Why not atheism?

[Jason]

Many people say they are full of love and, in the name of the Lord, commit all type of crimes, wars, and injustices and they are sincere about it.

Are these people, in fact, full of love then?

You are the one who gives meaning to your actions, though, not God even if you believe in Him. That we are the ones who give meaning to love, justice, and evil does not make these concepts any less valuable to us.

If we believed that they were only our opinions and not something true and real then yes, it ultimately has less value to us.

[Skywalker]

You are the one who gives meaning to your actions, though, not God even if you believe in Him. That we are the ones who give meaning to love, justice, and evil does not make these concepts any less valuable to us.

Another issue with atheism that may arise is when people feel that since life is going to end then somehow the time they spend with their families, the feelings of love, etc, become worthless. However, if you notice, most of the pleasures we derive from life do not arise from us knowing that it is going to last forever (we actually don't expect them to). As I heard someone say, most of what religious people do are the same things atheists or agnostics do: work, spend time with their families, eat, travel, help others, spend time with friends, go to school, without thinking if their consciousness is never going to die.

I somewhat disagree. I may have a part in giving meaning to my actions, but I contribute positively to the world in which I live because I feel that my contributions will resonate into the eternities, that my hopes and dreams, that my love and happiness will always be a part of me, and these ideas transcend beyond the grave.

If I held the atheist viewpoint...

The time I spend with my family, the love I have for my children, the insatiable drive to better myself -- all of these things are utterly meaningless if I am simply going to cease to exist. Since, with each passing moment, I get closer to death, it seems pointless to try to accomplish anything, even if that which I accomplish will still be here when I am gone. Why? I am not going to care one way or another, because there won't be a me to care. I will, no doubt, wake up one day as a 75 year old man and think "where did the time go?" And, realizing that soon I will cease to exist, will be the saddest day of my life.

[elguanteloko]

Are these people, in fact, full of love then?

They definitely do not seem as being full of love to me... thinking that killing children is good and just because God told you to and trying would be an example.

If we believed that they were only our opinions and not something true and real then yes, it ultimately has less value to us.

Those concepts are not only our opinions since a vast majority of people share them (that is, in part, how we adopted them in the first place). They don't become any more 'real' when a God defines them.

[elguanteloko]

I somewhat disagree. I may have a part in giving meaning to my actions, but I contribute positively to the world in which I live because I feel that my contributions will resonate into the eternities, that my hopes and dreams, that my love and happiness will always be a part of me, and these ideas transcend beyond the grave.

so, do you help others (for example) because the effect will be eternal or because you want those you help to be in a better situation? let's say hunger due to poverty: do you try to alleviate it because you want people to stop suffering (notice their suffering won't last forever) or because they will always be thankful to you or because the reward you will get will be eternal?

If I held the atheist viewpoint...

The time I spend with my family, the love I have for my children, the insatiable drive to better myself -- all of these things are utterly meaningless if I am simply going to cease to exist. Since, with each passing moment, I get closer to death, it seems pointless to try to accomplish anything, even if that which I accomplish will still be here when I am gone. Why? I am not going to care one way or another, because there won't be a me to care. I will, no doubt, wake up one day as a 75 year old man and think "where did the time go?" And, realizing that soon I will cease to exist, will be the saddest day of my life.

this is tied to what I responded above.

[mfbukowski]

What evidence, aside from subjective experience, do you find compelling and persuasive that God exists?

What evidence, aside from falling down all the time, do you have for gravity?

(The point being that "subjective experience" is 1- the only evidence and 2- all the evidence that is needed.)

[mfbukowski]

I do not believe, as Protagoras did, that "man is the measure of all things."

So you don't believe God is a Man?

[mfbukowski]

So you are ready to admit that there MAY be any of 1000 different gods that are currently worshiped? Or are you denying that these gods exist and that it is only YOUR god that is real?

I disbelieve in Elohim/Yahweh every bit as much as I disbelieve in Shiva, Ganesha, Xenu, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc.

That's probably redundant.

