Atheism
 

With all of threads people have started the last couple of days on their faith I thought we could at least have a thread dedicated to a few real simple questions that have always bothered me. Not really the theology arguments that both sides of the God argument normally have. These are more of questions that never get brought up.

Do you not agree that the world is made up of about 15% people who are convinced there is not a god 15% who are convinced there is and about 70% who don't give a shit but given the choice between eternal life and becoming worm food figure "Why not?"? While most of this 70% do attend services they only do it rarely and mostly to keep up appearances.

With that being said, when religious people say that 85%-90% of the world believes, are they really proud that a lot of that percentage is people who don't really care at all?

And a big criticism of atheists is that they think they are too smart. That they try to understand science. They they study. And this is somehow frowned upon? Having intelligence? Having a thirst for knowledge? How is this a criticism?

No, I don't think 70% of the world have no cares or concerns about what happens to us when we die. In fact, I'd say that number's closer to 15%, though I don't think there's a good way of ever knowing that number.

I've also never heard a criticism of atheists as "They're too smart". Who the hell are you talking to, the Inbred Christian Mens Association?

You also seem to be equating atheism with having intelligence and a thirst for knowledge. Being an atheist does not automatically mean one is either intelligent or one who seeks knowledge.

Part of seeking knowledge is the understanding that you don't have all the answers. I wouldn't say someone whose mind is made up about the afterlife is automatically going to be openminded enough to keep seeking answers when he thinks he's already answered the question.

I think the most compelling criticism of atheism is that scientist's explanation for how the universe began is something like "there was a point that exploded for no reason that we've been able to figure out."

Atheists, I think, claim that we are all random occurences.

I'm a great believer that very few people 'truly' believe in God ...

Just look at the Pope, he believes in God - but apparently believes in the power of bullets and physics even more as his pope-mobile has bullet proof glass ... ;)

Its one thing to be a believer in times of ease, its another to step out and truly believe when your life is at risk.

(Similarly but in reverse most 'Aetheists' will call out to God when deep in shit because they want to feel they have some hope/control even when all is lost ...)

Believers frequently lace their criticism of nonbelievers' views with heavy-handed use of words like random, chance, and luck. In my view, that really does more to betray their own inability to handle things like vast numbers and basic probability than it does convince me that there's really an argument there.

I suspect that many or most atheists simply don't claim to understand how the universe began. Confessing that we don't really have an explanation for that seems pretty reasonable to me (as if the often-used "arrogant" tag is misplaced on atheists in this particular sense). I think many atheists would argue that accepting this as an unanswerable (or at least thus far so) question is a far lesser gap to be breached than the many things they are expected to believe (and/or obey) by pretty much any organized religion.

Atheists simply have no belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. That's it, that's what atheism is.

However, you can probably say that most atheists do agree with evolution, the big bang, and a host of other scientific categories.

Marc,

You mentioned this example before in the other thread and I have to admit, I don't get it. If the pope's life has been threatened, why wouldn't he choose to protect himself as best he can?

It's like the story - and I'm sure I'll get this wrong - about the guy who's house is flooding and he's sitting on the roof to get above the water. He prays to God and asks for deliverance. A little while a boat comes by and he refuses to get on because God will save him. Later, another one comes by, he refuses to get on and eventually the water gets too high and he drowns. At the gates of heaven he asks God why He didn't save him from the flood and God says, "I sent you two boats - what more do you want?"

If I'm sick, I go to a doctor. Just because I do so doesn't mean I've no faith in God. It just means I'll use every means possible (and provided by God) to get myself healed.

Non-believers frequently lace their criticism of believers' views with heavy-handed words like obey. :D

I have no problem with this post, really. I do think a failure to explain where the universe came from is a significant gap in worldview.

Obey would be heavy handed if the vast majority of religious doctrine were not laced with commands, commandments and expecations of obedience to the rules and stipulations of whichever sect one belongs. Look at the two major religions. Rife with "do this or else" litanies throughout their most precious texts and fables. Noting your smily there SC I'm assuming your comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but I couldn't let it float by unresponded to.

For the second point you make I disagree altogether, why MUST we have a definition of "this is how the universe was created"? Believers follow creation in whatever form their doctrine's describe, but when non believers come up with alternate possibilities (equally as unprovable at this time as creation) its always a bigger issue than believing in a supreme being?

I keep hearing the "atheism is arrogant" statement in many peoples posts, to state that "There IS NO God" is indeed arrogant, however I feel that this is a twisting of most atheist's actual sentiments. most Athiest's tend to believe that "*I* do not belive there is a god" which generally in conversation gets shortened to the contested line previous.

Its not any more arrogant to believe there is NO god than there is to assume there is some supreme entity who created us, nurtured us and then proclaims "DO this or Else"

What is more arrogant? Beleiving there is no god, or assuming one truly knows anything about god's real intentions?

anyway, end interruption, please resume conversation =)

But neither explanation is really any different. The only difference between most believers and atheists is what happens after that fact. (Jesus, Mohammad, Virgin birth, Zeus, Athena, Noah's ark, Bodily decent into heaven) Those are better explanations than "I don't know?"

Can you imagine...

Teacher: "What causes you to feel love?"

Student 1: "A cupid shoots you."

Student 2: "I really have no idea. I can postulate theories about romantic attraction, chemistry, brain waves, and just dumb luck but I have no definite answer."

Teacher: "Well student 1 tried to explain it. We can refute everything he said, but at least he tried. Student 2 said he didn't know. So even though none of us really know and we all basically agree with student 2, student 1 must be correct."

Marc,

I think most people of faith believe that life is a precious gift from God, and therefore we should take care of ourselves (our body is a temple and all that jazz). If we're good (or whatever you believe the qualifications are to enter Heaven) we'll have eternity in Paradise. But these years on earth are special and unique. It only makes sense that we would cherish the time that we have here.

