Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad · 06-01-2014 06:53PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

When someone says the probability of something is x then you can reasonably expect them to show you how they arrived at that conclusion

Someone can be certain of something without being able to show you why it is they are certain.

so when someone says something is probably true you can expect them to show why.

But when someone says something is certainly true there is no need to show why ?

Should it not be the other way round ?

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-01-2014 09:57AM

Safehands wrote: »

but when you are on your deathbed, if you really have faith, if you really believe you are going to a better place, then you are one lucky person.

They would have to speak for themselves I think. I do not find the idea of an eternal after life lucky or pleasant at all. I find it horrific. And what is this "better" place you speak of? I am truly happy and content with my life thank you. I would find being told of this "better" place quite judgmental. If their own lives could do with improvements or betterment then they should have at it, but they should not presume the lives of others require any such thing.

No, when I am on my "deathbed" I will draw my consolation from a life well lived. If I lie on my deathbed having to look forward to an unsubstantiated fantasy, rather than backwards, then I would not think that "lucky" but rather depressing to the point of despair.

QUOTE=Safehands;88267871]In the same way, if you have lost a loved one and if you really believe you will see them again some day, isn't that a wonderful gift?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if people can maintain that delusion it will afford them some comfort of some type. However many people lose that faith too and therefore have to go through grief all over again. And one thing we know about the grieving process is that it is best done early while memories are fresh.

Grief is a wound and one that we want to heal. But like many wounds it is often better to dress and treat the wound... or painfully set a broken bone.... than simply treat the pain and let the wound do what it will.

All that said however. This is a thread about the actual existence of god. And even if you had been right about the above.... that religious belief was quite simply the most efficacious treatment of grief there was on the planet.... and brought the most wonderful consolation and peace to those who had it..... this does not for one moment lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim that a god or an after life actually do exist.

Safehands wrote: »

I would love to have the blind, unquestioning faith that many people are so lucky to have.

I however would not, and do not think them lucky at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The afterlife probably doesn't exist .. you said

When all the evidence and data we have links consciousness and subjectivity to the wet stuff in our heads..... and literally not a single iota of a shred of evidence demonstrates a disconnect between the two of any sort, at any level..... then "There _probably_ is no after life" is a pretty valid, innocuous and well grounded statement to make.

In fact if we go _solely_ on the evidence and data we have available to us, and nothing else, then "There probably is no after life" does not go far enough. "There is no reason whatsoever to expect there to be an after life and likely there is not one" is probably closer to how we should pitch it.

Safehands · 07-01-2014 02:27PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do arrive at this conclusion? What level of probability have you calculated? 2% chance? 10% chance?
Or is it just an assumption born of a worldview?

How can you put a mathematical figure on some thing that has no mathematical basis? I don't know why you would ask that question.

Safehands · 07-01-2014 02:51PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They would have to speak for themselves I think. I do not find the idea of an eternal after life lucky or pleasant at all. I find it horrific. And what is this "better" place you speak of? I am truly happy and content with my life thank you. I would find being told of this "better" place quite judgmental. If their own lives could do with improvements or betterment then they should have at it, but they should not presume the lives of others require any such thing.

Obviously the 'better' place is Heaven. If you believe that you are going to experience that then you won't mind dying. You and I do not really believe that, but all our human emotions will be running riot when we know we are going to die, so such a belief, even if it has no rational foundation, would be wonderful.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

if people can maintain that delusion it will afford them some comfort of some type.

They can and they do

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All that said however. This is a thread about the actual existence of god. And even if you had been right about the above.... that religious belief was quite simply the most efficacious treatment of grief there was on the planet.... and brought the most wonderful consolation and peace to those who had it..... this does not for one moment lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim that a god or an after life actually do exist.

I agree 100%

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When all the evidence and data we have links consciousness and subjectivity to the wet stuff in our heads..... and literally not a single iota of a shred of evidence demonstrates a disconnect between the two of any sort, at any level..... then "There _probably_ is no after life" is a pretty valid, innocuous and well grounded statement to make.