[Tarski]

Near Death Experiences have been documented to occur while patients are brain-dead

um,

big problem here;

How does one determine when the experience actually happened? It could have been right before brain death, during (not), or right after.

The problem (and it is a big one) is that one cannot rely on the time or duration determinations of a severly distressed (nearly dead) brain.

Time is part of the content of experience and that has alway been associated with brain activity. The brain says or records in memory that "X happened at T and for duration D--but this could be just a mistake the brain makes. Indeed, this has been shown objectively even for sleep--people are wildly wrong about when and how long (for example, wrong about when and how long they dream or sleep).

That the experience generating brain activity happened at a time that does not coincide with the time and duration reports of a malfunctioning brain is no surprise.

So I flatly deny that there are experiences happening to brain dead humans.

[Mudcat]

It seems like even with God these words are very open to interpretation. Slavery, for example, is not condemned in the Bible and Christians now see it as evil, wrong, and bad. Love, also, does not tell you much. Many people say they are full of love and, in the name of the Lord, commit all type of crimes, wars, and injustices and they are sincere about it.

Hi E,

I would disagree with you on this point, I think. I want to make sure though, so let me clarify.

I would agree that relative to humanity, these words are open to interpretation. However, I would disagree that, "evil" for example, is something that is open to interpretation by God, in that God might have some sort of fluctuating view of what is "evil".

I would certainly agree with you that many atrocities have been committed in the name of God, through a number of diverse faith groups. The death toll for those killed in the name of Christianity is somewhere between 250,000 and 1 million. Most Christians today, would say that such matters ,like the Inquisition, were done falsely in the name of Christ.

For the sake of discussion, I will toss out the fact that well over 10 million have been starved, gassed or killed by other means by atheist leadership.

But the ugliness or attractiveness of a worldview shouldn't be the standard we judge it by. I mean, a diagnosis of terminal cancer could be percieved as ugly, but it doesn't invalidate the diagnosis.

You are the one who gives meaning to your actions, though, not God even if you believe in Him. That we are the ones who give meaning to love, justice, and evil does not make these concepts any less valuable to us.

Yes and no. It is true, that we assign meaning to our actions, I won't argue that with you. We all place a value on these actions as well. I have done something very good, good, bad and so forth.

However, without some over arching definition of what good, bad and so forth are, these values are relative to ourselves. Simply because we believe we do good doesn't necessarily mean we actually do good. To say so, places the suicide bomber and the philanthropist in the same camp, in respect that they believe what they have done is really good.

Another issue with atheism that may arise is when people feel that since life is going to end then somehow the time they spend with their families, the feelings of love, etc, become worthless.

That isn't my contention. My contention is that, given atheism, any action is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Given atheism, we are a short lived cosmic accident. We will all be snuffed out and the fact that we enjoy feeling loved, loving others, spending time with our families and so forth only has merit in a sense that is completely relative to self and all our actions die with us for the most part. Regardless, if atheism is true, does it really matter how much relative good or evil I do. I mean it's all going to ruin in the end anyways.

However, if you notice, most of the pleasures we derive from life do not arise from us knowing that it is going to last forever (we actually don't expect them to). As I heard someone say, most of what religious people do are the same things atheists or agnostics do: work, spend time with their families, eat, travel, help others, spend time with friends, go to school, without thinking if their consciousness is never going to die.

Well, I am not trying to paint atheists as some sort of callous folks Elguanteloko. Like Russell, I think they embrace the notion that God doesn't exist and make the best of it anyways. Rather, it is the absolute meaninglessness to such action, given atheism, that is callous.

Given the view, we have no basis to say that a mouse that eats her newborns is any less good of a mother than a single mother that chose not to abort her child and worked 3 jobs to send her child to college is. Perhaps "callous" is the wrong word. Perhaps "meaningless" would be better. It all simply boils down to whatever a person thinks is "good reason" at the time.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

What evidence, aside from falling down all the time, do you have for gravity?

Actually I also find that as good evidence for people drinking to much. But I see your point, the concept of gravity is based upon observing the force of it. However, I would note that our observation does not create the force. Others can observe this force as well.

