Why your exsistence is more worthless than you previousy thought it was.

[Alex K]

Yeah, because all things in my life are trivial if I don't praise your god figure. Asshat. What a sick outlook on life you have. And depression is just a problem with a lack of faith? You know what I call that: taking advantage of the vulnerable to indoctrinate, nothing more. Really despicable.

Amazing video since most atheists are far happier since giving up superstition.

Happiness based on trivial things that don't matter and on things that are going to be taken from you eventually. And this is only if your life goes well if it doesn't then what he said is going to apply, you have depression, drugs, and suicide.

[Sword of Christ]

Yeah, because all things in my life are trivial if I don't praise your god figure.

It depends what you place value in religion/faith tends to universally point out the folly of basing your life material wealth and physical pleasures alone. If it's based on friends, family and doing good for others that's a quality spiritual happiness, though everyone's going to die at some point of course. Not necessarily eventually either so certainly there's a great deal of finality to your happiness here if you believe life ends at the grave.

Asshat. What a sick outlook on life you have.

Perhaps you're the one with the sick outlook on life? I don't know enough about you to say though.

And depression is just a problem with a lack of faith? You know what I call that: taking advantage of the vulnerable to indoctrinate, nothing more. Really despicable.

Well it is true to some degree if you're going to base your happiness on a purpose free life that ends at death. If you have a really great amazing life of comfort and wealth free from pain and suffering then perhaps you can just about manage it. You can tell anyone who is perhaps in a worse state than yourself who finds solace in their faith in God to fuck off and/or learn some science or whatever. I think that's ultimately the road you take with atheism.

[Alex K]

Yeah, because all things in my life are trivial if I don't praise your god figure.

It depends what you place value in religion/faith tends to universally point out the folly of basing your life material wealth and physical pleasures alone.

Hey, whatever floats your boat

If it's based on friends, family and doing good for others that's a quality spiritual happiness, though everyone's going to die at some point of course. Not necessarily eventually either so certainly there's a great deal of finality to your happiness here if you believe life ends at the grave.

Yes, there is a great deal of finality to my happiness. To yours as well I reckon, because, by the way, believing otherwise doesn't make it so.

Asshat. What a sick outlook on life you have.

Perhaps you're the one with the sick outlook on life? I don't know enough about you to say though.

You obviously devalue everything that's actually in our lifes in favour of a (in my opinion) phantasy. I don't.

And depression is just a problem with a lack of faith? You know what I call that: taking advantage of the vulnerable to indoctrinate, nothing more. Really despicable.

Well it is true to some degree if you're going to base your happiness on a purpose free life that ends at death. If you have a really great amazing life of comfort and wealth free from pain and suffering then perhaps you can just about manage it. You can tell anyone who is perhaps in a worse state than yourself who finds solace in their faith in God to fuck off and/or learn some science or whatever.

No, I wouldn't do that, actually, that's a terrible strawman depicting atheists as some kind of Vulcan caricature.
I wouldn't feed them comforting lies about the afterlife, though. However, I wouldn't talk the dying person next to me out of their faith, if they didn't desire and start that discussion themselves. That would be ghoulish and unnecessarily cruel. But consider the hypothetical scenario that the dying person I'm talking to has had a terrible falling out with their sibling or whatever, and xe says: well, we'll meet in the next life and it will be fixed by god in heaven or something. Then I'll tell that dying person: Hey, I'm an atheist, and I'm not at all convinced that that is going to work out. Don't take that chance and reconcile with your .... now as long as you still have time. See, there's harm in delusions.

I think that's ultimately the road you take with atheism.

Which road again?

[Marvin]

Why is it that just because something won't last forever, that therefore that something is pointless? Is only what lasts forever not pointless? Why?

You're only saying that 'cause they stopped making next gen movies and went with the reboot.

---

"xsistence is more worth less than you previousy thought it was"

Really?

We as organic lifeforms will cease to function. We will die and lose our consciousness,

That's to be expected.

and then we shall reemerge ourselves into the state of darkness and nothingness we were experiencing(or not experiencing) an infinite amount of foreseeable time prior before we were.

Wow, that's a bonus.

The actions we perform during our life, as well as the thoughts, are universally pointless. We'll have no recollection or feeling of said actions or thoughts after death.

That's probably for the best, I don't want my dark nothingness disturbed with that crap.

[EvolutionKills]

Amazing video since most atheists are far happier since giving up superstition.

Happiness based on trivial things that don't matter and on things that are going to be taken from you eventually. And this is only if your life goes well if it doesn't then what he said is going to apply, you have depression, drugs, and suicide.

And this, boys and girls, is what we call Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat.

[Ryantology]

Happiness based on trivial things that don't matter and on things that are going to be taken from you eventually.

A great description of Christianity, actually. You derive your happiness based upon maximally-trivial falsehoods and fantasies, which are taken away from you eventually.

[Sword of Christ]

Hey, whatever floats your boat

It's good advice regardless of whether you believe the supernatural claims of religion or not.

Yes, there is a great deal of finality to my happiness. To yours as well I reckon, because, by the way, believing otherwise doesn't make it so.

One of us will be entirely mistaken on the subject of the existence of God\the non-physical though only you have the prospect of being comprehensively to be proved mistaken. If what you believe is true then no-one will ever find out. If what I believe is true then atheists are going know all about it at some stage guaranteed.

You obviously devalue everything that's actually in our lifes in favour of a (in my opinion) phantasy. I don't.

In my opinion your opinion is wrong. You won't get very far with that line of argument.

No, I wouldn't do that, actually, that's a terrible strawman depicting atheists as some kind of Vulcan caricature.

Even Vulcans had religion and had mystical powers and shit. They were still entirely logically though of course, the emotional control they had was a religious/spiritual discipline.

I wouldn't feed them comforting lies about the afterlife, though.

Nothing is ever here all we ever see are changes in form. In any case I think there is good evidence of different kinds that life/consciousness isn't annihilated by physical death. Though even if that did happen it wouldn't happen seeing as you wouldn't exist to experience it happening if you think about it

However, I wouldn't talk the dying person next to me out of their faith, if they didn't desire and start that discussion themselves.

It's not that like you would get far anyway seeing as you only have some kind of a belief yourself. Why should they take your word for it?

See, there's harm in delusions.

It isn't a delusion if there's a good chance it might actually be true if there are good reasons to believe it. It's still a faith if you can't be factually certain but you can't be factually certain that atheism is true either. You have a belief you have based on what you consider to be good reasons/arguments, what you feel to be true and whatever.

Which road again?

It's the road leading away from God, the wrong road IMO.

[Alex K]

Yes, there is a great deal of finality to my happiness. To yours as well I reckon, because, by the way, believing otherwise doesn't make it so.

One of us will be entirely mistaken on the subject of the existence of God\the non-physical though only you have the prospect of being comprehensively to be proved mistaken. If what you believe is true then no-one will ever find out. If what I believe is true then atheists are going know all about it at some stage guaranteed.

You think that your beliefs are such natural and obvious an alternative to atheism, that it's basically either the one or the other. It ain't so. Even if atheism were wrong, the chances that you are right may still be minuscule.

No, I wouldn't do that, actually, that's a terrible strawman depicting atheists as some kind of Vulcan caricature.

Even Vulcans had religion and had mystical powers and shit. They were still entirely logically though of course, the emotional control they had was a religious/spiritual discipline.

I intended to use "Straw Vulcan" in a TV Tropes kind of sense
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

I wouldn't feed them comforting lies about the afterlife, though.

Nothing is ever here all we ever see are changes in form.

Huh?

In any case I think there is good evidence of different kinds that life/consciousness isn't annihilated by physical death.

No. There is overwhelming evidence that our memories, consciousness and personality are tied entirely to our brain and body. Not the other way around.

Though even if that did happen it wouldn't happen seeing as you wouldn't exist to experience it happening if you think about it

I can live with that

However, I wouldn't talk the dying person next to me out of their faith, if they didn't desire and start that discussion themselves.

It's not that like you would get far anyway seeing as you only have some kind of a belief yourself. Why should they take your word for it?

Belief is only a dirty word if you use it to mean unevidenced belief. Again, the fact that you can make up some unfalsifiable claim does not mean that it automatically has a sizable probability of being right. I can make up a zillion things on the spot which you can't disprove. We know that the material world exists, anything beyond that needs evidence.

See, there's harm in delusions.

It isn't a delusion if there's a good chance it might actually be true if there are good reasons to believe it.

Exactly! Oh wait, you do think that there are good reasons to believe it...

It's still a faith if you can't be factually certain

There is never factual certainty of anything, there are only degrees of belief, so this argument is completely bogus.
If you need to put all possible statements without absolute factual certainty on the same level for your argument to work, you have therefore lost. It's just a rhetorical trick to discredit science and evidenced beliefs by putting them in the same class as unevidenced religious belief.

but you can't be factually certain that atheism is true either.

See above.

[Tonus]

It's still a faith if you can't be factually certain but you can't be factually certain that atheism is true either.

It can only be faith if there is insufficient evidence or proof. Once you have sufficient evidence or proof there is no need for faith. Hence why an atheist is more accurately described as lacking faith.

Like any other lack of belief in something, be it unicorns or Santa Claus or the Loch Ness monster, we could clear up the "factual" uncertainty by proving the existence of the being(s) in question. Atheism "exists" for the same reason that people don't believe in leprechauns; no one has provided sufficient evidence or proof for the existence of god(s).

[Esquilax]

It's still a faith if you can't be factually certain but you can't be factually certain that atheism is true either. You have a belief you have based on what you consider to be good reasons/arguments, what you feel to be true and whatever.

Congrats Sword: in your quest to annihilate the possibility of real communication by redefining words all over the place, you've now defined faith to mean "not factually certain." So awesome, we have faith in everything, without exception, bar a small set of axiomatic claims, because certainty is near impossible.

Of course, in that world, religions would still be operating under an especially bad variation of faith; we'd need a new word to describe the insufficiently supported kind of faith you have, versus the normal, factually supported faith normal people have.

Or, you could just be honest and use the real definition of faith.