In fact if we go _solely_ on the evidence and data we have available to us, and nothing else, then "There probably is no after life" does not go far enough. "There is no reason whatsoever to expect there to be an after life and likely there is not one" is probably closer to how we should pitch it.

Again, I agree with you on that one

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-01-2014 03:41PM

Safehands wrote: »

Obviously the 'better' place is Heaven.

The label is not important. The point is that declaring it to be a "better" place is judgmental as to the life you have lived here. I am perfectly happy and content with my life. These theists are free to imagine a "better" place but they should not presume to judge the quality of the lives of others.

Thankfully on the few occasions where I was really in a state of severe grief.... those few times I have lost someone who was my whole world.... I was lucky enough that no one came out with the "She has gone to a better place" line. I probably would have flipped out asking them what the hell they thought was wrong with her life here.

Safehands wrote: »

If you believe that you are going to experience that then you won't mind dying.

I do not "mind" dying either. I am happy to stick around here as long as I can and elongate the experience , but the thought of death does not bother me one tiny iota.

The PROCESS of dying however worries me, because I do not deal well with pain personally.

But the being dead part? Not bothered. At all. So I am afraid the emotions you expect to feel at that point are not the ones I envision for myself. In fact there has been at least one, I think two, and possibly more, threads on this in the Atheist forum and if memory serves the majority of atheist posters are not actually bothered by the idea of death in and of itself.

Safehands wrote: »

They can and they do

But many do not was my point. I am aware many do, that was not my point. But those that do not.... not only have to go through the grieving process after all...... but it is worse for them than it would have been had they dealt with it at the time.

Thankfully I have only personally witnessed that a couple of times in friends. People who paper mache over their grief with faith at the time.... and then suffered greatly when that faith fell apart later. I hope never to witness it again.

But my wound analogy comes back to mind. If you have a wound, even a small one, and you treat it with nothing but pain killers.... then the septic infected mess you might have to deal with later is possible to be much worse. That is why treating an injury is more important than treating the pain from it. Grief is a wound too and unfortunately as a species we are moved to treat the pain rather than the injury in the hope the injury will sort itself out over time.

tommy2bad · 07-01-2014 08:13PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The label is not important. The point is that declaring it to be a "better" place is judgmental as to the life you have lived here. I am perfectly happy and content with my life. These theists are free to imagine a "better" place but they should not presume to judge the quality of the lives of others.

Thankfully on the few occasions where I was really in a state of severe grief.... those few times I have lost someone who was my whole world.... I was lucky enough that no one came out with the "She has gone to a better place" line. I probably would have flipped out asking them what the hell they thought was wrong with her life here.

Can't be anything worse than platitudes in a time of grief, you have to bite your tongue and tell your self that they mean well and just lack the vocabulary to express it so fall back on ready made phrases.
I'm not sure people are religious because they want to get to heaven, if they do that nice but surly the point of being religious is because you benefit in this life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not "mind" dying either. I am happy to stick around here as long as I can and elongate the experience , but the thought of death does not bother me one tiny iota.

The PROCESS of dying however worries me, because I do not deal well with pain personally.

But the being dead part? Not bothered. At all. So I am afraid the emotions you expect to feel at that point are not the ones I envision for myself. In fact there has been at least one, I think two, and possibly more, threads on this in the Atheist forum and if memory serves the majority of atheist posters are not actually bothered by the idea of death in and of itself.

I doubt many religious are that bothered by being dead either. I think it's the unknown that scares people more than anything.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But many do not was my point. I am aware many do, that was not my point. But those that do not.... not only have to go through the grieving process after all...... but it is worse for them than it would have been had they dealt with it at the time.

Thankfully I have only personally witnessed that a couple of times in friends. People who paper mache over their grief with faith at the time.... and then suffered greatly when that faith fell apart later. I hope never to witness it again.

But my wound analogy comes back to mind. If you have a wound, even a small one, and you treat it with nothing but pain killers.... then the septic infected mess you might have to deal with later is possible to be much worse. That is why treating an injury is more important than treating the pain from it. Grief is a wound too and unfortunately as a species we are moved to treat the pain rather than the injury in the hope the injury will sort itself out over time.

