If i were a true atheist....

[beanieb]

If we were a true atheist.. who believe the world came into existence by its own thru sheer luck, chance and evolved by its own...and left to fend for ourselves in this lonely world...

 

how would we (honestly) react if at the pink of health and prime of our life.. we were:

1) suddenly struck down with a bad incurable illness..

2) lose everyone in our family..

3) getting robbed n seriously injured or maimed in the process..

4) being convicted by the law for something you didnt do...etc

and the list goes on about us getting life's injustice and sufferings at a sudden go....

 

My point is..

Why should atheist feel "injustice" for things... that happen by "fate"?...

because after all, aren't they believers that the world works strictly by the rule of "chance"... that all things happen at random.. and thus, there is actually no such thing as good or bad luck anymore? (just neutral luck to be exact..)...

moreover, their existence in the 1st place.. would be as meaningful as the random rock by the road... as organisms would be by definition..be a bag of chemicals that could move..

but is still.. just chemicals like the rock at the end of the day...

 

Thus.. if they could innately feel or understand the concept of injustice... was it because society imprinted a wrong concept in their minds and so that they should correct this thought...

or that it reveals something deeper that is beyond their belief of the world so they should think about again?...

Edited July 24, 2012 by beanieb

[Moontanman]

If we were a true atheist.. who believe the world came into existence by its own thru sheer luck, chance and evolved by its own...and left to fend for ourselves in this lonely world...

 

how would we (honestly) react if at the pink of health and prime of our life.. we were:

1) suddenly struck down with a bad incurable illness..

2) lose everyone in our family..

3) getting robbed n seriously injured or maimed in the process..

4) being convicted by the law for something you didnt do...etc

and the list goes on about us getting life's injustice and sufferings at a sudden go....

 

My point is..

Why should atheist feel "injustice" for things... that happen by "fate"?...

because after all, aren't they believers that the world works strictly by the rule of "chance"... that all things happen at random.. and thus, there is actually no such thing as good or bad luck anymore? (just neutral luck to be exact..)...

moreover, their existence in the 1st place.. would be as meaningful as the random rock by the road... as organisms would be by definition..be a bag of chemicals that could move..

but is still.. just chemicals like the rock at the end of the day...

 

Thus.. if they could innately feel or understand the concept of injustice... was it because society imprinted a wrong concept in their minds and so that they should correct this thought...

or that it reveals something deeper that is beyond their belief of the world so they should think about again?...

 

So are you saying that being able to blame a god makes you fell better when these things happen?

[Joatmon]

<< Matthew 5:45 >>

"so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Believers and unbelievers get exactly the same treatment so I don't get the point of the question.

[iNow]

Accepting the world around us for what it truly is instead of pretending that the universe is how we hope/wish/want it to be has no bearing on our evolved/taught response to disaster and injustice.

[Arete]

moreover, their existence in the 1st place.. would be as meaningful as the random rock by the road...

 

Seems like an insult to rocks, if you ask me.

[Phi for All]

My point is..

Why should atheist feel "injustice" for things... that happen by "fate"?...

because after all, aren't they believers that the world works strictly by the rule of "chance"...

No, they aren't. There are plenty of things that appear random that are predictable chains of events.

 

that all things happen at random.. and thus, there is actually no such thing as good or bad luck anymore? (just neutral luck to be exact..)...

Luck? You think luck is a religious concept?

 

moreover, their existence in the 1st place.. would be as meaningful as the random rock by the road... as organisms would be by definition..be a bag of chemicals that could move..

but is still.. just chemicals like the rock at the end of the day...

Well, there is that whole conscious awareness thing....

 

Thus.. if they could innately feel or understand the concept of injustice... was it because society imprinted a wrong concept in their minds and so that they should correct this thought...

or that it reveals something deeper that is beyond their belief of the world so they should think about again?...

I'm unclear about what injustice has to do with believing in god(s). As for "society imprinted a wrong concept in their minds", I think you'd first have to prove that atheism is wrong. Good luck with that.

[Joatmon]

there is actually no such thing as good or bad luck anymore? (just neutral luck to be exact..)...

 

Luck does exist, but in this way - you know whether or not you were lucky yesterday, but cannot know if you will be lucky tomorrow. Whether believer or atheist makes no difference to this fact.

[Prometheus]

My point is..

Why should atheist feel "injustice" for things... that happen by "fate"?...

because after all, aren't they believers that the world works strictly by the rule of "chance"... that all things happen at random.. and thus, there is actually no such thing as good or bad luck anymore? (just neutral luck to be exact..)...

 

Not all, or perhaps any, of these are down to 'fate' alone. Getting robbed or wrongly convicted, at least, involves other humans. A sense of injustice is rightly to be expected. Lose of one's family or one's health, well that would depend on the situation. A terrorist bio-attack would be quite different to losing a limb to an animal. For the former one may seek justice, for the latter there is no justice to be found (we all know the story of Moby Dick). So i would agree that for events outside the sphere of human control, one should try to develop the serenity to accept them.

 

moreover, their existence in the 1st place.. would be as meaningful as the random rock by the road... as organisms would be by definition..be a bag of chemicals that could move..

but is still.. just chemicals like the rock at the end of the day...

 

Just because you couldn't find meaning in life without god, doesn't mean someone else couldn't. There doesn't have to be some inherent purpose or grand plan for people to find their own meaning. An atheist doesn't necessarily feel 'left to fend for ourselves in this lonely world'. Recognising our insignificance in the cosmic scale tends to inspire awe and respect for life, rather than fear and loneliness.

 

Thus.. if they could innately feel or understand the concept of injustice... was it because society imprinted a wrong concept in their minds and so that they should correct this thought...

or that it reveals something deeper that is beyond their belief of the world so they should think about again?...

 

What else is there to think about? The concept of justice is compatible with a godless universe.

 

Note this is only one atheist's view, i can't speak for anyone else.

[tar]

beanieb,

 

Atheists are a quite varied bunch.

 

I for one, believe that God is a human construct, a personality that embodies all there is, including us, and our constructs, and the universe we are in and of. This is not unlike the religious idea of god. It is not contrary to many of the statements in religious books, if taken figuratively rather than literally.

 

My personal theory, is that the God of judgement, depicted in the Bible, is our own collective judgement, rolled up into one personality. That we (Moses or Christ or Mohammed or any of the Prophets of God) were referring to a "real" collective judgement, is not something I doubt. It is the fact that all of "creation" is controlled by the exact same personality, that I have a problem with. Not on some levels, but very much on others. Logicallly speaking, if God is a human construct, then God can not create humans. God, in this take, (the collective judgement one) comes after humans have judgement.

Which leaves a different personality to collectively consider, and that is the personality that created humans. Not that something did not create humans, but it has to be something "other than" a human personality. Something "greater than" human, something that humans can be created "in the image of". And this can simply be the universe as we find it to be. It need not be, nor can it be, a human type thing. We are universelike, but the universe is not humanlike. Humans are humanlike. The universe is rather like a universe.

 

The God of the Bible has shown up figuratively, but has not shown himself literally to anybody, as a scientifically verifyable entity, to anybody...ever. Most accounts of having actually run into God, are highly suspect as real encounters. They involve people wandering in desert mountains, or in caves, or high on mushrooms, or after days of fasting or sleep deprivation, or other situations of meditations or chemical intake, that could easily cause one to "imagine" something that is not really there.

 

Stare at a blank, flat white wall for about two hours. It won't be too long (much less than two hours), before you start to see colors and patterns, and movement. You might think the colors and patterns are real. Perhaps they are, to you. But that does not mean they are really on the wall.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If you have the patience to stare for the whole two hours, I wouldn't be surprised if you begin to read some meaning into the patterns...maybe even a message from God.

Edited July 24, 2012 by tar

[doG]

If we were a true atheist.. who believe the world came into existence by its own thru sheer luck, chance and evolved by its own...and left to fend for ourselves in this lonely world...

If you are a true atheist the the only thing that can be said of you is that you are not theist. That is the only thing that atheists as a group have in common. The beliefs of atheists as a whole are widely varied so you can not lump them all together as if they share some common belief system. Atheism is not a religion!

[Bill Angel]

The God of the Bible has shown up figuratively, but has not shown himself literally to anybody, as a scientifically verifyable entity, to anybody...ever. Most accounts of having actually run into God, are highly suspect as real encounters. They involve people wandering in desert mountains, or in caves, or high on mushrooms, or after days of fasting or sleep deprivation, or other situations of meditations or chemical intake, that could easily cause one to "imagine" something that is not really there.

 

Jesus was purportedly the son of God who performed miracles and rose from the dead.

And while depictions or narratives of his life are dismissed by atheists as imaginative fairy stories, believers in this story arn't expecting God to make some kind of personal appearance in their own lives.

