The Bright Side of Atheism

_{Gil Dodgen

April 6, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

UD commenter markf offers the following:

Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?”
Oh yes. For example,
– no pressure to sit through hour long rambles or harangues once a week in a building with minimal heating and hard seats
– easier to enjoy satires on religion
– no need to repeat “I was once an atheist but now I know better” every week.

In our church there is no pressure to do anything; it’s all voluntary. The seats are soft and the heating is comfortable. The sermons are not rambles or harangues, but insightful messages (often convicting, but necessarily and constructively so) given by a pastor with a Ph.D. in ethics who has been a professor at Vanguard University for many years, who is one of the best humanitarians I have ever known, and who puts his feet to his faith. He and a team from our church just got back from war-ravaged Africa on a mission to build minimal housing for widows and orphans.

Where do you find such things within the fundamentalist atheist community? You don’t, because they don’t got no songs, and they don’t got no worldview that inspires them in such ways.

After all, we’re just naked apes, an accident of random errors and natural selection. How inspiring and motivating can that be?

Comments

Holcumbrink (21), many thanks for the thoughtful reply. I hope I'm not too late to respond in turn. (though if I get stuck in moderation again it won't help) I take your points. Where we differ is over your statement that: "if the ToE is true, it also ipso facto negates any appeal to ultimate purpose in our existence." To me (and many Christians, including scientists) the unique power of Man to reason and to distinguish right from wrong gives him unique responsibilities in the world. The allegory of the Garden of Eden expresses this exactly - it was not the fruit of any old tree they ate. To me, reason and moral awareness are also the sense in which Man is made "in the image of God". This view does not depend on the mechanism by which mankind came to be here.Capt. Haddock_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

#29 CY Dr. Harris, like any good atheist believes that we CAN derive an ought from an is, and he refers to the issue of human pain and suffering as his example of how it can be derived. Harris may believe this but it is certainly not true of atheists in general. However, I am sorry, but I am not going to undertake this particular debate on UD.markf_{April 8, 2011
April
04
Apr
8
08
2011
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Thanks markf, Just a note (or maybe more :) ) on the Craig/Harris debate, which I think is relevant here. Dr. Craig continued to reiterate the ought/is dichotomy, which Dr. Harris from my recollection after having listened to the entire debate, neglected to address directly. Dr. Harris, like any good atheist believes that we CAN derive an ought from an is, and he refers to the issue of human pain and suffering as his example of how it can be derived. Dr. Craig's view on this seems to be that while we can acknowledge that human suffering is an evil, we don't derive the acknowledgement of that evil from the pain and suffering itself (except in the case of our own pain and suffering) - rather, that there is an objective basis for why it is evil apart from ourselves, and that transcends the self. Dr. Harris does not seem to be able to articulate what the atheist's ontological basis for declaring anything as evil is. He simply acknowledges that there IS objective morality, and then he refers back to these examples. Again, it comes down to the problem of deriving values from nature, which does not seem to care about values, no matter how it speaks to us. That human beings are capable of determining what is good and what is evil seems to suggest that savage nature (of which we are a part) is transcended by some overruling law, which seems to have been violated in some way for us to have reached our present predicament - thus blinding us from the transcendent voice of one, who set things in place in a certain way and with a certain eternal purpose. So while these issues may have been discussed many times, it is my belief and hope that they continue to be discussed until we have driven home the point that in atheism one cannot hope to derive any ontological basis for objective morality, and therefore, any value to human life as a consequence. If pain and suffering are evil (which we all acknowledge), the metaphysical side that has a basis for condemning societies, which intentionally cause pain and suffering on a populace in order to remain in power, and/or for some other lofty goal (I'm thinking Hitler here), is the theist side, and can only be so because death is not the end - it is an evil itself for which the atheist has no recourse to object. It just is. Atheists who have been consistent with this realization are much like Eric Idol, with his decidedly nihilistic lyrics on the meaning of life and death. It's not surprising then that Monty Python took on the equally nihilistic vision of "The meaning of Life" in their follow-up film. They are anything if not consistent. Were it true that every atheist lived as consistent with atheistic philosophy as is suggested by these films.CannuckianYankee_{April 8, 2011
April
04
Apr
8
08
2011
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