I duno if we are treating anything as much as covering it up. Though in fairness the Irish did have a healthy way of dealing with death and grieving, a wake.

nagirrac · 07-01-2014 09:29PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Grief is a wound and one that we want to heal. But like many wounds it is often better to dress and treat the wound... or painfully set a broken bone.... than simply treat the pain and let the wound do what it will.

Do you have any evidence for the claim that religious people deal differently with grief in any practical sense than non religious people? Especially in the short term i.e. the first year after bereavement. My reading of the literature on the subject suggests there appears to be a correlation between religious belief and the recovery period from grief, but it is somewhat inconclusive. I haven't seen any evidence, whether in studies or personally, that religious beliefs help with short term grief.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC116607/

That's just one study and I've seen numerous that suggest the same thing, and also a summary demonstrating that 94% of studies concluded that those with religious beliefs had a shorter recovery times than non believers. In summary, I don't believe there is any band aid for grief in its early stages.

My personal experience is that bereavement impacts people roughly the same way, regardless of belief or non belief, and the recovery period seems roughly the same, although of course it varies by the circumstances of the loss.

The only effective treatment for grief imo is support from close friends, family, and the community, especially in the short term. In extreme cases like children losing their parents, short term counseling is of course vital, but my experience is that counseling is a band aid for most adults dealing with grief, and support from those around them is more helpful.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All that said however. This is a thread about the actual existence of god. And even if you had been right about the above.... that religious belief was quite simply the most efficacious treatment of grief there was on the planet.... and brought the most wonderful consolation and peace to those who had it..... this does not for one moment lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim that a god or an after life actually do exist.

Although the studies I have read suggest that in a high % of cases religious belief has a positive effect on recovery from grief, the most interesting study I have seen demonstrated a correlation with belief in God, but no correlation with the depth of Christian knowledge or commitment to Christian beliefs. That's an interesting one to ponder.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-01-2014 09:38AM

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for the claim that religious people deal differently with grief in any practical sense than non religious people?

I am not in the habit of evidencing claims that I have not made, no.

If YOU want to make the above claim then by all means evidence it. But do not expect me to do it for you, thanks.

However if one group is dealing with it by facing the facts, and another group is dealing with it by pretending that the dead people are not really dead... then I am not sure what difference you actually want evidenced. The difference is there by definition. That is a very different practical method of coping with it.

The point I am making is that we know the best way to deal with grief is to face it as and when it happens. We allocate actual resources based on this fact. For example after recent natural disasters in the US, great amounts of money were spent to air lift child grief counselors in literally on Day One after the event, rather than waiting until those children were moved to safer and cheaper to reach environments. Why? Because we know that grief is a wound best dealt with at T = 0.

The point I am making is that paper mache tactics to cover the pain and avoid the grief CAN be unhealthy. Sure there are people who do so and are perfectly ok with it, especially if they can maintain the fantasy indefinitely.

But should the house of cards of faith collapse at any time...... and that paper mache unsubstantiated illusion that our dead loved ones are not actually dead should evaporate...... then one is left dealing with the grieving process not at T=0, but much later.

And the results of that I have personally, although anecdotal, seen have been far from pretty. These people have not just lost their faith, but had their grief blankie viciously torn away too. With disastrous effects that I hope never to have to see again in my life in anyone.

But my point as I said is my own, and remains partially anecdotal. Alas I am aware of no studies that study grief in people who have lost faith. All I can do is extrapolate based on things we know to be true today, such as, as I said, that grief is known to be best dealt with sooner rather than later.

There are plenty studying Religious aspects of bereavement in the short term after a bereavement. For example one older study noted "Frequent church attenders were more likely to respond with higher optimism and social desirability but more repression of bereavement responses than were less frequent church attenders."

As another Commentary paper notes "In line with research on the benefits of religion in coping with life events in general (Pargament, 1997), some investigators have reported positive associations between religiosity and bereavement outcome. Other studies, however, show either no or weak
differences between more versus less religious persons, or even worse adjustment among the more religious bereaved (Stroebe, 2004).".

