cursed existence get it directly from Cain and his "children".

Here are the questions.

A deeply religious person who lives as we know it a relatively righteous life gets killed and turned into a vampire. They learn of the lore that kindred claim that their curse comes directly from God. What would such a person think in your opinion of their new condition?

Next

An atheist is violently killed, fed vampiric blood and turned into a bloodsucker. What would such a person think of their newly acquired condition?

Would the individuals flip their beliefs? Would they double down? Any other opinions or ideas you have?

Share your opinions. I find WoD is a great philosophical setting that actually tests what is the real reason some people remain good hearted and some sink into evil and depravity despite their "morally high" upbringing.

May be relevant: it is rumored in the setting that vampires (regardless of their actions) are robbed of the afterlife after the embrace. Their soul is said to fail to transcend. Some do, but no one knows the criteria of "being forgiven"

Extra: in the settings the "god" has stopped communicating with anyone, if he even existed in the first place. Depending on who you ask, god is the abrahamic religion god, a human mind willed into existence concept, A nature fo the universe spirit, Not a god at all, or he even fled the universe in fear of what he made.

This is a argument I heard from a christian that proves how historically accurate the bible is.

what's your opinion?

Traditionally, the skeptic's position is that a claim should be treated as false unless and until there is sufficient evidence to support its truth. For the purposes of existence, we treat something as not-existent in the absence of evidence. For the purposes or occurrence or causation, the same principle applies.

But what principle applies for the concept of possibility? I often hear people say "I am not claiming X is possible, but I am also not claiming X is impossible." Logically, this doesn't hold water.

In the realm of logic, if someone says, “I am not claiming that X is possible, but also not claiming X is impossible”, they are essentially acknowledging the possibility of X. If you are unable to definitively claim that X is impossible, you leave open the possibility that X could be possible. So, in a strict logical sense, “I am not claiming that X is possible, but also not claiming X is impossible” is equivalent to saying “X is possible”.

Since, by logical standards, "X might be possible or impossible" is not really valid, is the skeptic's position that a claim is possible until demonstrated to be impossible, or that a claim is impossible until demonstrated to be possible?

**** EDIT- Added Info ****

I rely on the principle of null hypothesis. I treat a claim (existence or occurrence) as false unless and until there is sufficient evidence, yadda yadda, you get it.

But for claims of possibility, I'm not sure what the null hypothesis is. It seems very logical to treat things as not-existent until they are demonstrated, but does the same principle apply to not-possible?

It seems the number of existent things (or events that occur) is infinitesimal compared to the number of such things that did not exist or occur. But how does the number of possible things compare to the number of not-possible things?

I think, perhaps, possible is just as equally likely as not-possible, and I struggle to justify favoring one over the other. But I also recognize that in this case not-to-decide is to-decide. In other words, the nature of possibility is very elusive - much more so than actuality, and perhaps different rules should apply when assessing it.

**** Added more info because I am tired of repeating the same argument ****

If you lack the knowledge to say "X MUST BE NOT-POSSIBLE", then you are saying it is possible that X is possible. Possibly possible just means 'possible'.

**** FWIW: How GPT4 answers me: ****

"In the realm of logic and epistemology, if you cannot definitively state that “X is not possible” (or “X is impossible”), then you are indeed acknowledging the possibility of X.

The phrase “possibly possible” does essentially reduce to “possible”. This is because if there’s any degree of possibility that X could occur, then X is, by definition, possible.

So, in summary, if you can’t assert that something is impossible, then it remains within the realm of possibility. This is a fundamental principle of understanding uncertainty and possibility."

"In the context of hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis is typically a statement of no effect or no difference. It’s the hypothesis that you assume to be true until the evidence suggests otherwise.

When it comes to a claim of possibility, the null hypothesis would typically be the more conservative claim, which is often the claim that asserts “no effect” or “no possibility”. So in this case, the null hypothesis would be “X is not possible”. This is because asserting possibility (“X is possible”) is a stronger claim that requires evidence to support it.

So, if no evidence supports either claim (“X is possible” or “X is not possible”), the null hypothesis would be “X is not possible”. You would then look for evidence that contradicts this null hypothesis. If such evidence is found, you might reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis, which is “X is possible”.

However, it’s important to note that failing to reject the null hypothesis does not prove it to be true. It simply means that there’s not enough evidence to support the alternative hypothesis. In other words, if you don’t have evidence to support “X is possible”, you don’t conclude “X is impossible”; you conclude “We don’t have enough evidence to determine whether X is possible”. This is a key principle in hypothesis testing and in the philosophy of science more generally.

Dr. Daniel Dennett passed away a couple of days ago, sadly. I'm curious if the posters here have any reflections on his work or general impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

Thanks.

This might seem like a weird question but will we one day have undeniable evidence that Abrahamic religion is nothing but manmade fiction?

When you died but actually lived what did you see? Was it the peace of oblivion or a desperate bid to have hope through a God or smth?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States

According to this, 7% are atheists and 53% are Christians. That’s about 7.5 times as many Christians as atheists. If we are to live in a democracy, if one side votes on values that have some connection to their moral/religious values, is there a problem with the Christian majorities deciding the laws, even if it conflicts with the atheist viewpoints of what the law should be?

Historically, did he exist? If so, how could the “Torah” have been written after babylonian exile, if Ezra supposedly brought the Israelites back to Torah after they came from Babylon?

And secondly, was there ever a Moses figure at all?