Actually, knowing where the universe came from isn't all that valuable. I'm not sure how it would help anyone other than to satisfy curiosity. Besides, what point is there in "knowing" where it came from when you have no way to back up that knowledge other than faith?

Most people argue in circular reasoning.

Actually, the scientific evidence that 'we' have is much much much better than "god did it." People didn't know back in the 1600s that not having enough vitamin C causes scurvy. We now know why and what causes scurvy. Blood transfusions, electricity, agriculture, aerospace, the list goes on and on what people have discovered and using some form of the scientific method to test and confirm their hypothesis. It's a good thing that there are enough people in this world that did't stop at, "I don't know, god must have dont it" and just left it at that.

Aren't you supposed to believe that nobody dies before their time? That every death is part of God's plan? If that is the case, why would there be a need for any sort of protection/security scheme? If anything, it is a tacit admission that not every death or catastrophic event has anything to do with God's plan.

Its not just knowing where the universe came from. What does it mean that we are all presumably sentient? Does it matter whether I live well?

There's a whole host of questions/problems which, to me at least, are impossible to even think about when examined from a purely materialistic perspective.

I figure science will come up with that answer eventually. You need to remember that the Church once labeled people as heretics if they even tried to theorize that Earth was not the center of the universe. In time, science will answer nearly every question that religion tries to answer as long as we don't try to derail/destroy/prevent the funding of scientific research/progress.

If Congress had not killed the Superconducting Super Collider 15 years ago, who knows what we might have already figured out about the origins of the universe. The Large Hadron Collider would be redundant (and never built) if the US had gone through with it back then.

Just curious, what do you think the answer will look like?

Sure, if you want to live well and not be a menace to society. If you want to be a menace to civilized society, the rest of society will try to prevent you from causing them harm. It has little to do with religion and more to do with the safety and progress of civilization.


It has nothing to do with materialism. If I only have one life, and that is it, and I can enjoy life to its fullest by interacting in a positive way with the rest of society, then I am going to do so. I don't need religion to tell me that killing everybody I meet is not the best way to make friends and influence people.

No idea. I'm not going to presume I know those answers ahead of time.

For myself? I don't know, and i'm perfectly content not knowing. I don't need it to look a certain way or function a certain way or represent things a certain way.

Perhaps we non-believers have a faith, a faith that someday humanity will figure it out and that not knowing is really just fine and dandy.

Meh, its late, I'm tired, philosphizing is tangential.

I find it interesting that some people put so much stock in meaning while others really don't. Aside from some philosophical moments, I tend to not really care about meaning. I just live life as it comes and don't really look much deeper than that.

So St. Cronin asks if it matters if he lives well and Tekneek's answer is "Sure, if you want to live well and not be a menace to society."

Does that mean living well only matters if you want to? I can't imagine that's a satisfactory answer for many people.

And I'll be up til at least 2 a.m.... and I LOVE to talk philosophy, as bad as I may be with my questions and answers. :)

It's my impression that atheism and agnosticism get lumped together quite a bit. Personally, I'd consider myself agnostic rather than athestic.

I have to agree with you on this.

A lot of interesting things being said here. I think painting atheists with a broad brush is any more fair or accurate than painting all "believers" with a broad brush. We've all come to where we are at for different reasons.

As for not knowing how the universe began... I have no idea. None. At all. I've read a few theories and some seem more plausible than others, but I am glad to know that there scientists working on trying to figure things out and trying to get answers to these questions. I mean if the prevailing view was just to shrug one's shoulders and say "God did it" then what would the point of all this research be?

I think there is a lot to be said for people who don't accept the simple answer - "God did it" or "it was God's will" - and strive to really try to understand why things happened or how they happened or how to make things better.

In a way I admire people who can maintain a faith of any kind. I continually question and am not always confident that is a good thing.

Point of clarification...

An atheist is one who is anti-theism. The atheist actively believes there is no god, they are not ambivalent about it. Atheists reject the notion of a supreme being.

An agnostic is one who doesn't take sides. They don't believe one way or the other.

I think it's very wise to question and be skeptical.

Don't forget, we atheists like to eat or newborns raw. ;)

As for morality, I have argued on this board many times that I think morality is something separate from religion. There is just too much commonality among all the many different religions regarding how people should live their lives. I think morality came before religion and religions adopted moral teachings. It made an effective way to spread the word of "god" and was also effective in keeping people in line: "Don't steal or you'll go to hell." "Don't kill or you'll go to hell." "Don't eat pork because god said so." Etc. etc.

I didn't grow up an atheist. I was raised Catholic. After I was confirmed, I stopped going other than Easter and Christmas and the odd Sunday with the family.

About five or six years ago, however, I just started thinking about things one day and started thinking about it harder and harder. I read somethings, thought about it some more, talked to my wife about it and came to the conclusion that I didn't believe in God. The only reason I did was because I was raised that way and then never really ever thought about it after that.

Being an atheist certainly hasn't affected my moral code or how I live my life. I still do what I think is right, treat people kindly, give when I can, etc. I just do it because, well, it's the right thing to do. It's really not that complicated.

I think it does matter if I live good. Not because I am looking for some reward in the afterlife or afraid of some punishment if I don't, but rather because this is it. To me, this life is all I have. I still feel bad if I do wrong by someone and feel good if I do right. That hasn't changed at all.

I don't know why not believing in God would some how make life not worth living or give someone a green light to live amorally. I just never really equated the two. If anything, I sort of feel doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing - and nothing more - is even a bit more noble.

I've always thought of it as that there very well may be a higher power of some sort, but do not presume to know. I guess that's the same thing.

When you are at a home football game, the guys in the team jerseys celebrating after a TD don't care if the random dude dressed in the same attire knows the names of every guy on the roster, or if he's just a fairweather fan. They are all rooting for the one team.