And the same Commentary also notes that the effects of religion on bereavement is often over stated due to a failure to control for social support "between the religious (who have the support of a religious community) and non-religious (who lack such support)"

But so far I have seen no follow up type studies that look at this in the long term and study people who have lost the faith they once used to dream the bereavement away..... versus people who faced up to the facts of the event from day one through recognized grief counselling methodologies. Anyone who is aware of such papers by all means PM me some links, I have looked for them but not found any. Unfortunately searches on it tend to result mostly in studies of people losing faith as a result of bereavement, which makes it difficult to find any studies on the effect OF loss of faith ON bereavement.

nagirrac wrote: »

That's an interesting one to ponder.

Perhaps it is, but what you are pondering.... for some reason..... has quite literally nothing to do with the point you actually quoted. Which is that absolutely none of this in any way lends a modicum of credibility to the claim there actually Is a god. Which is what the thread is about.

Even if belief in god correlated 100% perfectly with a 100% perfect and speedy recovery from grief... that is it was demonstrated to be a clear multiple furlong winner in the race for the perfect treatment for grief.... this would in no way whatsoever, even a tiny iota, be an argument for the actual existence of a god. At all.

georgesstreet · 08-01-2014 05:46PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even if belief in god correlated 100% perfectly with a 100% perfect and speedy recovery from grief... that is it was demonstrated to be a clear multiple furlong winner in the race for the perfect treatment for grief.... this would in no way whatsoever, even a tiny iota, be an argument for the actual existence of a god. At all.

Even if Jesus's teachings were true it would, also, be no proof of gods existence. Of al lthe gods which man has worshipped ( this thread seems to keep reverting to the christian god), all of them have been shown to be figments of mans imperfect imagination.

The christian god is the same, and there is no proof of his existence at all. Many people reading this were brought up in a christian tradition and thats why they believe in a christian god. If they were brought up in, for example india, they would be making the same claims for a different god, and no doubt they would be making those claims with the same amount of sincerity. That should give any thinking person pause for thought.

Manach · 08-01-2014 05:55PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

That should give any thinking person pause for thought.

Baldly asserting all thinking people are on one side is rheotoric tricks 101. Casting a eye over the constant belief structures of peoples is that some form of belief in a higher being has been a constant during history with the form of it changing and evolving over the eras but never completely stamped out, inspite of the best efforts of authoritarian regimes.

nagirrac · 08-01-2014 06:14PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not in the habit of evidencing claims that I have not made, no.

..and yet you go on to make the same claim, and fail to back it up, except with a few examples of anecdotal evidence, something you would be very quick to refute in other people's arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However if one group is dealing with it by facing the facts, and another group is dealing with it by pretending that the dead people are not really dead... The point I am making is that paper mache tactics to cover the pain and avoid the grief CAN be unhealthy. Sure there are people who do so and are perfectly ok with it, especially if they can maintain the fantasy indefinitely.. But should the house of cards of faith collapse at any time...... and that paper mache unsubstantiated illusion that our dead loved ones are not actually dead should evaporate...... then one is left dealing with the grieving process not at T=0, but much later.

Where is your evidence for all this, other than your few anecdotal examples? This is the claim I am taking issue with. Like yourself I have experienced the loss of loved ones, and like yourself I have known many who have lost loved ones, including some who have lost children. I have never seen any evidence of "paper mache tactics" and nothing in studies or personally that suggests grief is any different for religious people or non religious people. Grief is equally devastating to both groups, and religion in my experience does nothing to lessen that grief. What may be true is that over time, and here I would say at least 6 months to one year after the bereavement, there is some evidence that religious people are not as prone to prolonged depression.

There is some logic to this as depression is misunderstood by many as related to "quality of life", when in fact it is much better understood in relation to the "pointlessness" of life. The reality is that religion provides meaning to millions if not billions of people, and regardless of the fact that atheists regarding this as delusional, it may be the very thing that keeps depression at bay for many of them. No counselor for example would ever try and dissuade someone from their religious beliefs, and certainly wouldn't describe them as delusional.