#27 CY You have raised a lot of points which have been discussed many, many times already - about the importance of eternal life and values. But it is really irrelevant to the question of whether someone who happens not to believe in these things can have a fulfilling life through other avenues. But I think we have exhausted this subject. Markmarkf_{April 8, 2011
April
04
Apr
8
08
2011
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

markf, I appreciate the reply, but I don't think you're getting my point - and I suspect that you won't - not because I haven't explained it well, (maybe so), but i think it's more that you choose not to understand. After all, there are consequences to all our endeavors, and this is precisely what I view as an inconsistency with the atheists I have engaged with for quite a long time. If atheism is true, it shouldn't matter what others believe, because with atheism, belief is inconsequential. Why? I think you will perhaps agree that with atheism there is no thought about eternal life. With Christianity there is. In fact, it's a huge part of the Christian equation. As I already stated, with Christianity, life is a gift, and it is such only in context with the proposal that life is eternal, and not limited to the short natural lives we live on this earth. Now with atheism not having eternal life in the equation, life ends at death. That's all there is - and all that counts is the natural world, which does not provide any context whatsoever for values beyond what is - and as KF has often pointed out, you can't derive an ought from an is. You don't derive values from the natural world. That atheists do derive values is indicative of the influence of those borrowed from theism. Atheism, thus is highly influenced by theism for morality and ethics. As I pointed out from my quote from Ecclesiastes, we experience - all of us - theist and atheist alike, the tedium of the passage of time. So what do we do? We engage ourselves with filling the passage of time with what we deem to be meaningful endeavors. I'm not saying that it's any different for an atheist as it is for a theist as far as the particular endeavors - there probably are differences, but that's another matter. With a theist, there is a far different perspective, however, which atheism does not lend itself to, and that perspective is again: belief in eternal life; such that what we do in our lives is eternally consequential. Atheism does not lend itself to such a belief, and when atheists attempt to do so, they are not being consistent with the atheist "ideal," (you'll notice I put that in quotes because I agree with you - without God ideals are really meaningless). The author of Ecclesiastes is arguing that the natural world does not grant us meaning, and I interpret this in the context of (shall we say) not having eternity in our hearts. So with that in mind, even if I was the greatest of humans, and I engaged in endeavors, which benefited millions of others, without a contextt of eternal life, such a life is still meaningless - that is, if atheism is true. It is not, however, meaningless if there is a God and eternal life. If God exists, the 90 year old woman's life is immensely meaningful whether she still has faith or not. But it is only in the context of theism that even her life is meaningful in the larger scheme of things. As such, I don't believe I would be patronizing by helping her back to her faith, or for that matter, helping anyone to have faith. If I failed to do so, I could be accused of not being consistent with my own faith, and believe me, I've been there. I've determined that the best practice is to be committed and consistent, because even for Christians, there are eternal consequences for not, and eternal benefits for keeping this in mind and heart. Now I'm sure you could find some aspects of this with which you're inclined to disagree, and as such, attempt to sway such an argument away from this particular context - that of eternity and it's negation, but I don't believe that will be at all helpful. What might be helpful is for you to understand why actions consistent with a firm belief in eternity are different than actions consistent with a belief that death is the end. It's not surprising that most cultures throughout history have had some sense that life continues beyond the grave.CannuckianYankee_{April 8, 2011
April
04
Apr
8
08
2011
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

CY #22 and #23 Oh Dear – I have utterly failed to explain my position. I am sorry. Let me try again. markf,
I wouldn’t patronize the 90 year old lady. First I would celebrate her longevity with her, and then I’d give her reasons for why her faith is still valid and vital.
But you have already patronised her by assuming her life is in some way deficient. It is one thing to try to convert/preach to someone who is seeking help. It is another to inflict your beliefs on someone when you don’t know if they even have a problem.
But I would also ask you to not patronize me in suggesting first of all that I attend cold uncomfortable and boring churches, and that I don’t know what atheists feel. I was an atheist once, and I know perfectly well how I felt, thank you. That you feel differently means very little in the scheme of things when comparing the ratio of belief to disbelief. If atheism truly makes people happy, I would expect that there’d be more atheists.
I already retracted my statement about cold and uncomfortable churches which is was an error. You may know how you felt when you were an atheist but it does not follow from that you know how atheists in general feel about their lives. This is precisely the point that john_a_designer was making – although for some reason he thought I disagreed. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, there is no atheist ideal. All atheists have in common is they don’t believe in any deity. They find, or fail to find, fulfilment in many different ways.
Thus: doing something that has eternal benefits is much more consequential than something that merely passes the time.
There you go again “merely passes the time”. That takes us back to the old lady and your assumptions about her life.markf_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

Charlie at #20, Exactly! and thanks.CannuckianYankee_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

markf, Furthermore, if atheists are truly committed to the atheist "ideal," why not treat life like Eric Idol treats it in his song? "Life's a piece of ______ when you think of it." That makes more sense to me as a former atheist - if I'm truly committed to it. That's how I should really be treating life, because after all, life in the end is completely meaningless. And so I quote a famous King: "The words of the Teacher,[a] son of David, king in Jerusalem: 2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” 3 What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun? 4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. 8 All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. 9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. 11 No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them." [Ecclesiastes 1:1-11, NIV] I don't happen to believe life is that way, and neither does the author of Ecclesiastes - he's making a point about our human predicament - particularly if we live consistent with atheism. The Christian ideal is to treat life like it's a gift.CannuckianYankee_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

puts his feet to his faith
I am not familiar with this metaphor; can you please explain?critter_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

markf, I wouldn't patronize the 90 year old lady. First I would celebrate her longevity with her, and then I'd give her reasons for why her faith is still valid and vital. But I would also ask you to not patronize me in suggesting first of all that I attend cold uncomfortable and boring churches, and that I don't know what atheists feel. I was an atheist once, and I know perfectly well how I felt, thank you. That you feel differently means very little in the scheme of things when comparing the ratio of belief to disbelief. If atheism truly makes people happy, I would expect that there'd be more atheists. No, I suggest that it is not belief, which brings happiness - like I said in an earlier post, it is commitment to what you believe - and not only that; commitment to something that really matters in the long run. Thus: doing something that has eternal benefits is much more consequential than something that merely passes the time.CannuckianYankee_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Haddock, #18: “embracing atheism is just as much an ACT OF FAITH as embracing religious belief – precisely because such questions are ipso facto outside the remit of natural science. …I still find the original article disappointing for a scientific/philosophical discussion forum. This is not only for its tribal sneering at atheists (by Christians – has Christ taught us nothing?) but also for its category error in conflating atheism with evolution and then accusing a scientific theory of not providing a purpose for humanity.” If by “evolution” you mean all life is a result of blind natural processes, then for many atheists (if not all) the ToE ipso facto makes God superfluous (at least in the realm of biology). In other words, they are the ones conflating atheism with evolution, and I tend to do the same. Only instead of “conflating”, I would use the word “equating”. “Conflate” implies error on the part of the one equating the two objects. As it would happen, if the ToE is true, it also ipso facto negates any appeal to ultimate purpose in our existence. So it’s not that the theory does not provide purpose, it’s that it does away with purpose altogether. Hence the passion behind the posts among the proponents of design here.M. Holcumbrink_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

This past weekend I attended my usual Sunday morning and evening harangues and, when I found I had Saturday off from work went to two more that morning. Then I spent Saturday evening at a Bible study. What great pleasure, inspiration and instruction I received from learned and Godly men. Learning is a joy and privilege, especially when you are learning about the most profound Ground of existence and the implications for our lives.Charlie_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

#17 john_a_designer In what sense am I defending atheism as a belief? I wrote in #5 above: If you are an atheist then there are many possible bright sides to your life, but, of course, they are nothing to do with your religion – because you don’t have one. But atheists have families, friends, jobs, the arts, and all other exciting things you can do with your life. All I am saying is that atheists may find fulfilment outside religion as clearly they will not find in religion. That fulfilment will vary according to the atheist's particular situation and personality.markf_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Thanks Holcumbrink (15). Rest assured, for both intellectual and personal reasons, I am in no danger of conflating science with atheism. Indeed I recall Alister McGrath pointing out, in his excellent book, "Dawkins' God", that embracing atheism is just as much an ACT OF FAITH as embracing religious belief - precisely because such questions are ipso facto outside the remit of natural science. But I have to say I still find the original article disappointing for a scientific/philosophical discussion forum. This is not only for its tribal sneering at atheists (by Christians - has Christ taught us nothing?) but also for its category error in conflating atheism with evolution and then accusing a scientific theory of not providing a purpose for humanity.Capt. Haddock_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Notice how Mark is defending atheism. He is defending it like it is another belief or religion; but that is absurd. Atheism is unbelief. How can you have belief based on unbelief? How can unbelief be defended as belief? How can you be offended when your unbelief is being criticized? Again, that’s treating it like it was a belief. In my opinion, atheists like Mark are not being honest about their unbelief. If he was, he wouldn’t even be here, defending or promoting (or what ever he is doing)his unbelief.john_a_designer_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

"- no pressure to sit through hour long rambles or harangues once a week in a building with minimal heating and hard seats" And if there is pressure to do exactly this, so what? It's called discipline, and I think discipline is a necessary element of any group where membership is worth something. The wooden pews in a Catholic Church are more than just uncomfortable places to sit. I think that the perception of mere hard seats may be the result of a flawed materialist philosophy. AndrewBRAK_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Haddock #13: “I thought UD was supposed to be about ID, which I thought is supposed to be science and not religion. Why then are we having this discussion here? Or is it now acknowledged that ID is a religious belief? I stress I have no problem either way – just want to know what ID now thinks it is, to avoid making any category errors myself in dealing with it.” UD exists, as best as I can tell, to discuss the evidence available to us in determining whether or not life has been designed. Depending on the conclusion one comes to, there are huge philosophical implications, which cannot be ignored, and which must needs be discussed as well. Among the philosophical implications are Theism and Atheism, so I would imagine it would be expected to see discussions between two people of either persuasion here at UD. This implies that Atheism is a religion as well. So if you are trying to avoid category errors, be sure not to conflate “science” with “atheism” along your way.M. Holcumbrink_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

#11 and #12 CY You write:
The intention of Christians is not to be patronizing. That you find offense in what Christians say about atheism is not so much that Christians have said anything about you as a person because you are an atheist, but because you choose to find offense in what is said.
This little thread was the result of one which mocked atheists for having no songs and included comments such as these: Joseph “So the bright side of being an atheist is being a moron” Is this just me choosing to take offence? (I have to say it is not a very deep offence – just mildly annoying).
Christian: I’ve found true joy in my life. I used to think I was happy, and I had a lot of fun times when I was an atheist, but now I’ve truly found the life I was meant to live. I still have fun, but the joy I’ve found goes beyond the fun times. Atheist: I’ve found true joy in my life too. I’m happy, and I’m having a lot of fun. That’s all that can be expected from life, really.
That’s quite a good example. You are assuming that you have found something deeper and more meaningful in your life than say Jonathan Miller. You could rephrase the atheist response as:
Atheist: I’ve found true joy in my life too. I’m happy and fulfilled. I feel that I have made the most of my life.
It is only your own prejudice that adds the sentence:
That’s all that can be expected from life, really.
and it is this prejudice which I think Eric Idle is satirising in “Always Look on the Bright Side” (possibly without realising it). In #12 you write:
I think andrewjg said it best in #6 (quoting CS Lewis) – the contrast between the passion of being a believer and the dull thrill-seeking of not. What do you do after the thrill is gone? What do elderly people do when they can no longer do the things they enjoy? What about the disabled and the terminally ill? It would seem that the “joy” in atheism is available to a select few, while the joy of Christ is available to all; no matter their age, their ethnicity, their ability, their gender, their economic status, their health, etc…
This again illustrates the point. By describing the satisfaction that an atheist gets from life as a “thrill” you demean it without knowing what it is. Why do you assume that atheists cannot manage the end of life and why there are not opportunities for self-fulfilled atheists independent of age, their ethnicity, their ability, their gender, their economic status, their health, etc? I have a close relative who is 90, severely limited by arthritis, did not go to university, and has lost her faith over the years. She still gets an immense amount out of life and is a pleasure to be with. Don’t patronise her (albeit indirectly) – she can cope. markf_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

I thought UD was supposed to be about ID, which I thought is supposed to be science and not religion. Why then are we having this discussion here? Or is it now acknowledged that ID is a religious belief? I stress I have no problem either way - just want to know what ID now thinks it is, to avoid making any category errors myself in dealing with it.Capt. Haddock_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

markf, I think andrewjg said it best in #6 (quoting CS Lewis) - the contrast between the passion of being a believer and the dull thrill-seeking of not. What do you do after the thrill is gone? What do elderly people do when they can no longer do the things they enjoy? What about the disabled and the terminally ill? It would seem that the "joy" in atheism is available to a select few, while the joy of Christ is available to all; no matter their age, their ethnicity, their ability, their gender, their economic status, their health, etc...CannuckianYankee_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

markf, "Some atheists, and I guess I am one of them, find it mildly annoying and patronising to be told that our lives have no real bright side when actually we do. Atheists, agnostics and people of all different faiths are capable of leading barren, unhappy and even evil lives." The intention of Christians is not to be patronizing. That you find offense in what Christians say about atheism is not so much that Christians have said anything about you as a person because you are an atheist, but because you choose to find offense in what is said. The real intention of Christians regarding exposing atheism for what it is, is to help people to find meaningful lives. That you have found meaning is not to say that every atheist has found meaning, and quite frankly, I believe that the meaning found in atheism is far different than the meaning Christians find in Christ. It's like this: Christian: I've found true joy in my life. I used to think I was happy, and I had a lot of fun times when I was an atheist, but now I've truly found the life I was meant to live. I still have fun, but the joy I've found goes beyond the fun times. Atheist: I've found true joy in my life too. I'm happy, and I'm having a lot of fun. That's all that can be expected from life, really. So when a Christian says that he/she has found meaning in life, it means a very different thing than when an atheist says the same thing. Why? Because God really does exist, and it would be expected that with that existence, would come a substance that is far greater than with those who choose not to believe in His existence.CannuckianYankee_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

I used to have a colleauge, who was a self described anti-theist. If the atmosphere in the office was dull, the only thing I had to do is to briefly remark on evolution and immediately there was a heated debate! Anyway, one day he proudly said to me that he and his atheist friends had a Sunday morning meeting in the Multi Faith Centre of the city university. I became curious about what an atheist service could be like, so I asked for more details about what was on. Briefly, the discussion was around how terrible it was that a university, the pinnacle of reason, has a multi faith centre. They also discussed that still a lot of people believe in God of other forms of supernaturality. I was astonished. Is that all?- I asked. Well, when we gather in our church we do not moan about how secular the society around us became. If you are right, I said, then just go forth, shine your light and everybody will see that truth had set you free, how happy you are and will surely join you! The same guy was unwilling to come and ask clever questions from John Lennox when he was visiting. Instead, he gave me a piece of paper with two questions. The more intelligent one was "Who made God?". I do not remember the other one. By the way, he has a Phd, and several degrees of engineering...Alex73_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

#8 CY I think I understand the Christian message and I hope you get great joy and do a lot of good as a result. Some atheists, and I guess I am one of them, find it mildly annoying and patronising to be told that our lives have no real bright side when actually we do. Atheists, agnostics and people of all different faiths are capable of leading barren, unhappy and even evil lives. Some have found a solution through their religion. Many others find solutions elsewhere (Jonathan Miller and David Attenborough spring to mind as excellent public examples, but I know others personally) and indeed there are religious people who have found the solution as a result of losing their faith.markf_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

markf I think the degree of one's joy with faith is directly related to the degree of commitment. Some people are religious because by their upbringing or their traditions, they have to be. Other people are religious because not only are they convicted by the truth, but because they truly desire to be changed in a significant way. I would guess that the reason Gil receives joy from being a Christian is because he's committed, and he's found that joy in contrast to his atheist past. I also think that there's no real "bright side of life" if one is committed to the atheist "ideal." It doesn't go there, because the end of it all is a meaningless death. I think Eric Idol brought that out quite well in the lyrics to the song you referred to. The whole issue of churches doing good things in their communities and in the larger world, is not an issue that they must do these things to be religious, but because they receive joy and satisfaction from doing them. So being a Christian for one thing is concerned with getting the issue of death out of the way so that one can truly become the person they were meant to be. And the entire message of Christianity is that we ARE meant to be the salt of the earth - not self-directed, but directed towards the needs of our fellow humans in order that they too can share in the same joy.CannuckianYankee_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

#6 Ah well I guess I am missing out. Mind you when I look at the most religious people I know or hear about - they don't seem that happy or fulfilled. Just look at some the comments on this forum.markf_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

@markf I like the analogy CS Lewis gives. He is talking about our, I mean many Christians along with the rest of the worlds attitude to joy. He writes,
"...it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
andrewjg_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

My comment was not serious. I rather hoped that was obvious. I apologise if it was not. I was brought up in a C of E tradition where the Churches are frequently beautiful old buildings with very hard pews and negligible heating. And the vicars range from the dull to the brilliant (including some who barely seem to believe). I am sure that real Churches cover a wide range of possibilities just as they cover a wide range of beliefs and practices. If you are an atheist then there are many possible bright sides to your life, but, of course, they are nothing to do with your religion – because you don’t have one. But atheists have families, friends, jobs, the arts, and all other exciting things you can do with your life. As he has written many times, Gildodgen was unhappy when he was an atheist and seems happier now. Best of luck to him. Don’t assume from that that all atheists are unhappy and unfulfilled and I won’t assume all churches are uncomfortable.markf_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Why the presumption? Maybe he picked it up while sitting through the hours-long rambles and harangues available daily on pharyngula or Dawkins' site or elsewhere. Of course, satires of atheism now cause consternation, and there's a lot of "I was once a theist but now I know better" among many. However, I assume the chair is comfortable and space heating available. So, you know. There's that.nullasalus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

markf: Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?” Oh yes. For example, - no pressure to sit through hour long rambles or harangues once a week in a building with minimal heating and hard seats - easier to enjoy satires on religion - no need to repeat “I was once an atheist but now I know better” every week.
Why the presumption? I wouldn’t attend a church like you describe. I wouldn’t recommend a church like that to anyone else. I am just curious what kind of thinking you leads to presume something like that is true for people you do not know?john_a_designer_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Is it common practice to post at UD in the buff? I'll try it!Brent_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply