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.