You are using the example of a few people you know who lost their "faith" to make a very tenuous point. Losing one's faith can in itself be very traumatic. However, the great majority of people who are religious tend not to lose their faith, regardless of how shallow that faith may be in your eyes.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even if belief in god correlated 100% perfectly with a 100% perfect and speedy recovery from grief... that is it was demonstrated to be a clear multiple furlong winner in the race for the perfect treatment for grief.... this would in no way whatsoever, even a tiny iota, be an argument for the actual existence of a god. At all.

Except it is for those that believe in God, a point that atheists cannot appreciate as they have no such belief. The fact that atheists regard belief in God as delusional by and large means a sum total of diddly squat to those that see the benefits in their lives from belief in God.

Manach · 08-01-2014 06:48PM

Offhand, based on reading a copy of the book 'The Righteous Mind' by Haidt where the author does present a hypothesis and present various case studies, that religious people do handle emotive life issues better if this is linked with the building of a community of believers who act as a self-support mechanism in such difficult times

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-01-2014 07:59AM

Manach wrote: »

Baldly asserting all thinking people are on one side is rheotoric tricks 101.

Then is it not lucky that the person you are quoting did no such thing? He appeared in fact to merely suggest that it would be food for thought for thinking people. That is hardly baldly asserting anything, let alone asserting that all thinking people are on any particular "side".

Perhaps replying to things people have not actually said is "rheotoric tricks 101" in fact?

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-01-2014 08:06AM

nagirrac wrote: »

..and yet you go on to make the same claim

Or you go on ignoring my claim and pretending I am making one I did not make. Again my point has nothing to do with "religious people deal differently with grief in any practical sense than non religious people".

My point was about religious people and how they deal with grief after losing their faith, having at first dealt with it using that faith.

So in fact the claims and points I am making, as usual in conversations with you, are starkly different from the ones you are pretending I am making. And as I said, I am never in the habit of backing up claims I did not actually make. So park it.

Once again all I am saying is this: We know that dealing with bereavement is best done close to the bereavement and not later. All I am doing therefore is questioning the wisdom of patching over grief with a fantasy structure which then leaves SOME people dealing with the actual grief later if and when that faith system collapses.

nagirrac wrote: »

Except it is for those that believe in God

Of course it is, because it is congruent with their belief and their confirmation bias.

Just because they say it is evidence, that does not mean it is. We have to evaluate the things people claim are evidence. And once again: Even if religion or even deism turned out to be the perfect cure for grief... this in no way constitutes evidence for the existence of a god. Which is, after all, what this thread is about remember?

If there is evidence for a god then I am all ears. That is why I am on the thread. However "Thinking there is a god makes people suffering from bereavement feel a lot better", even if true, simply is not that evidence. At all. Even a little bit.

If you want to argue that it is, again I am all ears.

MilanPan!c · 09-01-2014 10:13AM

As god is responsible for all the suffering, I think it's only right he also be responsible for a bit of ease.

All those kids getting raped by priests surely needed a hand coping... and god knows there's nothing god could do to stop the wholesale abuse of kids by "holy men".

So you know, throw people a bone now and again, like after a tsunami or holocaust, with a little ease of suffering.

Not removal of suffering mind, just a slight ease.

Cause he's merciful.

Not merciful enough to stop the wholesale slaughter of people in Rwanda or East Timor, etc., but enough so that a woman who's been brutally raped, after her family is shot in front of her, so that she feels a little better after a few years.

Thanks god!

antiskeptic · 09-01-2014 10:56AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again all I am saying is this: We know that dealing with bereavement is best done close to the bereavement and not later. All I am doing therefore is questioning the wisdom of patching over grief with a fantasy structure which then leaves SOME people dealing with the actual grief later if and when that faith system collapses.

Are you suggesting that people who have reason for their faith (and who don't consider it a fantasy structure or themselves as doing any patching) ditch their faith in case at some future point they lose their faith and suffer consequences for having operated under that framework?

Just because they say it is evidence, that does not mean it is. We have to evaluate the things people claim are evidence. And once again: Even if religion or even deism turned out to be the perfect cure for grief... this in no way constitutes evidence for the existence of a god. Which is, after all, what this thread is about remember?

The thread isn't necessarily about evidence for the existence of God. It can, for example, span to include a persons rationalising their belief in God without producing evidence that is convincing to others. Argumentation has a place too. In this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-01-2014 11:09AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people who have reason for their faith (and who don't consider it a fantasy structure or themselves as doing any patching) ditch their faith in case at some future point they lose their faith and suffer consequences for having operated under that framework?

I am saying that I find myself wondering in general what the effect of.... using faith to deal with bereavement.... and then later losing that faith..... is on people. I am saying I have not seen any studies on this subject so it is an open question. And I am saying that the anecdotal cases I have personally seen of it have been horrific, which is what causes my interest in it in the first place and makes me wary of using faith to assist in helping people in bereavement.

More than that I am not saying.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The thread isn't necessarily about evidence for the existence of God.

The thread title is "Existence of God Debates". My point merely is that even if faith was monumentally useful in the treatment of grief.... this would in no way speak to the existence, or nonexistence, of a deity. At all. Even a little.

tommy2bad · 09-01-2014 12:00PM

As to the existence of God; He doesn't exist according to orthodox theology. So that might be a dead end to explore, the most we can do is explain why we believe in God and let people decide for themselves if it worth believing or not.

antiskeptic · 09-01-2014 12:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am saying that I find myself wondering in general what the effect of.... using faith to deal with bereavement.... and then later losing that faith..... is on people.

I can imagine there might be consequences alright. Not necessarily always bad. I mean, if you believed a loved one was in Hell then came to believe they were but worm food you might be comforted. Might you not be?

When you use the word 'faith' you are invoking a hugely varied and complex subject. There is no one size fits all generalities to be grasped.

I am saying I have not seen any studies on this subject..

The aforementioned breadth of the possibilities is the reason for this perhaps. Within the subsets you'll also have a range of folk (assuming, which the study might or might not do, depending on who does the study), some believers who've weakened in faith. Some nominal (or cultural) believers who were never really believes at all)

.. so it is an open question. And I am saying that the anecdotal cases I have personally seen of it have been horrific, which is what causes my interest in it in the first place and makes me wary of using faith to assist in helping people in bereavement.

I'm not sure faith would be used as one would use an aspirin: issued by anyone to anyone. If one person of faith opens out aspects of the faith to a faitful bereaved such as to bring comfort, then what of it? What else would you suggest happen (I refer to my previous post: should a person give up their faith in case that framework turns out to be wrong in the future and negative future consequences arise?)

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-01-2014 12:11PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can imagine there might be consequences alright. Not necessarily always bad.

Things are rarely "always" anything

But _if_ it is true ( and I have been led to believe it is ) that dealing with grief is best done as close to the time of bereavement as possible.... then it is not really a controversial suggestion that anything that causes people to deal with their grief at a significantly later date is likely to be a bad thing.

So my expectation (which as I said is only really supported by the horrific examples of it I have anecdotal seen myself) is that people who use faith to deal with bereavement.... but later lose that faith...... are going to be in a bad place. I would love to see studies on this, but alas all the studies I see related to faith and bereavement do not include this factor. And when I try to search scholarly databases for keywords like "bereavement" and "loss of faith" the results are almost always about loss of faith as a result of bereavement.... which is the exact opposite of what I am keen to read about.

Perhaps I should commission a study myself and petition for financial support

Would that I had the time.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, if you believed a loved one was in Hell then came to believe they were but worm food you might be comforted. Might you not be?

Indeed, but I expect the people who are in that position are relatively vastly in the minority. "Hell" is generally a construct people invent for other people to go to.... that is people outside the circle of the heart of the people espousing belief in such a realm.

antiskeptic · 09-01-2014 12:29PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Things are rarely "always" anything But _if_ it is true ( and I have been led to believe it is ) that dealing with grief is best done as close to the time of bereavement as possible.... then it is not really a controversial suggestion that anything that causes people to deal with their grief at a significantly later date is likely to be a bad thing.