I think some academic atheists do at times have a tendency to come off as very high and mighty. But, at the same time, I can see why that is. When you have as great an understanding of how things work as some of these people do, it's must be very hard to talk non-derisively about folks who cover their eyes and ears to scientifc, verifiable facts - facts which have lead to the great medical and technological innovations we've seen throughout history (modern history in particular) - in the name of religious dogma.

If we didn't have people seeking answers behind what is written in the various religious texts, we'd all still be dying at age 35 of scurvy.

Ok according to original catholic doctrine not only is the Pope Gods main man on earth but he was also infallible (Papal infallibility) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As such you'd expect that he would have faith that what God wants to happen would happen and that any bullets aimed at him would miss or be meant to hit him for some reason ... rather than hide behind a shield.

I realise your arguement of God gave him bullet proof glass to hide behind so he should use it has some merit in a practical sense, but by that arguement shouldn't Jesus have hired some body guards and avoided getting arrested?, St. Paul when imprisoned wouldn't be patiently sitting in his cell, he'd be looking for ways to escape .. after all that escape chance would have come from God etc., ditto for most of the original followers (most of whom met grissly fates).

Why is it that faith alone was enough in the bible - yet today if a christian was thrown in with a lion they'd argue that fighting the lion makes sense because god gave him the sword and it'd be stupid not to use it.

PS> I've heard the boat story before, but it still makes me smile to hear it again :D

For Jesus, being crucified was actually part of the plan.

Poor Judas. :(

Yeah, well. That's that free will issue again.

You resumed my life and thoughts perfectly. I was also raised as catholic like every kid in Spain, where you must be catholic no matter what and where Catholicism is taught since you start to study up to the end of high school and you must study it and to past the tests if you want your studies title.

How aren't we all going to be Catholics in Spain if all us are forced to study it for like 10 years like we study maths, language etc? the brainwash is terrible and until now that there is some movement to remove it from the studies plan, it has been supported by our different governments that were too afraid of the church power.

At the end of that period, after i was confirmed, i had hundreds of doubts, and the fact that i was forced to blindly believe on what i was told for years without any doubt admitted made me also to research a lot, to read all that i could about religion, to talk with believers and not believers and to end reaching the same conclusion than you. I don't believe in god, i think we are not superior to any other animal in the world (besides more intelligent) an i think that once i die, there is nothing but worms.

Does it make me a worst person? i don't think so. Both the social rules and my own moral tell me what i should or shouldn't do to live in this world with other humans. Most of those moral principles are shared also by most of religions, others are totally against, but in resume i don't do the others what i don't want done to me and i give the others what they give to me.

I'm not afraid of death, i just thing it's a shame that our life's must end, but probably i also think it now that i enjoy life a lot, but probably once i'm so old, with health problems, not able to do what i like and depending from others to even do the more basic things, i guess i won't feel that bad about my life ending.

I can't understand how anybody can believe in a god that allows all the terrible things that happen in the world, when an high % of those terrible things are caused by a god believers that want the other god believers to think like them, when good and innocent people dies or have a miserable life while really bad people have a great living. If there is a god that causes all that, he should go to hell himself. If there is a god that allows that and that he could avoid it with his power, if he is only there watching like we watch our small creatures for fun in a game like spore, he should go to hell himself too for using us as his particular zoo.

Just seeing the power the catholic church has, the richness of Vatican (i have been there), the corruption of the Catholics high staff, the child's abuse by some catholic priests hidden by the catholic high staff, the wars inducted by the church power in the humans history, the death of thousands of innocent people in the name of god and tons of more things i could write for hours, makes me wonder how can anybody still believe that those persons/church or whatever you want to call it, are representing god in the earth and that he is happy with it.

I can keep writing for hours my reasons to be a non believer, the same way a believer could write too. I must admit i have some kind of hate to the catholic church specially, just for the years of lies and brain washing i have suffered since i was a kid, exactly the same way than communist regimes brain washed their kids or that sects do to dominate their members. It's like one day i woke up from the induced dream and realized how i was being lied, so i have a strong anger against those who did it.

I was thinking about this after I went to bed last night. There seems to be this notion that some how there'd be no reason, or at least, less of a reason to lead a "good life" if one doesn't believe in God or someone who doesn't believe in God would lack a moral compass.

I've never heard of anyone doing something horrible and then blaming it on the fact that "Well, I don't believe in God. What does it matter that I killed those people?" or something along those lines. While, on the other hand, you have people doing horrendous things throughout history in the name of God/religion.

If anything, one could argue that freedom from religion would allow you to become even a better person or have stronger convictions, since you are not bound certain religious teachings that steer one towards intolerance of others. (E.g., gays, people of other faiths, etc.)

(For the record, I am not saying that all religion teaches intolerance or that all people who believe in God are intolerant, but there are many out there who base their intolerance on their religion.)

Ultimately, if you are not causing harm to anybody else then I don't really care how you live or what you do. As long as you can fit within that criteria, you're living well enough to satisfy me.

Great post HB. I tend to believe the notion that religion does more harm than good in the world.

I believe that morality is an evolved trait that is present in all of us. People who are naturally empathetic and generally treat others well will prosper (and therefore procreate at a much higher rate) than those that have absolutely no morals whatsoever.

People with no morals get into trouble with crime, etc at a young age and therefore will tend to not pass on their genes. And even if it isn't genetic at all, if they aren't raising children, then they have much less influence on the next generation.

So even if it is a totally learned behavior, the fact that the people with strong morals are more influential in society will tend to teach subsequent generations how to be.

It's too bad that morals and religion seem to be equated with each other so often by many people.

The problem is that organized religion puts some very strange requirements in the definition of "living well."

I think this is an excellent point. Neither side is arrogant for holding to a position they believe to be the truth. It's the manner of presentation that can often be arrogant. Unfortunately, it seems too many people get the two mixed up and see any truth claim as arrogant.

I have a few more questions here. How does the typical atheist define good? Tekneek would define it as something along the lines of doing no harm to others. Would that be a fair definition? Also, how does the typical atheist define evil? Or if, in this framework there is no such evil, all the pain and suffering in the world (surely it doesn't all come from religion)?

Tekneek's definition is pretty close to mine, but I would add that helping others less fortunate is a big part of my moral compass. I believe that empathy for others and their positions in life are very important and that I should help others when I can.

Evil is putting one's self above others to the extent that a person will inflict pain (physical, mental, economic, etc) on someone else in order to improve their own situation.

Looking at this again.... I don't really like my definition of evil. That's close to it, but it depends on the degree of which one will step on other people to get ahead. I hate that kind of behavior and don't do it, but I'm not sure I'd really call it "evil."

Yes I'm aware according to the bible that is the case - however Jesus cried out at the end asking why he'd been forsaken, implying that he wasn't aware of that ... thus according to your suggestions he should have been looking to drop the cross and leg it at the first opportunity when coming up the hill, i.e. looking for the 'out' he was expecting God to provide? (which doesn't make such a humble sacrifice story really ;) ).

This comes under the 'oddity' section - for Jesus to fulfil Gods 'plan' he had to be sacrificed ... although interestingly I believe there is a 'dropped' Gospel which has Judas down as a hero making this sacrifice willingly fully aware of what he was doing and being quite torn up at having to play the bad guy.

Reference:
The Lost Gospel of Judas--Photos, Time Line, Maps--National Geographic

Good? Do no harm. Evil? Doing harm.

There is a lot of chance in the world. Good people have harm done to them. Good people get terminal illness. Bad people get all that, too. There is no karma that makes sure that bad people get a disproportionate amount of cancer, thefts, layoffs, etc. Obviously people who spend more time with other bad people are more likely to be targeted, but in general the numbers depend more on where you are than whether you are good or bad. A lot of scumbag executives living in a gated community are less likely to end up the victim of crime than a bunch of good people living in a very poor community.

I think a lot of the definition of Good and Evil is very hard to do without historic perspective (ie. looking back on the actual consequences of the event) and even then its impossible to know for sure the ultimate outcome of your actions.

For instance is someone runs over another person on purpose then that would be considered 'Evil' generally - however pan out a little and consider that the person he runs over was actually a paedophile and the person running him over knew he was on his way to commit another crime, at that point how would it be defined? ...

Similarly the butterfly effect can make a good deed turn bad or a bad deed turn good. For instance if while at school someone steals a book, now stealing is considered 'bad' - however that book then allows them to do better on tests and become a lawyer championing the poor .... now how do you define it?

Most people imho like black and white definitions because it makes them feel secure and life predictable - however generally things simply aren't that clear cut or simple imho.

I agree with your positions, but I wouldn't call them my base position. I think of "do no harm" as the baseline, and it works up from there. If you aren't doing harm to others, then you're meeting the minimum standard.

You do the best you can with the information available at the time, generally speaking. A lot of people don't try to weigh all the information, or put much emphasis on making the BEST decision, so...

I think this raises a pretty provocative point about belief here.

There are quite a lot of people who will say that they believe in god and will say things to support that belief with words like "purpose" and "meaning" and the like. In essence, I suspect a lot of these people will (more or less) have contemplated the world with a god and the world without a god, and ultimately decide that they want to live in a world with a benevolent overseer, and therefore they elect to harbor those beliefs. Upbringing obviously plays a huge role here for many people, and this is an oversimplification, but this is a fair way to look at that decision for many, many people I think.

To be honest, I find this to be among the weakest argument for "believing" there can be. Someone (st.cronin?) in one of these threads argued that he feels proof of god when listening to Bach. To me, that's a perception that is perfectly incontestable -- I might not feel it myself, but at least that's a logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion (words fail me there, a bit). But the notion that many people implicitly weigh the world as it would be with or without a benevolent god and then choose the one they prefer and then claim to believe in that as though it were true is, to me, a decision made without any merit. I just don't think you choose to believe things like that.

Lots of people claim to believe (or more likely, claim to belong to a church or religious institution) out of practicality and prudence (which is, by the way, a criminally under-used word in this whole debate). They appreciate the sense of social well-being they get from attending services. They benefit from the well-intentioned messages delivered during services. They believe it strengthens their sense of community and family. They believe that it helps to give their lives meaning.

These are all lovely and noble consequences from attending a service, of from professing belief in a faith. They also have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the underlying claims of the faith, or the presence of the one being worshiped. Feeling good about believing is not itself evidence that the belief is true.

Perhaps it was God's plan for you to use the protection/security scheme.

I hate when people do this - but I have to tell you, this argument really gets old. There's evil in this world, but it's man's evil, not religion's (if you're speaking of the major religions in the world).

Just this century, freedom from religion worked wonders in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, etc., etc.

As someone who believes in God, I think the word that is missing from this thread is "Faith". For me, my faith in God is enough.

My take on the world is that God created the world and the universe. In doing so, he also created the laws of nature and science. He gave man "free will' which allows us to live as we see fit, but not with out consequences. If a man wishes to be pure evil, he can do so, but in the end he will pay for his actions. If a man wishes to follow the word of God and accept that Christ died for our sins, he will be rewarded for his actions.

As a hardcore believer in God, but also someone who is not all that high on organized religion, I also believe in evolution and most of what science preaches. I do not believe in the big bang theory or that we evolved from apes, but I do believe that organisms adapt and evolve over time. I also believe that most of the mysteries of the universe are waiting for man to discover. As an engineer, I embrace science and also embrace jesus Christ as my savior.

-Cork

This is an interesting point. Can an act be inherently good irrespective of what follows from it? Can an act be inherently bad irrespective of what follows from it? I guess the question is whether or not we can separate the goodness/badness of an act from its consequences. I might be reading into your position here (forgive me if I am), but it seems you're suggesting it's extremely difficult to separate the two.

I have no intention in devling into this old debate: what was done Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was a result of "freedom from religion". There was a lot more going on there (e.g., what happened in Cambodia was more about Communism than anything to do with atheism, there is all sorts of questions regarding Hitler's religious beliefs and religion definitely played a role in Nazi Germany), just like there was a lot more going on when people were doing similar things "in the name of God."

I think this is an excellent point that could be applied to the atheistic position as well. One could ascribe motives to the atheist in that they would prefer that there not be a god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions. I suspect a lot of these people will have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide they want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer and so they elect to harbor these beliefs. An upbringing in a secular home and secular educational system plays a huge role in this. Sure, it's an oversimplification.

Many of them claim to believe because they see their beliefs as practical and prudent. They like the sense of intellectual superiority they have over those dumb religious folks. They like the notion that they think they can justify their claims with rational arguments. They like feeling as though they are part of an intellectual elite. They believe it strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom.

These may be lovely and noble consequences of being an atheist, but they have no bearing on the validity of the atheistic position or the absence of a god. Feeling good about being an atheist is not evidence that the belief is true.

All this to say that both the religious and the atheistic may be shaped and influenced by feelings.

No it wasn't (in fact Hitler was Christian). It was dedication to ideology which is the sibling of religion. Both religion and ideology rely on rigid, infallible dogma. Both rely on "holy" books (the bible, koran, Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto) , both rely on charismatic leaders (Jesus, Mohamed, Hitler, Stalin etc).

The origins of the horrors of Fascism and Communism are very similar to those of religion. It is not lack of God, it is commitment to dogma and the demonisation of non-believers.

It's not so much religion itself that is responsible but the characteristics that are shared by both religion and ideology. It is when you believe that you have "the truth" and you insist on imposing that "truth" on non-believers that the "evil" begins.

I understand your little device, and it's fine. I'd even agree with you, that if all people were administered truth serum and forced to reveal their beliefs and the reasons for them... that anyone who claims to believe in no god for these specious reasons is equally contemptible as those on the side I'm after above.

I would reject the implied argument that this (non-believers inspired by their wishes for the world) is anywhere near as broad a motivation for non-believers as it is for believers, but that's a matter of opinion and judgment, and not simply logic.

While I can speak for anyone else, this position makes no sense to me at all. Why would one want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer? It's not that something I desire, it's just something I have to accept based on my observations in the world.

As for the first point, prefering there be no god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions, again I don't see that at all. I've never felt like I had a "Get out of Jail Free" card or felt any less of an obligation to do the right thing because I didn't have God looking over my shoulder or waiting to spank my bottom blue when I get to the "other side."


While I do believe it strengthens my sense of self and personal freedom (to some very limited extent), I don't think it has to do with anything about feeling a sense of intellecutal superiority (that just comes naturally for me, being a graduate of the University of Michigan and all. :D )


Unless you're a Vulcan, I think almost any decision a person makes is influenced, to some extent, by feelings.

Deciding not to believe in God wasn't driven by any desire to feel better about myself or feel superior to anyone. I simply thought long and hard about it and eventually came to the conclusion that, based on everything I have observed in the world, I just don't believe there is a god. It wasn't a happy day, a great day, a super important day, it was just a day.

Being an atheist really hasn't affected my life in any significantl way and really isn't that important a part of my identity.

Generally I think Good and Evil are judged in three ways :-

Firstly by a society as a whole. If society believes that an act is good then it 'is' - as such America invading a sovereign country like Iraq is considered 'good' by many Americans despite the fact that in different circumstances they'd consider the same acts 'evil' (for instance Russia and Georgia).

The second way in which 'good' and 'evil' is judged is that personal view of an individual - this involves whether the person involved believed they were acting in a good or evil manner. Generally regardless of the action involved the vast majority of people will believe their intent and actions are 'good' (Hitler for instance believed he was a force for good).

The third way in which acts are judged are as history, that is retrospectively taking into account the consequences of the actions involved. For instance when Chamberlain came back from negotiation with Hitler declaring 'Peace in our time' his negotiations were considered initially as a good act - however history now see's it as being a weak attempt at appeasement of an evil opponent (apologies for the anglophilic analogy hopefully everyones aware of this quote).

Everyone lives their lives attempting to take into account all three manners in which acts are judged - often doing something they feel is 'wrong' because society judges it as being right (for instance a wife might stay with an abusive husband because they are in a church which tells her that divorce is wrong).

In my opinion its up to everyone to live life to the best of their ability and ultimately you have to take actions according to your own moral compass - I just try and remember that no one can ever force you to do something, ultimately its your decision to weigh the consequences and undertake the action (thus take responsibility for what you do).

(Hope that made some sort of sense ... rambled on a bit)

These are all good points HB. I was just responding to Quik's attribution of motives to the religious when it seems that similar kinds of motives could be equally attributed to the atheist as well. Your response suggests that motive attribution isn't a very good way to discuss things because it's flawed. I agree with you. You demonstrated that well here. I can't know the atheist's motives just as Quik can't know the religious person's motives. Maybe he's right about some religious folks just as maybe I'm right about some atheists. But attributing motives doesn't seem to be the best way to get us where we want to go.

Thanks for the reply. These are tough questions to be sure.

While it gets a bit 'atheist preachy' since the author is a former evangelist, Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith goes into some depth about non-believe and separating morality from religion among other topics coming up here. Link is: hxxp://www.ffrf.org/

Similar story with me too HB, former Catholic, now I'm an atheist. Process started in after a Christian Brother gave me an Ayn Rand book in High School. Good discussion, keep it up!

Sure. It goes along with the wonderful saying of "God works in mysterious ways."

Good points as well. Though, I think the difference between the two is that Quik's observation is based on what he's heard people explain as their actual motivation for their beliefs, whereas your examples seem to be based on inferences or possibilities. I mean, have you ever really asked an atheist why he or she is an athiest? Has their response ever been any of the following:

I prefer that there not be a god so that I don't have to be accountable for my actions;

I have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide I want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer;

I am an atheist because I like the sense of intellectual superiority I have over those dumb religious folks; or

I am an atheist because I like feeling as though I am part of an intellectual elite.

While it's not impossible that someone would be motivated by the above, it's not all that plausible either. (Maybe those last two, if the person happens to be a complete knob-head.)

Of all the possibile motives behind choosing to be an atheist (it's not an easy choice really), the only two that seem plausible are (1) the ability to justify my claims with rational arguments (the same way I try to justify pretty much everything else in the world and everything else I do, except for my love of the Detroit Lions, there is no rational explanation for this. At all) or (2) the belief some how strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom. I think both of these are, to some extent, at the heart of many peoples' beliefs in a great many things not just religion or faith. They are just sort of broad catch-all motivations.

Ajaxab. What is good and what is evil (bad) is very subjective, much like art. What is good art and what is bad art? It doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist, it's still going to be very subjective to each individual.

+1

Thanks for saving me some typing.

I just don't believe in the God of the Bible that was beaten into my skull for all those years. I totally believe that there could be a creator, but he/she/it hasn't decided to come forward yet (at least in a way that we understand).

I'm in the Infinite Possibilities Theory camp where anything could be true. I just choose to not believe in a creator that supposedly has all these horrible consequences for non-belief but yet chooses not to come talk to me in person. If this god did indeed create us, he would know what kind of brain we have and that a lot of us would need proof before believing. If he does indeed want sheep than I am happily not in his camp.

I've always been somewhat curious about that leap as well.

I think this sort of goes to the Theistic Evolution discussion as well. People say they observe something in nature, or a pattern of things, and say "Based on this observation, 'There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is.'" Thus, there is a God. (or, the earlier reference to knowing God exists everytime someone hears Beethoven).

It's the next step, that Bonegavel alludes to, that baffles me a bit.

It's sort of like:

I observe A (order in the universe), therefore I in believe B (a God/higher force).

I believe in B (God/Higher Force), therefore I believe in C (Catholicism/Protestanism/Judaism/insert whatever religion here).

Why Catholicism, for example? What does one observe in the world that makes the Catholic God any more believable or legit than any other God?

How does observing "too much order" in the Universe lead to a belief in Purgatory/Limbo? Or a belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament are to be believed any more than the prophecies in the Koran or any other religious text? Or that this God who created the Universe and all this order, then created a human son, sent him to Earth to absolve Humans of all their sins, let him die, and then had him resurrected three days later?

Maybe it just is a "Leap of Faith", but that seems inconsistent with the initial belief in God, which followed an "observed" phenomonen, which is how was believe in most things (e.g., earth is round, gravity, water is wet, etc.).

I understand Step 1. While I don't agree with it, I understand how someone could look at the universe, observe it, and come to the conclusion that "there is too much order for there not to be a God."

But how does what one observes in the universe lead one to believe in all that comes with believing in a religion. A lot of that stuff has nothing to do with observations at all.

I just find "Step 2" to be incredibly hard, if your foundation for believing in God truly is "Step 1", as some people claim it is.

I remember seeing some show on PBS and there was a Christian Scientist going on and on about how the order of the universe made it impossible not to believe in God and how the odds of life were so incredibly small there had to be a God, etc, etc.

But how do all those observations and odds and all that lead one to believe anything about God other than His existence?

I think at the root of my disbelief, at the very core, is the reality of flawed creation.

If there were indeed a supreme being, of whatever shape, size, ability etc etc, there wouldn't be mistakes. There wouldn't be BAD design. There would be no "flaws". This, for me, is where religion simply fails. I cannot believe in something so inherently flawed as religion and its hypocrisies.

When I look seriously at religions world wide, I see double standards, I see racism, I see sexism, I see HUMAN failing. If there is a God and he was indeed all powerful, he simply wouldn't make mistakes, he wouldn't have these simple human failings.

The bible says that man is created in God's image. if thats true, then take a good long hard look at Man. Then tell me you still want to worship his creator.

I can't.

That seems like a dangerous position to me. Doesn't this potentially allow for any action to be conceivably good and any action to be conceivably bad? And whether it's good or bad coming down to whether a person thinks it's good or bad? I'm not sure this is what you are wanting to say, but this is how I'm hearing you.

These are fair points. Maybe part of the problem in trying to sort through this issue is that there are more outwardly religious people than there are outward atheists. And I have encountered more outwardly religious people than outward atheists.

But the motivations Quik attributed to the religious in that paragraph are not those that I have heard from many of the people I have encountered. I'm sure there are some who claim to believe because they like the well-intentioned messages and the social connections and networks that come with religious practice. But there are many who claim to believe out of a love for God and a sense of gratitude to this God who has saved them. These things motivate them to do the religious things they do.

Do these motives make their beliefs true? I agree with Quik on this in absolutely denying that this makes them true. People can feel fuzzy feelings and experience some sense of psychological well-being without there being any truth behind their explanation for these feelings.

I would argue that for the majority of us who believe in God, that it is indeed a "Leap of faith".

I also think that most religions acknowledge that there is but a single God. The differences between the religions often result from human interpretation of that religions holy book (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.).

I unequivocally believe in God, but would not call myself much of a "Religious" person.

-Cork

I view the above statement differently. Man was made in Gods image and as such Human beings look like what God looks like. 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. I don't think it goes much beyond that.

-Cork

Yes, it does seem I was too general. :)

I am definitely not saying that you can switch anything good and make it bad and vice versa. I guess what I'm saying is, there's a lot of gray area on what could be considered good or bad, once you move beyond things that are inherently bad (i.e., rape, murder, etc...) no matter how you try to spin those things, they are bad at their very core.

For example, one person may think that two unmarried people should not be living together and that it's a bad thing. While others do not think it's a bad thing and actually think it's good so they can get to know each other better.

Thank you for writing this. This describes very well my thoughts on the subject in a way that I haven't learned to express. I don't see how any one can profess any sort of devout belief in a particular religious persuasion. Feeling sure there's a higher power? Okay. But to be sure that in particular, one defined version of Christian scripture, for example, is definitely true, I don't know how people arrive at that conclusion with any surety.

I know there are religious people out there who aren't particularly literal about their dogma, and I can see that. But there are plenty who are. That is where I don't get why I should believe that Harry the Pentecostal Christian is absolutely right, but Henri the Sufi Muslim is absolutely wrong. They may be both right about there being a higher power, but I don't see any reason to suspect one of them in particular is right about the rest. They both have books and prophets to support them, but what else?

I think if you even take out the part of man being created in god's image. He made an extreamly flawed and fragile package for us. Cancer, near sightedness, balding, arthritis, polio, flat feet, can only breath air, can be poisoned, a soft exterior that can be penetrated by sharp objects, heck, just how we age and our bodies break down, etc...It would seem that god can only produce mediocre, at best, creations.

Good posts by all...

I see a difference in the proclamations of a believer vs. non-believer. A religious type is really proclaiming to believe in the unbelievable. An non-believer is really making no claim.

As a result, i can see (in some respects) the need to convert as a way to reconcile a believer's leap into the absurd. A believer is not satisfied with a non-believer, whereas a non-believer tends to not want to "convert" believers. (Philosophically, not institutionally).

Lastly, I think one can look at the (lack of the) power of language. Are there words that can approximate my understanding of life, suffering, and love? Or can one be a believer even if they do not have words to use to describe their belief, ie only actions?

But again, religion inherently has MAN in the equation, and man is flawed due to the original sin and therefore religions have a tendency, again due to human factors of greed, lust, power, etc., to "lose their way." It's really a catch-22. As a particular church or religion gets bigger, man's ego gets in the way and it becomes less about God and more about the individual. Still, there will always be like people who wish to worship God together, and you re-start the process. I'm not saying that organized religion is a bad thing - I think it's a necessary thing - but the more organized it is, the more man is involved. God is perfect - we aren't.

If when I die and things turn out to be, say, like the Christian Bible and God deems me unworthy of Heaven, that's his choice. I'm ok with that as it obviously wasn't something I wanted in the first place.

The moment God created the universe, he knew the place I'd end up after I die.

I see the god of the bible as an absentee father; unworthy of my love. My uber-christian mother can't understand how I can think this way and is heart-broken over my beliefs. I feel sorry that she needs the religion-crutch so badly that she is blind to reality.

(if there was a creator) maybe he/she/it has died. Maybe time is different for us and every second to him is a billion years to us so he is trying to communicate but it's taking some time. Maybe he is like Crom and doesn't give two fucks about us. Maybe he blew his wad in creating the universe and is now impotent so much that he cannot communicate with us.

That is all speculation. What I do know for sure is that the creator of this universe has never sat down with me and communicated to me via any of my 5 senses (all of which were given to me by him). I was given a logical brain that relies on these 5 senses in order to survive. My logical brain tells me that God knows (or should know) how to communicate properly with me and he hasn't, therefore, it must not be that important. And if it is important and he hasn't communicated it to me, he doesn't like me and what does it matter anyway.

Yet another reason to wonder, should this God exist and wish to take credit for this mess, why we are supposed to believe they are so wonderful. If anyone actually had to do this as a job, they would surely have been fired by now with the way things have turned out.

This is a common argument made by Christians, but it isn't true. About half of the world follows some kind of Abrahamic, monotheistic tradition. The other half does not, and the vast majority of those are not monotheistic traditions.

You could probably squeak out a monotheistic majority on the planet, but it would be very small. If the atheists in very religious countries like the US were able to come out of the closet, my guess is that you probably wouldn't have a majority.

been thinking about the converting thing a little more

seems to me a non-believer can say, in general, "i happy, what do i need your religion for?" a believer could say, 'you do not know what happy means. you are not really happy until you believe in what i do."

maybe religion is going out of fashion in highly developed areas; US an Europe, because the majority people there are satisfied with their lives. and whatever hardship they may face it remains within their worldview

I'm sorry. I do believe the fact that Matt Millen is still the GM of the Lions is irrefutable evidence that this statement is incorrect.

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?

And that's one of the main reasons I do not believe in any god or gods. Perfection does not exist anywhere other than in the human mind.

I don't view the world through "atheist tinted" glasses. Like I mentioned earlier, being an atheist hasn't really had a profound impact on my life or how I view the world.

I think we do live in a pretty messed up world. Why have things turned out the way they have? That's a long and complicated question. There's no easy answer. Not by a long shot. Just saying "it's evolution, stupid" is about as weak sauce as saying "it's all God's will." They are both meaningless statements lacking any true analysis or thought.

I guess you could look for some evolutionary explanation for the state of the world, but I think evolution alone is far too limiting a science/theory to explain everything that's wrong with the world and why it's so.

I don't think the notion that "we live in a pretty messed up world" is in any way at all unique to atheists. There are plenty of religious folks who preach doom and gloom, the end of days, the crumbling of society, etc.

In some ways the world is a better place than it ever was, in other ways it is more profoundly fucked up than ever. I'm sure that thought isn't unique either to atheists or to folks living in today's society.

Do you think we live in a perfect world? Where children can die before the age of 3 from cancer? If this is God's creation, they can forget me celebrating their accomplishment. Life is what it is and I'm not unhappy to be here, but I'm not going to thank some supposed supernatural deity who couldn't bother to clear out terminal illness along the way. If they simply started the process and have no control these days, why should I celebrate them?

Wow, God, thanks for the big bang. Let's celebrate your creation, of which you have apparently washed your hands of now, and hope that maybe you're waiting on the other side to reward us with the things you deny us here. No thanks. I'll just make the best of what I have here and be content with that. Assuming this God even exists, I'm not going to thank them for giving terminal disease to children.

I suppose that rules out intelligent design as well, eh? ;)

I find this a very naive way to see it. This God, this supreme being "made man in his image" he created a race to represent himself....only visually? With most other verses in the bible being held as a metaphor for a plethora of things, this one statement means only....one....very limited, single perspective thing.

I don't buy it. If I were creating a race, assuming arrogantly for a moment that *I* am god. I certainly wouldn't stop at just my physical appearance. I would endow my creation with as much of myself as possible.

I don't think a supreme being would do less than a mere mortal.


I would like to add that I'm thrilled with how this thread has gone. its very rare that discussions of this topic don't succumb to subby-isms or bubba Wheels-assaults before ever getting this far.

Kudos to you all for posting with integrity and manners.

Flawed in SOME way? good lord man, have you ever looked at a human being? =)

In SOME way? every human being is a cacophony of mistakes. The digestive system, too limited for the majority of food items on this planet. The reproductive system designed in such a way as to invite disease and infection? The body as a whole while an amazing piece of architecture wins no prizes for durability or strength or resilience to...much of anything.

Shall i delve into the psychological problems? no, lets just rest my case there. humanity is full of flaws, even the least of which no human being would have allowed to succeed and breed further, if a human wouldn't do it, why in the universe would a supreme being?

I don't suggest that this position is held by anyone outside myself. I ONLY speak for myself. When it comes down to it, I simply can't give over my faith to something/someone whom I find fault in at every turn.

When i talk about this with other people at this point I get the "But when you look at all the wonders in the world, all the beauty, the elegance, the mystery, can't you understand that a few flaws in a generally prefect world are worth it?"

And to that I can only say, "no" If i am asked to believe that something is all powerful and all knowing and the supreme power in the universe, I cannot accept that that entity would allow such flaws to exist. its a fundamental lynch pin in my makeup. A true "GOD" wouldn't make such mistakes or allow such flaws to continue throughout time.

Are you implying that God should have only make exact replicas of himself?

I am not a biblical scholar, so I can't reference biblical text at all, but the point that I was trying to make earlier was that Human Beings flaws should in know way reflect poorly upon God as our creator.

Because we are a flawed species, that does not mean that God is flawed. It was his canvas so to speak and I guess he created what he desired. For all we know he might have made better versions of himself somewhere in a remote corner of the universe. We might just be version 50 in a long line of creations. Who knows.

-Cork

i understand your point, but if in fact god is "perfect" and all knowing and all seeing then he doesn't need 1000 tries to get something right, does he? if so he's not all knowing, if he cannot see the flaws in his own creation and fix them is he still all seeing?

this is the conundrum of religion. We are told to believe in his omniscience, his all powerfulness. However, simply by looking around I see no evidence of such a being. Do I see amazing and wonderous things? absolutely, but I see just as much obvious screw up as I do amazing grace. A GOD, a Supreme being would choose to create mistakes? I'm sorry, but that's simply not good enough to deserve MY devotion and praise.... and before anyone says it, no, that is NOT arrogant. To genuflect before a supreme being, to..Give my life over to a higher power, I have to be convinced, I have to BELIEVE, that that power is so far beyond ME that I can't fathom it.

Mistakes, Errors, poor choices, bad planning? They generally disqualify you from positions of power.

I've personally always found it intruiging how 'man' is considered the center things when God has already created far superior beings in the angels.

These have free will and powers far beyond our understanding - they also appear to be made in 'gods image' (ie. if you go for that meaning free will they obviously have it as the devil was able to rebel, if you go along with the literal 'looks human' approach then again apparently they do).

This central role for mankind to me has always smacked somewhat of early science where the earth was considered to be the center of the universe simply because we inhabited it ...

I've always found it somewhat bemusing that an all-power all-knowing God put his children (Adam and Eve) in a situation containing temptation without putting up a fireguard or something to protect them - imho thats just bad parenting ... if you knowingly place your kids in a situation where they and their descendants are likely to be condemned to hell on a regular basis then you aren't going to win parent of the year from me ;)

The only logical explanation for things if you want to remain consistent with the bible is that everything is exactly how it was intended to be for whatever reason and that Adam and Eve's fall from grace was needed for the ultimate goal to be achieved.

This ties into the 'Good' and 'Bad' discussion from earlier today - can mankind really judge God as being Good or Evil from our limited perspective on reality; is the alternative worse than what we have been given or is the ultimate goal worthy of the sacrifices which have to be made to reach it? .... its impossible for us with our limited eperceptions to know.

Does being perfect mean that you can only act perfectly? Would not a perfect being be free to act and do as they see fit?

-Cork

Wouldn't acting imperfectly make this supposed perfect person cease to be perfect? I don't think you can be perfect and act imperfectly.

They don't give a pitcher a pefect game if he intentionally walks somebody.

Well, that's the trick. If you are perfect, how can you act 'un-perfect'? It sounds like a cop out by saying that a perfect being is free to act in any manner they want and that way you can't call them out on not being perfect. Once you cease being perfect, intentional or not, you are no longer perfect.

If god made Eve for Adam because Adam was lonely, wouldn't have god had known that prior to making Adam, Adam would be lonely and therefor would have already have made Eve? Sounds like a mistake on gods part.