As far as I'm concerned, life is worth living because it is superior to the alternative. — Reformed Nihilist

Which is what? Non-existence? That has no value and you've never experienced it, so you can't compare it to existence. The only way to find out would be to commit suicide, but even then, you'd have to assume that there is no afterlife before committing the act.

Do you think you would have to defend yourself against the gun-toting Christians? — Lone Wolf

No, but my fears and insecurities probably generate fictions and lock onto stereotypes which try to give the world a bit of order.

Is that even a good representation of Christianity, or is it more of a culture stereotype of some places in the United States? — Lone Wolf

I'm not very much concerned with the good representations of Christianity. Bad, harmful and scary ideas loom large in the imagination. We pay attention to what gets our attention.

Indeed, the meme for faith exhibits frequency-dependent fitness: it flourishes particularly in the company of rationalistic memes. In a skeptic-poor world, the meme for faith does not attract much attention, and hence tends to go dormant in minds, and hence is seldom reintroduced into the infosphere. (Can we demonstrate classic predator-prey population boom-and-bust cycles between memes for faith and memes for reason? Probably not, but it might be instructive to look, and ask why not.) — Denett, D. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Invasion of the Body Snatchers, pg. 349

There is an interesting medieval portrayal of Christian priests in Netflix's new Castlevania anime. The choice to burn a supposed witch sets of an ironic chain of events. One sees in such a world that behavior has been constructed around certain ideas (faith) and the people who are empowered by them. Science, as with Cavaca's cartoon, only survives in areas and inviduals designated by the church as evil.

And why is atheism seen as stronger and more able to protect in a government situation than another religion? — Lone Wolf

Self acknowledged atheists might be better apt at separating church and state from a policy point of view, if that is at all important or good for a supposed democratic society composed of diverse faiths.

The only way to find out would be to commit suicide — Thorongil

Except, if there is no afterlife, you'd find out nothing :P

Which is what? Non-existence? That has no value and you've never experienced it, so you can't compare it to existence. The only way to find out would be to commit suicide, but even then, you'd have to assume that there is no afterlife before committing the act. — Thorongil

I can draw conclusions and make assumptions with imperfect information, which I do (and we all do all the time). We obviously have drawn different conclusions, which is fine by me. Given the information available to me, I judge life to be preferable to the alternative.

Now did you care to demonstrate that your claim was so, or do you withdraw it?

Isn't there a contradiction between your first statement:

you can't choose to believe or not believe - it's a function of your genetic make-up and your life experiences. — CasKev

and your second statement?

I currently don't believe in a higher power or an afterlife. That won't change until I am presented with strong evidence of such, or at least a very convincing argument. — CasKev

Presumably your life experiences and genetic make up led you to not believe in a higher power or an afterlife. Then, you claim that you need strong evidence or convincing argument. My guess is that your genetic makeup and life experiences would rule out ever recognizing either such forms of evidence.

I think you are correct that life experiences and genetic make up have a lot to do with it, more than strong evidence (what? an appearance of the divine?) or convincing argument.

Well, I guess some Christians are gun-toting, but some aren't, such as the Amish denomination who do not believe in any kind of violence. — Lone Wolf

The historic peace churches (Quaker, Mennonite (includes Amish), Church of the Brethren) and pacifist groups within otherwise non-pacifist denominations (like Catholic Workers, Anglican Peace Fellowship, Baptist Peace Fellowship) don't make up a large percentage of Christians -- unfortunately. A better measure of gun-toting vs. non-gun-toting would be the percentage of Americans (whatever the hell they believe in) who are gun toters. It's not possible to say precisely, but it is between 33% and 50%. And some households account for a disproportionate share of the guns.

So it is probably the case that many Christians are gun toters, and many are not. And that would apply to non-believers as well -- many are, many are not.

Hence the rest of that sentence you quoted.

Hence the rest of that sentence you quoted. — Thorongil

Indeed, I actually misread your sentence, my apologies. That's what happens when there's a lot to reply to :( lol

I judge life to be preferable to the alternative — Reformed Nihilist

I've already replied to this statement. I can go no further in answering your original question until you address my reply.

I did reply. Perhaps you think my reply was somehow unsatisfactory. However, if it is demonstrable, you shouldn't require my cooperation to demonstrate it, so even if my response is unsatisfactory, please go ahead and demonstrate your claim to be true.

I can't, if we can't even agree that existence and non-existence aren't comparable.

Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? — Lone Wolf

Some people think that religiousness is weak, weepy, and inferior to the strong, dry-eyed and superior atheistic view. To the extent that this occurs, I think there are two reasons:

First, there is a strain of American culture that especially values rational, can-do, no-nonsense, materialism. (It isn't limited to Americans, of course.) The archetypal cartoon character business man is a strong-jawed, two-fisted, unsentimental, knows-what-he-wants-and-knows-how-to-get-it character. He's a warrior of business.

Then there is the STEM (science/technology/engineering/math) lobby. I have nothing against applying STEM to the problems we face, it is just the case that many of our problems are rather more immaterial and intractable than extracting more energy from sunlight. Like... poverty, militarism, maldistribution of wealth, and all of that.

There has been an evacuation of religious institutions which began in the 1960s. Did Yeats in 1919 capture the force behind the departure of so many Christians?

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. — William Butler Yeats

WWI and WWII can not have helped but undermine the bedrock beliefs of Christianity and Judaism. If an all-powerful God keeps watch, why did so many die? Where was God? For many, the distasteful but unavoidable conclusion is that God is absent.

A third influence is the scholarship which led to a critical examination of biblical texts that began in the 19th century. What critical Biblical scholarship revealed was that biblical texts had a complex structure and history (though it isn't the case that nobody noticed some of this before). These studies undermined the formerly secure confidence in texts. These studies were one of the causes of the rise of fundamentalism -- a reaction to this scholarship. What put the wind in the sails of fundamentalism was Charles Darwin.

I think it is safe to say that what many Americans (can't speak for Europeans) saw at Sunday morning services was too often kind of weak, weepy, and sentimentally soft. Certainly there were pastors, priests, nuns, monks, and laity who were tough, hard, dry-eyed, and unsentimental. But... not the majority.

What do you mean by comparable? They are two different states. Why couldn't we compare them? Or do you mean in a more colloquial sense "there's no comparison"?

They are two different states. — Reformed Nihilist

No they aren't. Non-existence isn't a state anyone is in. To be in a state, one must first exist.

Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? — Lone Wolf

It should be obvious that atheists see religious folks as believing myths, superstitions, etc.; believing things that atheists take to be clearly false. Atheists often see religious believers as some combination of gullible/easily suckered, not very bright, and/or as people who need an emotional crutch to an extent where they're willing to buy into nonsense and reject reason for it.

If you burn a dollar bill, does the dollar (not the bill) still exist in a different state? Does it not exist? It doesn't really matter to me how you answer that, but I will disagree with you that I can't choose which case is preferable to another.

It doesn't really matter to me how you answer that — Reformed Nihilist

Lol, so why ask it?

but I will disagree with you that I can't choose which case is preferable to another. — Reformed Nihilist

You do that.

Ok, so when you say something is demonstrable, you mean only if I already agree with you?

One has to agree on definitions before arguments can be made. If we don't agree on what words like "existence" and "non-existence" entail, then we won't get to the arguments that employ them. We can go no further. This is unfortunate perhaps, but that's how philosophy goes sometimes. It's not the worst thing in the world to have someone disagree with you on the Internet.

Sure, it's not the end of the world. It just reminds me of the Carl Sagan quote "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". I'm not sure if everyone sees the reductio ad absurdum implied by this quote. The point being that people make apple pie from scratch all the time. People also demonstrate points all the time without litigating the definition of existence (Perhaps the most difficult and contentious element of philosophy). Just saying.

The point being that people make apple pie from scratch all the time. People also demonstrate points all the time without litigating the definition of existence — Reformed Nihilist

And they're probably wrong to, as it's just lazy and welcomes misunderstandings. I'm guilty of it for sure. Regardless, I'm going to stick with what is, for me, the self-obvious point that non-existence has neither positive nor negative value.

I just think you have an odd approach to where the burden lies in this discussion. You said that something is demonstrable, so normally, I would assume that we are either going to use conventional meanings, or you are going to define things, and if I find those definitions problematic, I'll point it out and explain why. If you think it's demonstrable, surely that's based on something, right? So why play coy and ask me to define existence?

Edit: I suspect our differences are more about how we conceive value than existence. As far as I'm concerned, value is something a person ascribes based on all sorts of subjective and personal factors, not something that can be objectively demonstrated. That's why I can prefer living to it's alternative, even without the prospect of an afterlife. Because I have thoughts and opinions and value systems that might be different than yours.

Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth living. Your typical atheist, like Dawkins, seems to realize this on some level, but the fact is clearly too much for him to bear, as shown above. — Thorongil

... strikes me as a textbook example of wishful thinking, appeal to consequence.
Do you think an emotional existential crisis somehow makes this yearning true...?