If dealing with it "close to the event" is the factor which overrides all else, wouldn't shifting from handling the bereavement as an unbeliever then acquiring to faith be equally detrimental (with the detriment being booked to the account of that which delayed proper handling - i.e. unbelief)

Indeed, but I expect the people who are in that position are relatively vastly in the minority. "Hell" is generally a construct people invent for other people to go to.... that is people outside the circle of the heart of the people espousing belief in such a realm.

You need to brush up on your understanding of the breadth of faith so. As it is, you appear to be restricting things down to Roman Catholicism where a dose of water over the head as a baby gives you at least a fighting chance in Purgo. That notwithstanding, a Roman Catholic can have no certainty of heaven, nor any inkling as to likelyhood of entrance to heaven .. and so there must always be doubt. And so the move to unbelief would remove that doubt and would prove beneficial? N'est-ce-pas?

-

As to my question about what it is you would recommend precisely (where it that studies shows a particular system of faith to bring about the aforementioned "horrific" results)? I'll assume you find as ludicrous as I do, the suggestion that folk give up currently beneficial views and activities in case they change their mind later and those views and activities are considered harmful.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-01-2014 12:41PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

If dealing with it "close to the event" is the factor which overrides all else, wouldn't shifting from handling the bereavement as an unbeliever then acquiring to faith be equally detrimental (with the detriment being booked to the account of that which delayed proper handling - i.e. unbelief)

I do not see how. Dealing with the actual loss would have been done already. Thinking the dead person was not dead after all in some way might have negative effects on some, but others would see it as a bonus.

Thinking a dead person is not _really_ dead however.... only to come to the conclusion much later that they actually are.... delays aspects of the grieving process however.

antiskeptic wrote: »

you appear to be restricting things down to Roman Catholicism

I never mentioned it, restricted anything, nor implied anything of the sort actually. I am merely observing that in my experience those who invent or subscribe to the concept of hell, invent it for OTHER people to go to. "Other" being not themselves or their loved ones.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll assume you find as ludicrous as I do, the suggestion

I am not aware of anyone having made that suggestion though, which is why I did not deign to comment on it.

antiskeptic · 09-01-2014 12:55PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not see how. Dealing with the actual loss would have been done already. Thinking the dead person was not dead after all in some way might have negative effects on some, but others would see it as a bonus.

Thinking a dead person is not _really_ dead however.... only to come to the conclusion much later that they actually are.... delays aspects of the grieving process however.

You seem to be shifting from bald "handle close to time" (with that handling presumably being the correct, and final handling rather than being subject to future change whatever that change might entail) to a qualititive assessment of the specifics involved.

In which case I would point out the potential worsening of the situation. With unbelief they're gone. With belief they may be in bliss or in agony. Indeed, depending on the nature of the faith and your knowledge of the person, you might be surer they are in Hell than in Heaven.

I never mentioned it, restricted anything, nor implied anything of the sort actually. I am merely observing that in my experience those who invent or subscribe to the concept of hell, invent it for OTHER people to go to. "Other" being not themselves or their loved ones.

Which would point to an ignorance of the faith, the downsides of which can ultimately be assigned to the person who failed to inform themselves of even the most basic tenets of their faith. We are end-responsible for ourselves afterall. Do you want your point to rely on a persons ignorance of their faith then losing it altogether at some point?

I mean, they didn't actually have it in the first place to lose did they - they were dealing with a caricature of their faith. Which is hardly the faiths fault.

I am not aware of anyone having made that suggestion though, which is why I did not deign to comment on it.

There is little point in attempting to highlight the downsides of something without suggesting an alternative. If there are no alternatives then so what the downsides?

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-01-2014 01:03PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

In which case I would point out the potential worsening of the situation. With unbelief they're gone. With belief they may be in bliss or in agony.

Again: It MAY be so but I am not expecting it really. Not all faith comes with the Hell aspect either. So it would not be the acquisition of faith that is the issue here... but the acquisition of some specific faiths. Certainly the scenario you construct is possible but I am not finding it as credible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which would point to an ignorance of the faith

Your faith perhaps, but yours is not the rosetta stone here. I am merely commenting on my own experience with these people. And invariably "hell" is a place they envision other people in. Heathens, people they see in media, atheists, and so forth. Rarely themselves or anyone close to them. Again: This is just a comment on the people I have personal experience of who espouse belief in hell.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is little point in attempting to highlight the downsides of something without suggesting an alternative. If there are no alternatives then so what the downsides?