[ecoli]

Jesus was purportedly the son of God who performed miracles and rose from the dead.

And while depictions or narratives of his life are dismissed by atheists as imaginative fairy stories, believers in this story arn't expecting God to make some kind of personal appearance in their own lives.

Given how much personal time and expense people devote to their religions, maybe they should expect more from their God(s).

[doG]

And while depictions or narratives of his life are dismissed by atheists as imaginative fairy stories...

Not necessarily true. I'm an atheist and I believe as Jefferson did, that there was a man, Jesus of Nazareth, that had great lessons to teach but he was not a god. I keep a copy of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth myself as a reference to his teachings.

[tar]

Jesus was purportedly the son of God who performed miracles and rose from the dead.

And while depictions or narratives of his life are dismissed by atheists as imaginative fairy stories, believers in this story arn't expecting God to make some kind of personal appearance in their own lives.

 

Bill Angel,

 

Well, I was raised Christian. I have Christian values. I have "felt" Jesus' love. My mother was a profound believer. There are hundreds of ways that I figuratively believe in Jesus. (I celebrate Christmas, my wife believes in God, etc.)

 

What is figuratively true is figuratively true. I am subject to a greater universe. I believe the universe will continue to exist after I die, and I have some great responsibility and ownership toward and of everything that came before TAR2 and everything that comes after, and I should consider my actions based on an understanding and love of this greater than me reality. I think flowers are beautiful and the universe is magnificent.

 

Not required to believe Jesus actually rose into heaven, to understand him as a proxy for humanity. I can believe this, and retain the real, valuable lessons, and discard the lies.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited July 25, 2012 by tar

[beanieb]

Actually to be clearer, I should state my question would be directed at the specific atheist group who believes everything in the universe started out by chance (where there is no creator) as stated in the opening question...

 

I think i would be not be incorrect to state that for this group, the chief laws that governs the universe, are the law of chance and the law of survival of the fittest...

Within that context, it implies our world is also just a random planet which its components happened to mix correctly, and achieve some level of consciousness (as Phi for all pointed out)..

and very importantly, it also means whatever sense of morality.. righteousness.. would be actually just man-created laws which are agreed upon by the majority of the planet's inhabitants..

 

So if these group of people were correct in their theory/explanation of the world, they should also realised that by virtue of the 2 laws mentioned above..

when faced with injustice or sufferings, they can somewhat be comforted and be resigned to their ill-fate..

because they should realise also whatever feelings of injustice(when compared against their understanding of righteousness) is a mere byproduct of a man-created law.. which is freely floating and subjected to the majority's choice...

 

But of course we know the above illustration goes against our instinct and observation of the world as we know..

and that is why for those people who hasn't considered where our innate sense of righteousness.. understanding of lawfulness (morality) comes from, it should point us to consider if is truly just from ourselves.. or beyond us?

(and thus the consideration of Theism....)

[iNow]

Lacking belief in a creator is not equivalent to believing the universe started by pure chance or luck, yet you continue to make this error in your comments.

[Greg H.]

But of course we know the above illustration goes against our instinct and observation of the world as we know..

and that is why for those people who hasn't considered where our innate sense of righteousness.. understanding of lawfulness (morality) comes from, it should point us to consider if is truly just from ourselves.. or beyond us?

(and thus the consideration of Theism....)

 

Our understanding of morality comes from our society. The need for it to come from God is pure bilge because that automatically precludes the idea that non-believers can be good people.

[Amanbir]

do not abuse the maker....don't be naughty.....all this around you...all this beauty...

 

and you say luck..chance..what is wrong with you...

 

the people..the people....come one...do not lose faith....

 

if you are in science, it means you are her favorite children..

 

...well not all...not the ones who make bombs...

 

how can you separate her from science...she made all of it...

 

you like to say God...i like to address him as her..

[zapatos]

...and very importantly, it also means whatever sense of morality.. righteousness.. would be actually just man-created laws which are agreed upon by the majority of the planet's inhabitants..

 

...when faced with injustice or sufferings, they can somewhat be comforted and be resigned to their ill-fate..

because they should realise also whatever feelings of injustice(when compared against their understanding of righteousness) is a mere byproduct of a man-created law..

I'd say this is just about right. It also comforts me to know that if injustice is done to me it is due to flawed humans, not a 'superior' being from whom I might have been expecting more justice and compassion.

[mooeypoo]

do not abuse the maker....don't be naughty.....all this around you...all this beauty...

 

and you say luck..chance..what is wrong with you...

 

the people..the people....come one...do not lose faith....

 

if you are in science, it means you are her favorite children..

 

...well not all...not the ones who make bombs...

 

how can you separate her from science...she made all of it...

 

you like to say God...i like to address him as her..

 

!

Moderator Note

That's not what we meant when we told you that you need to be clearer. This is a discussion forum, not your personal site. Do you have a point to make or are you just here to post chunks of weirdly-written english bits with not much sense in them? If it's the latter, I suggest you stop now.

 

This is preaching (an unclear one at that) - which is against our rules. It's my utmost sencere recommendation you go over our rules once again, and start following them.

 

Also, as we've discussed before, English sentences start with a capital letter, usually contain a verb, and end with a period. Stop... making.. making making.. making... your own version... version... your own... of what english... yes, english englishg... needs to look ... look like.. you're just being unclear.. unclear unclear unclear.

 

If you don't have an actual CLAIM to make, don't post in the thread. The staff will start deleting pointless posts to avoid derailing a thread, and the next step is to delete your access.

 

Follow our rules, Amanbir, that's not a request.

 

 

 

[beanieb]

@ Greg H,

Yes.. there are definitely a lot good people amongst non-believers..(and bad ones amongst believers too..) That I don't deny..

 

@iNow,

True, it may not require a specific creator for the world to be in such an order now....

 

But that brings us to the next questions:

1) when we say something or someone is good or bad.. who's standard do we refer to?

if we say the standard just comes directly from the society we live in.. and is purely (100%) subjective...

then we should also be able to say our tolerance and standard to define injustice and sufferings are purely subjective too...

its just takes a matter of conditioning or shrewd reasoning to allow ourselves to change our mindset on them to say "there is nothing wrong actually"....

However, in reality, despite coming from different cultures or backgrounds, people are still able to discern what is good and what is "evil"..

 

Of course some may argue and say "well there are those terrorists who believe strongly in their actions and visions too and say their brand of right and wrong is correct and true.."

so does it mean at the end of the day...we must conclude indeed.. there is actually no true right and wrong after all? but just a matter of perspective?

 

2) and from 1), if we were the group to say "there has to be a true version of right and wrong"....so where does that standard of right and wrong come from?

Because if it is not subjective anymore (but absolute..) then it wouldn't have come from society...but has to be beyond us..

and that implies we are operating against some invisible rules that governs our "spirituality".

 

Consider the function for morality.. does the animal kingdom need that? Are they surviving properly even without it?

To practice morality requires a conscious effort and much hard work. Why is it man wilfully choose to do it, if we are but just another form of animals on this planet?

 

My points here are:

1) can we truly absolve ourselves to say there isn't this invisible law that shows us right from wrong? --> and thus the need a religion to explain what it is

2) which is the religion that proves itself to be true?

 

By the way.. sorry if i got it wrong but can anyone share if Atheism equates to no religion too?

(that's my basis for the title of this topic)

[iNow]

By the way.. sorry if i got it wrong but can anyone share if Atheism equates to no religion too?

(that's my basis for the title of this topic)

Theist - A person who believes in one or more gods.

Atheist - Literally means a-theist, or not-theist. It is merely a person who does not believe in one or more gods. That is all.

 

Religion is a system of beliefs, usually centered around belief in deities. It is an ideology with specific teachings or stories or myths. Atheism is the position that these beliefs held by others are not compelling, that these beliefs held by others lack supporting evidence and are often irrational and unreasonable, and that these beliefs held by others are not worthy of being considered either true or valid. Atheism is not itself a religion. It is the lack of acceptance of someone else's religion. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

[Greg H.]

 

But that brings us to the next questions:

1) when we say something or someone is good or bad.. who's standard do we refer to?

2) and from 1), if we were the group to say "there has to be a true version of right and wrong"....so where does that standard of right and wrong come from?

 

We (speaking generally here) refer to our internalized standard of right and wrong - these are standards that we learn as we grow and are taught to us by our parents, our peers, and our communities. If this was not the case - if morality and ethics were really provided to us by an outside force or entity, why do children seem to have absolutely no concept of right and wrong? If morality is truly universal, why can't the various societies on our planet (and the various communities within those societies) reach a simple agreement on what is right and what is wrong? If we are supposed to have this innate ability to discern right from wrong, why did God feel the need to spell it out to us in 10 simple rules? He certainly didn't seem to think we were in possession of some innate moral compass.

[Phi for All]

1) when we say something or someone is good or bad.. who's standard do we refer to?

if we say the standard just comes directly from the society we live in.. and is purely (100%) subjective...

then we should also be able to say our tolerance and standard to define injustice and sufferings are purely subjective too...

its just takes a matter of conditioning or shrewd reasoning to allow ourselves to change our mindset on them to say "there is nothing wrong actually"....

However, in reality, despite coming from different cultures or backgrounds, people are still able to discern what is good and what is "evil"..

 

Of course some may argue and say "well there are those terrorists who believe strongly in their actions and visions too and say their brand of right and wrong is correct and true.."

so does it mean at the end of the day...we must conclude indeed.. there is actually no true right and wrong after all? but just a matter of perspective?

It MUST be subjective, determined by culture. Further, I think it's right that it is. Looking for universal right and wrong obviously led you to believe that religion must be the answer, and personally, I think trying to impose your religious views on others is wrong.

 

2) and from 1), if we were the group to say "there has to be a true version of right and wrong"....so where does that standard of right and wrong come from?

Because if it is not subjective anymore (but absolute..) then it wouldn't have come from society...but has to be beyond us..

and that implies we are operating against some invisible rules that governs our "spirituality".

 

Consider the function for morality.. does the animal kingdom need that? Are they surviving properly even without it?

To practice morality requires a conscious effort and much hard work. Why is it man wilfully choose to do it, if we are but just another form of animals on this planet?

To base morality on religious faith is to open yourself to tens of thousands of interpretations of that faith, so where is your morality now? And people have crises of faith all the time. Does this mean they can feel free to stop being moral when they stop having faith?

 

And what kind of morality is something like the Bible really going to teach us? That it's OK to stone prostitutes? Or kill your teenager if he curses you? I much prefer morality modeled by the society I'm an active part of, at least that gives me the ability to move if I disagree that strongly with it.

[Iggy]

...specific atheist group who believes everything in the universe started out by chance (where there is no creator) as stated in the opening question...

 

...it also means whatever sense of morality.. righteousness.. would be actually just man-created laws which are agreed upon by the majority of the planet's inhabitants..

 

But of course we know the above illustration goes against our instinct and observation of the world as we know..

and that is why for those people who hasn't considered where our innate sense of righteousness.. understanding of lawfulness (morality) comes from, it should point us to consider if is truly just from ourselves.. or beyond us?

(and thus the consideration of Theism....)

Your logic condensed goes...:

 

If the universe isn't designed then our human sense of morality... our judgements about what is right and wrong... are entirely subjective and man-created. We know from experience that morality is not entirely subjective therefore the evidence suggests a designed universe.

 

Using a different quality of humanity shows easier the problem with the logic...

 

If the universe isn't designed then our human sense of temperature... our judgements about what is hot and cold... are entirely subjective and man-created. We know from experience that thermoception is not entirely subjective therefore the evidence suggests a designed universe.

 

Thermoception as evidence of a designed universe has the same problem as morality as evidence of a designed universe. What I mean is, if you replace "good or bad" with "hot or cold" in some of your statements... like...

 

But that brings us to the next questions:

1) when we say something is hot or cold.. who's standard do we refer to?

if we say the standard just comes directly from the society we live in.. and is purely (100%)

subjective

...

then we should also be able to say our tolerance and standard to define a frigid or scorching conditions are purely subjective too...

its just takes a matter of conditioning or shrewd reasoning to allow ourselves to change our mindset on them to say "there is nothing uncomfortable actually"....

However, in reality, despite coming from different cultures or backgrounds, people are still able to discern what is hot and what is cold..

 

2) and from 1), if we were the group to say "there has to be a true version of hot and cold"....so where does that standard of hot and cold come from?

Because if it is not subjective anymore (but absolute..) then it wouldn't have come from society...but has to be beyond us..

and that implies we are operating against some invisible rules that governs our "spirituality".

 

The argument's logic looks like a problem for sure then. The solution would just be that morality is a human quality and most people have similar notions of morality because 'most people' are all human. Our instinct for morality evolved so that we could survive and prosper in a group environment. It is no more mysterious than our instinct for thermoception evolving so that we could survive and prosper an environment with temperatures hot enough or cold enough to harm us if we couldn't avoid them.

 

Morality with an objective basis doesn't imply spirituality or a designed universe. It implies that groups populated with liars and murders don't do as well as groups populated with people who have an instinct against lying and murdering.