I'm not sure what "religious salvation" is exactly (though "salvation" often is preached by Christians), and how it supposedly satisfies your yearnings, but feel free to explicate.
Some sort of predetermined purpose (or predestination perhaps) bestowed upon you by something else?

It seems odd to claim that these atheists you refer to do not enjoy living.
Feel free to demonstrate that "life is demonstrably not worth living" unless your yearnings are the case.
Perhaps Dawkins agrees that it'd be nifty to get together with his grand/parents and other loved ones again, in some sort of afterlife, but admits that doesn't make it so?
(I haven't read much of his stuff, so I don't know.)

In The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing (Jan 2016), John C Wathey discusses what he dubs an "innate model of the mother", which seems to shed some light at least on some psychological phenomena related to emotional existential crises.
Whether there's something to it or not, who knows, but it's not wishful thinking nor appeal to consequence fallacies.

Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth living. — Thorongil

Agreed. But, sadly, spiritual blindness prevents many from recognizing/admitting this fact.

Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? — Lone Wolf

As a Christian, I consider it a privilege to be deemed 'weak'. After all, we are told in 2 Cor. 12 that Christ's strength is made perfect in weakness...

Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. — 2 Cor. 12:7-10

Stay weak, brother. ;)

Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? — Lone Wolf

I think that's a miconception. Theism and Atheism appeal to two different qualities of the human psyche.

Religion appeals to intuition and feelings. I think it's wise to entertain possibilities, no matter how unreasonable because the universe-man relationship is not an equilibrium - while we're obliged to fit our theories to facts, the universe is not likewise obliged.

Atheism appeals to reason. It reins in our voluptuous imagination which otherwise would lead to full blown imaginary worlds of ghosts, spirits, demons, fairies, etc. This isn't good because such thinking is, as has been demonstrated, dangerous. Just think of the time when disease was attributed to evil spirits.

There's an undeniable contradiction between the two (god exists and god doesn't) but...there's wisdom in both reason and intuition.

brother. ;) — lambda

sister* :P

If you were to take two infants and expose them to the exact same experiences, there would still be at minimum subtle differences in behavior, emotions, beliefs, and thought processes. If not attributable to external factors, the differences must be due to genetic make-up. — CasKev

Couldn't that be accredited to personality, which is in part genetic? I still don't see how one's personality would force you to believe something or not believe something.

If there were a being powerful enough to create us, I imagine it would have the ability to communicate directly with us. So I suppose I would need to see and hear such a being to believe in it. — CasKev

So you are saying you need an emotional experience in order to prove that God exists?

I don't believe I said that... I did say that believing in a higher power could make a person mentally stronger.

Oh, ok. Sorry.

I think most people think that whomever agrees with their position is better in some way, and whomever doesn't is worse in some way. That's human nature.

Although I'm subject to the same biases as anyone (including, I presume, you). I don't think these things. I just think they hold as true things that are not true. Maybe this is a flawed premise. — Reformed Nihilist

No, I have no biases, I am perfect. :P( Just kidding) But yeah, that makes sense.

Again, it's human nature to justify your beliefs by trivializing those held by people who disagree, and negatively characterizing them. That's why strawman and ad hominum fallacies exist. Are you sure you aren't also engaging in this? — Reformed Nihilist

I am pretty sure I wrote this with a mostly objective perspective. I equally criticized the religious as that they seem to be overly emotional.

There is an interesting medieval portrayal of Christian priests in Netflix's new Castlevania anime. The choice to burn a supposed witch sets of an ironic chain of events. One sees in such a world that behavior has been constructed around certain ideas (faith) and the people who are empowered by them. Science, as with Cavaca's cartoon, only survives in areas and inviduals designated by the church as evil. — Nils Loc

Hmm...never seen that show before. But I think you are right by saying it is what society makes them out to be, not necessarily that it is the truth.

Self acknowledged atheists might be better apt at separating church and state from a policy point of view, if that is at all important or good for a supposed democratic society composed of diverse faiths. — Nils Loc

Why?

So it is probably the case that many Christians are gun toters, and many are not. And that would apply to non-believers as well -- many are, many are not. — Bitter Crank

True, it is more of an individual choice rather than one that can be safely generalized.

WWI and WWII can not have helped but undermine the bedrock beliefs of Christianity and Judaism. If an all-powerful God keeps watch, why did so many die? Where was God? For many, the distasteful but unavoidable conclusion is that God is absent. — Bitter Crank

That is very interesting. Seems like some would be angry if God controlled everything and took away free will, but then they are angry that God let them make their own choices. What do people want from God? Free will to do bad things or to be completely controlled by him so that they can't do bad things?

A third influence is the scholarship which led to a critical examination of biblical texts that began in the 19th century. What critical Biblical scholarship revealed was that biblical texts had a complex structure and history (though it isn't the case that nobody noticed some of this before). These studies undermined the formerly secure confidence in texts. These studies were one of the causes of the rise of fundamentalism -- a reaction to this scholarship. What put the wind in the sails of fundamentalism was Charles Darwin. — Bitter Crank

Do you mean the different translations and scholar's interpretations?

I think it is safe to say that what many Americans (can't speak for Europeans) saw at Sunday morning services was too often kind of weak, weepy, and sentimentally soft. Certainly there were pastors, priests, nuns, monks, and laity who were tough, hard, dry-eyed, and unsentimental. But... not the majority. — Bitter Crank

True, I see it too in many churches. They preach a sugar-coated version that doesn't make sense.

It should be obvious that atheists see religious folks as believing myths, superstitions, etc.; believing things that atheists take to be clearly false. Atheists often see religious believers as some combination of gullible/easily suckered, not very bright, and/or as people who need an emotional crutch to an extent where they're willing to buy into nonsense and reject reason for it. — Terrapin Station

Yes, that which society has taught them to believe. I guess many don't see just how hard it is to actually be "religious".

Stay weak, brother. ;) — lambda

Oh, but we are made strong in Christ. :P

I think that's a miconception. Theism and Atheism appeal to two different qualities of the human psyche.

Religion appeals to intuition and feelings. I think it's wise to entertain possibilities, no matter how unreasonable because the universe-man relationship is not an equilibrium - while we're obliged to fit our theories to facts, the universe is not likewise obliged.

Atheism appeals to reason. It reins in our voluptuous imagination which otherwise would lead to full blown imaginary worlds of ghosts, spirits, demons, fairies, etc. This isn't good because such thinking is, as has been demonstrated, dangerous. Just think of the time when disease was attributed to evil spirits.

There's an undeniable contradiction between the two (god exists and god doesn't) but...there's wisdom in both reason and intuition. — TheMadFool

Hmm...that is a much different experience than what I had. I turned away from atheism because I couldn't see the logic in it. I couldn't figure out how something could come from nothing, since that is scientifically impossible. I didn't see how chance could possibly form something so complex as what we see today. I am considered religious, but rarely believe something without a lot of facts pointing to it. No one can logically nor scientifically prove or disprove there is a God, but one can come up with a probability and the rest is trust that those speculations are correct. So I do not think that atheism appeals entirely to reason, nor theism to emotion. I can see your point though with superstitions that have been proven false. I don't believe in fairies or ghosts either. :P

I am pretty sure I wrote this with a mostly objective perspective. I equally criticized the religious as that they seem to be overly emotional. — Lone Wolf

You may have been even-handed, treating both sides equally badly, but I'm not sure that's the same as being objective. I would suggest that the principle of charity would be a better approach. That means basically trying to figure out what the best interpretation of someone's argument is. That way you know you're not making a strawman to knock down.

It seems odd to claim that these atheists you refer to do not enjoy living. — jorndoe

You're moving the goalposts. I never claimed that atheists do not enjoy living. Most, if not all, will tell you that they do enjoy living. I'm saying that life itself is not worth living absent the hope and possibility of salvation. Life isn't self-justifying, or at least human life isn't, for nothing in life can serve to justify it without begging the question. And without salvation, we have nothing to compare it to and so no reason to affirm it. We also have the choice to live or die and the choice to create more life or not. To affirm life in either of these two senses requires some sort of justification. Salvation's possibility once again provides that justification, such that to reject it is simultaneously to reject any reason to live and/or procreate.

We don't live in anything like the best of all possible worlds. It appears rather as the worst of all possible worlds, for if it were any worse, it would obliterate itself as opposed to maintaining a steady equilibrium of violence and suffering. Slow torture and decay is always worse than a quick death. Life is characterized by dukkha, as the Buddhists would say, and so exists in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction and suffering. Living things perpetually desire to be sated from hunger, for example, and yet they never fully will be. To cease being hungry would be to cease being a living thing. Life is therefore a business that does not cover the costs, as Schopenhauer says. It is a problem to be solved and a predicament from which one needs extricated, the solving and extrication of which being what salvation amounts to, generally speaking. Religions simply provide more specific models of how it can be achieved.