Again: I am merely questioning what the effects may be of losing ones faith if ones faith has previously provided a consolation framework to belay the pain of a bereavement. What you are discussing now appears to be a Non sequitur to what I am saying. I really am not moved to comment on how ludicrous a suggestion is when no one on the thread, much less myself, made said suggestion.

nagirrac · 09-01-2014 07:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or you go on ignoring my claim and pretending I am making one I did not make. Again my point has nothing to do with "religious people deal differently with grief in any practical sense than non religious people". My point was about religious people and how they deal with grief after losing their faith, having at first dealt with it using that faith.

The whole premise of your claim is that religious people, or people with "faith", paper mache over grief, and this is a band aid rather than dealing with grief "more effectively" (whatever that is, you have not defined this magic solution either). Read back over your own posts if you doubt this, starting with your first post a few pages back. That is the basis for your argument that if they later lose their faith they have to deal with the grieving process all over again.

What I am questioning is the basis for your claim that religious belief or faith is a band aid. Please provide the evidence, preferably from studies done and not anecdotal, that compare how religious and non-religious deal with grief, and conclusions that back up your claim. I have seen nothing to support the view that religious belief is a band aid for grief, and nothing to suggest that the short term grief process for religious and non-religious is any different, except for later in the recovery process where religious seem less likely to slip into extended depression.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If there is evidence for a god then I am all ears. That is why I am on the thread. However "Thinking there is a god makes people suffering from bereavement feel a lot better", even if true, simply is not that evidence. At all. Even a little bit.

I think this is where you are completely in error. "Thinking there is a God" in no way makes those suffering from bereavement feel better. This is a claim of yours with no evidence, the very thing you castigate others for. Grieving is a natural human process that no amount of belief or disbelief in God alleviates in the short term. The only practical help for those suffering from grief is support from family, friends and the community (and religion frequently provides the latter support), and in extreme cases such as children losing their parents, professional counseling.

The evidence for God is subjective evidence, something you no doubt attach little value to. This is the chasm across which atheists and believers cannot reach. Believers have a subjective relationship with God, irrespective of how they may define or conceptualize that God, something that atheists lack. Attempts to explain this evidence for God is the equivalent of trying to explain color to a blind person.

georgesstreet · 09-01-2014 08:51PM

nagirrac wrote: »

The evidence for God is subjective evidence, something you no doubt attach little value to. This is the chasm across which atheists and believers cannot reach. Believers have a subjective relationship with God, irrespective of how they may define or conceptualize that God, something that atheists lack. Attempts to explain this evidence for God is the equivalent of trying to explain color to a blind person.

Atheists are not, in the main, blind. What you mean by the chasm is that, to cross it, one must accept things as true which are simply unbelievable. Any of the gods which mas had believed in, over the centuries, have this simple flaw. Wheter one believed in the Norse god Thor, or the hindu god, or the sun god, or the christian god all have the same basic flaw.

Sincerity in a belief does not make that belief true.

nagirrac · 09-01-2014 09:00PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

What you mean by the chasm is that, to cross it, one must accept things as true which are simply unbelievable.

How is the hypothesis that the universe we observe is due to a higher creative power unbelievable?

MilanPan!c · 09-01-2014 09:04PM

nagirrac wrote: »

How is the hypothesis that the universe we observe is due to a higher creative power unbelievable?

Unevidenced is a better word maybe.

But it is UNBELIEVABLE that people think it's rational to believe such a thing.

nagirrac · 09-01-2014 09:06PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

But it is UNBELIEVABLE that people think it's rational to believe such a thing.

Of course it is rational, unless you are suggesting that only atheist minds are rational, a nonsense claim.

MilanPan!c · 10-01-2014 12:10AM

nagirrac wrote: »

Of course it is rational, unless you are suggesting that only atheist minds are rational, a nonsense claim.

It's not rational as there's NO EVIDENCE to suggest it.

It's a random belief.

Pretty much the opposite of rational.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments