It may very well be that the human condition is tragic. I certainly don't deny that.

I definitely don't think all theists are weak minded or stupid. Some are, but so are some atheists, imo.


It's hard for me to imagine someone clinging to atheism. I think most atheists are non-believers simply because they find claims for a god unconvincing. In fact, you have people like the OP who actually want to believe, but can't. Although there are some people who identify themselves as anti-theists (Christopher Hitchens being one of them). They find the idea of 24/7 invisible surveillance and dictatorship repugnant.

Honestly, I find relief in the idea that my existence has no eternal resonance.

My life will surely end with a net contribution of suffering, exploitation, destruction, and cruelty to the Earth. Thank god if that legacy is to be utterly forgotten.

I gave an out clause. As soon as you no longer wish to live you dont have to.
The pill is magic and you will retain your youth.
Ive put thought into it. Id rather not die.

No longer living bothers me and its a little depressing if im honest.

As far as death being the same as before i was born. Yeah most likely. But whats that got to do with me wanting to live.

I agree. All claims to the contrary, e.g. that dying instead of having an eternal life is comforting, seem to fall somewhere on a spectrum ranging from insincere to just simply so alien to my way of thinking that I cannot relate at all.

From personal friends, to Richard Dawkins, to Carl Sagan, to Bertrand Russell, and loads of others in between, I've simply never found anything I could grab onto when they opine about how a godless world is somehow more fulfilling or inspiring or happier than a world with a heaven or a benevolent all-powerful protector. More awe inspiring, perhaps. But awe at the universe or not, I just don't see how people can honestly claim they look forward to dying, compared to the alternative of living forever in "heaven," even if the common perceptions of heaven are actually nonsensical.

not too depressing when you know you can live life for the better then most of the human population.(life fish)

whats depressing is being a slave to an imaginary power...

If you disagree here, then I can assume that you also believe in my flying spaghetti monster? and all the good that he does? and how good he makes people feel when they think about him?

I have no evidence for him, but you equally have no evidence for a God who gives purpose and meaning to our lives....So how do you - in your mind - differentiate between one imaginary truth and another, when evidence is lacking on both sides? Do you choose based on convenience? or do you choose based on - which one makes you feel better?

I think that what you're telling me is that you would rather live your life, feeling happy every time you think of the flying spaghetti monster (God) and all the faith-based notions that stem from that.....then accept the fact that the happiness you gain from doing so, is nothing but a placebo...

I know that you will try to argue - its not a placebo - but since I can have the same happiness/emotional solace, just by deluding myself into believing that the flying spaghetti monster exists, or any other imaginary truth that I choose to use to make myself happy.....shows that it is indeed a placebo.

Your assumption does not follow from my post in any way. Beyond that, since you persist in the fsm thing I will just ignore you.

No disagreement here.


OK, I would agree,


Not for me.


I do not give the typical atheist that much credit.

There almost certainly are people who fall into that category. Whether the OP is one of those or not is hard to say.

I do not agree with your characterization of our relationship with God. Beyond that, I have no issue with your comment.

Atheists generally more depressed than the religious? Perhaps I suppose...but we are also more appreciative of what we have in the now. We understand that our existence stems from this ordinary life we lead and nothing more. Perhaps being humble in the awe of the universe and our simple existence is far greater than being happy and potentially misled through life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac33dOAgqus

You said that the "fsm has a lot of juvenile baggage with it so you would not believe it/do anything different in your life". We therefore conclude that, that is the measure by which you decide to believe in one imaginary truth over another. Thus, it appears that the less juvenile an imaginary belief is, the more likely you are to believe it......

However.... I could also say that I'm insulted by the idea of God that you have, and that it is juvenile. Can't you see that, that is no means by which to choose one imaginary truth over another - when both lack evidence?

So once again, I ask the question: How do you pick which imaginary truth to believe in/adopt in your life over another, when both are lacking evidence? Purely based on their level of juvenile-ism? This is what you said, and looking at it, I must say....I'm not surprised that you're insulted. I exposed an enormous fallacy in your beliefs, and got you to admit to something that in itself, sounds plain ridiculous.

Once again, I am not surprised that you are insulted. It is only natural to feel anger when our entire belief system crumbles under the weight of logic.

The FSM is a good argument against teaching creationism, it's not a good argument against theism grounded in personal experience/revelation.

It's an excellent argument against those who aren't delusional, but still religious yes. For it demonstrates the ridiculousness behind choosing 1 imaginary option over another imaginary option, when both options lack sufficient evidence.

I think that theism grounded in personal experience/revelation is theism at a whole new level of self-delusion. At such a level of delusion that no argument made from logic can affect them. But perhaps one day, an argument made from science will be able to (specifically neuroscience).

No, what's depressing is the number of people who live in the modern age yet still talk to the ceiling.

Atheist: "So you believe in God. Well I dont. I also dont believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Convinced yet?"

that's not an excellent argument, it's ridicule.

This is only the view of someone who doesnt believe in either. I think they're both imaginary, sure. But you havent 'demonstrated' anything to anyone who isnt already an atheist.

Praise be to Dennett.

Who took over Joey's account?

Where is the lame joke???

Atheism is depressing in your opinion you mean??

The impact will be erased, yes. The universe will go black and cold, which I think is interesting and in a sense extremely beautiful. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Hypothetical question: What if you could take a magic pill that would give you youth and eternity, but you'd have to live it out 10'x10' room? Would you take it, or would you rather die?

Just to clarify. It's not my characterization. I do not consider myself an anti-theist, although I'm not sure I like the idea of 24 hour non-stop surveillance that includes policing even one's inner most thoughts.

I don't think (most) people look forward to dying. But you WILL die. And if you don't die soon, you will get old and your quality of life will gradually diminish to where you probably won't want to go on living forever. That's just a fact. I fail to see what good it does pondering alternative fantasies. As for heaven...

Even as a child (when I believed in it), I found that depressing. For one thing, I don't see how it could be pleasurable. If there is no hunger, then there is no pleasure in eating. If there is no pain, heat or cold, then there is no sanctuary in comfort and relief. Do we even have bodies? Is there sex? No one has ever explained heaven to me in a way where it isn't actually one of the most depressing existences I can think of.

Fair enough.

agree with this.

when the non-theist claim there's no evidence for a divine entity, they aren't completely correct (at least that's my interpretation). there is documented evidence. billions of people claim to have had an experience with a god/gods and have documented it.

using more modern technology, we can't scientifically document that evidence and reproduce it so that everyone can get the same experience, but it doesn't mean it's not true. just because i haven't experienced that evidence doesn't mean it's not true. might just mean that we just haven't developed the proper technology.


using the fsm is a bit extreme. much closer to alien visitation.

I find Christianity depressing, the idea that their GOD is a psychopath and all these people want to worship him depresses the **** out of me...

That's probably because it isn't satirical enough, if you ask me.

The fsm has narrow utility as an argument against theism but gets used as if it is a broad counterargument by those incapable of understanding its limitations. In addition it is intentionally mocking. So if you run into someone who insists on using it, you are dealing with someone who is more interested in being insulting than having a discussion and is not very bright as well. The real question quickly becomes: Why am I talking to you?