I suppose we could follow down the Descartian road of the nonexistence of gravity based upon my existence or nonexistence. I mean, I can't prove that "Bukowski" exists or doesn't exist. But I think it is safe to operate under one of two assumptions. Either Bukowski does exist. Or Bukowski does not exist and I am completely deluded (by self definition) for coming up with this pragmatic devil that I can't agree with fully but feel affable towards.

(The point being that "subjective experience" is 1- the only evidence and 2- all the evidence that is needed.)

I dunno Bukowski, unless we chalk up the experiences of other minds as our own subjective experiences, then it doesn't follow.

Regards,

Mudcat

[wenglund]

Hi Mudcat,

Most respondents appear to have answered your second question, and not the first. So, let me answer your first question:

1.Why not atheism?

I can only answer for myself, but there are at least two pragmatic reasons that atheism has little, if any, draw for me.

1) It is about disbelief rather than belief, and I prefer to be positively rather than negatively oriented, and be know for what I standing for and believe rather than for what I standing against and disbelieve.

2) But more important, to me, the risk/reward and cost/benefit ratios are upside-down. If I believe in God and progressively conform my character to become more godly, to my benefit and others, and if it turns out that there is no God and afterlife, then I have only gained by living a more spiritiually rich and edifying life. Whereas, if I am an athiest, and gear my cahracter and life-chioces accordingly, and I am wrong about God's existence, this can have eternal negative consequences. And, on a number of levels, what I may give up in value from believing in God seems far more to me than what I may gain from disbelieving in God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Skywalker]

so, do you help others (for example) because the effect will be eternal or because you want those you help to be in a better situation? let's say hunger due to poverty: do you try to alleviate it because you want people to stop suffering (notice their suffering won't last forever) or because they will always be thankful to you or because the reward you will get will be eternal?

Hi elguanteloko,

I help others as much as I can with the talents that I have because I want to contribute to the world in which I live. I want those I help to be in a better situation, of course. Eternal reward, although a nice thought, provides little motivation for me in the sense that "if you give to others, you will receive a gold mansion in heaven". What really motivates me is believing that the positive contributions I make will be a part of me forever, and will not cease to exist (for me) at the grave.

We are all ultimately selfish, and we do things ultimately for us. I give someone a Christmas gift not only because it makes that person happy (although that is a huge reason) but ultimately because it makes me happy. I therefore try to help others not only because it makes them happy, or in a better state of mind, or in a better situation, but ultimately because it has those effects on me. If those effects are temporary, what is the point? If they are with me forever, that is motivation to continue doing those things that bring me those eternal gifts.

um,

big problem here;

How does one determine when the experience actually happened? It could have been right before brain death, during (not), or right after.

The problem (and it is a big one) is that one cannot rely on the time or duration determinations of a severly distressed (nearly dead) brain.

Time is part of the content of experience and that has alway been associated with brain activity. The brain says or records in memory that "X happened at T and for duration D--but this could be just a mistake the brain makes. Indeed, this has been shown objectively even for sleep--people are wildly wrong about when and how long (for example, wrong about when and how long they dream or sleep).

That the experience generating brain activity happened at a time that does not coincide with the time and duration reports of a malfunctioning brain is no surprise.

So I flatly deny that there are experiences happening to brain dead humans.

Hi Tarski,

I'm not a huge proponent of NDEs or anything, I simply find them interesting. I believe you're mostly correct. I got the information about the NDE while brain dead from an NDE website that stated:

Cardiologist Michael Sabom described a near-death experience that occurred while its experiencer - a woman who was having an unusual surgical procedure for the safe excision and repair of a large basilar artery aneurysm - met all of the accepted criteria for brain death. The unusual medical procedure involved the induction of hypothermic cardiac arrest, in order to insure that the aneurysm at the base of the brain would not rupture during the operation. The patient's body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, her heartbeat and breathing ceased, her brain waves flattened, and the blood was completely drained from her head. Her electroencephalogram was totally flat (indicating no cerebral electrical activity) and auditory evoked potentials (normally elicited by clicks presented through molded earplugs that had been inserted into her ears) ceased (indicating cessation of brainstem functioning). Ordinarily - at regular body temperature - the brain cannot function without its oxygen supply for more than a few minutes. Lowering the body and brain temperature to 60 degrees F. - by chilling the blood in a bypass machine before returning it to the body and brain - however, can reduce cellular metabolism so that the brain can tolerate complete cerebral blood flow for the 45 minutes or so required for the brain operation. The patient later reported that, apparently while under these

[Skywalker]

So you don't believe God is a Man?

No. "Man" is an antiquated term that was often used to indicate the whole of humanity.

[paulpatter]

. . . .If I held the atheist viewpoint...

The time I spend with my family, the love I have for my children, the insatiable drive to better myself -- all of these things are utterly meaningless if I am simply going to cease to exist. Since, with each passing moment, I get closer to death, it seems pointless to try to accomplish anything, even if that which I accomplish will still be here when I am gone. Why? I am not going to care one way or another, because there won't be a me to care. I will, no doubt, wake up one day as a 75 year old man and think "where did the time go?" And, realizing that soon I will cease to exist, will be the saddest day of my life.

I'm not an atheist, but I struggle to understand your point, which is based on the assumption "if you were an atheist." You confess love for your children, yet it seems to me that you fail to recognize that in your "insatiable drive to better [yourself]," you are inevitably preparing to pass on to your children the successes you achieve. Financial success, to which they will be heirs? Yes. But much more, including living an exemplary life and imparting honor to the family name, achievements that will positively affect not only your children but their children as well.

Accomplished men and women leave legacies that operate beyond the grave, in some cases for generations. So, you see, it really isn't only about me.

[Montgomery Price]

I'm seeing these...

Argument from Beauty (Weakest Teleological Argument)

Argument from Personal Experience

Argument from Personal Preference

Argument from Gambling (Pascal's Wager)

Argument from Meaning

and I am unimpressed.

[elguanteloko]

Hi elguanteloko,

I help others as much as I can with the talents that I have because I want to contribute to the world in which I live. I want those I help to be in a better situation, of course. Eternal reward, although a nice thought, provides little motivation for me in the sense that "if you give to others, you will receive a gold mansion in heaven". What really motivates me is believing that the positive contributions I make will be a part of me forever, and will not cease to exist (for me) at the grave.

We are all ultimately selfish, and we do things ultimately for us. I give someone a Christmas gift not only because it makes that person happy (although that is a huge reason) but ultimately because it makes me happy. I therefore try to help others not only because it makes them happy, or in a better state of mind, or in a better situation, but ultimately because it has those effects on me. If those effects are temporary, what is the point? If they are with me forever, that is motivation to continue doing those things that bring me those eternal gifts.

so we help to be happy ourselves. when you are with your family having a good time, do you expect that feeling to last forever or do you expect to do other things (work, eat, study, do research, etc) after it? if you know such feelings are not going to last forever but still you look after them and enjoy them, where in there do you need to expect those experiences to last forever when you do them in order to be happy? We don't look for fulfilling experiences because they are going to last forever; we look for them because we like them.

[Skywalker]

I expect them to be a part of who I am forever. It doesn't really matter how long they last, the important thing is that those experiences ultimately made me a better person in some small way; and if I can't carry who I am with me forever, what's the point of accomplishing or contributing anything?

If I cease to exist when I die, I don't really exist at all.

[elguanteloko]

I expect them to be a part of who I am forever. It doesn't really matter how long they last, the important thing is that those experiences ultimately made me a better person in some small way; and if I can't carry who I am with me forever, what's the point of accomplishing or contributing anything?

what I was trying to explain is that even if you were going to exist forever that still does not explain why you should even try to be a better person at all or help others. that explanation is, as I have said before, that we simply like being good and doing good things in a very special way. what is even more, imagine living knowing you will not last more then 100 years after X day, it seems like you would want to make this life the best possible with all your might.

If I cease to exist when I die, I don't really exist at all.

it seems to me, though, that if you are going to exist forever then single events become less important. they would be one drop in an infinite ocean that never ends as opposed to a limited existence. If you think limited existence is a problem, an infinite one is even worst.

[Skywalker]

.... imagine living knowing you will not last more then 100 years after X day, it seems like you would want to make this life the best possible with all your might.

To what end? I understand what you're saying, but I do not understand how it matters whether I exist for 100 years, or for 10 seconds. Time is really happening all at once, because there really is no such thing as "now" when every time I contemplate "now" it becomes "then." When I am 75 years old, it "now" however relative that idea is, will have never existed.

it seems to me, though, that if you are going to exist forever then single events become less important. they would be one drop in an infinite ocean that never ends as opposed to a limited existence. If you think limited existence is a problem, an infinite one is even worst.

Again, I understand where you're coming from. But imagine having an infinite amount of time to constantly better yourself, learn new things, help others in their quests to better themselves.

[mfbukowski]

So I flatly deny that there are experiences happening to brain dead humans.

And I assert they are happening. So there. Neither of us can prove who is right til I meet you on the other side and say "I told you so".

I am sure you will then be happy to confirm I was right.

[Skywalker]

I'm not an atheist, but I struggle to understand your point, which is based on the assumption "if you were an atheist." You confess love for your children, yet it seems to me that you fail to recognize that in your "insatiable drive to better [yourself]," you are inevitably preparing to pass on to your children the successes you achieve. Financial success, to which they will be heirs? Yes. But much more, including living an exemplary life and imparting honor to the family name, achievements that will positively affect not only your children but their children as well.

Accomplished men and women leave legacies that operate beyond the grave, in some cases for generations. So, you see, it really isn't only about me.

My position is not that it is only about ourselves, but it is ultimately about ourselves. I prepare to pass on to my children the success I achieve for them, yes, but ultimately for my own satisfaction of knowing that they will be heirs to whatever that success is.

But it isn't like I can see their inheritance if I cease to exist, so why should I care about having any success at all?

What do I care if the family name is associated with honor, or with my exemplary life? There won't be a me to care.

I'll be dead, and everything I've ever done will die with me, from my perspective.

[mfbukowski]

Actually I also find that as good evidence for people drinking to much. But I see your point, the concept of gravity is based upon observing the force of it. However, I would note that our observation does not create the force. Others can observe this force as well.

I suppose we could follow down the Descartian road of the nonexistence of gravity based upon my existence or nonexistence. I mean, I can't prove that "Bukowski" exists or doesn't exist. But I think it is safe to operate under one of two assumptions. Either Bukowski does exist. Or Bukowski does not exist and I am completely deluded (by self definition) for coming up with this pragmatic devil that I can't agree with fully but feel affable towards.

I dunno Bukowski, unless we chalk up the experiences of other minds as our own subjective experiences, then it doesn't follow.

Regards,

Mudcat

So since you are the only one who knows that you love your wife, then it is not "true" that you love your wife?

Or what about eating when you are not hungry? Who besides you knows if you are doing that? So is true or false that you are hungry or not?

Or what about every other important decision you make in life- who to marry, to start a business or not, whether to have another child,- any decision whatsoever that you make- are those illusory?

Clearly not. You really can decide to drop off the laundry after work instead of before as you had originally planned. Do you really worry about whether or not others exist? Obviously not.

You make judgments and decisions which affect your life every day, every minute without worrying about if others exist- you go on your private experiences and thoughts- THAT is where you "live your life"- in your head, not "out there".

What is "in your head" is just as "real" as anything "out there", and you ignore what is out there over what is in your head all the time.

Did you ever do something your wife didn't want you to do? Did you ever do what you thought was best over what you had been advised to do?

Why? Because you valued what was "in your head" more than what was "out there". So how is belief in God any different? Why should you believe what is "out there" more than what is "in your head" in that instance?

Belief in God is a judgment call and a decision, it is not about what is "out there" observable by others.

[Skywalker]

I'm seeing these...

Argument from Beauty (Weakest Teleological Argument)

Argument from Personal Experience

Argument from Personal Preference

Argument from Gambling (Pascal's Wager)

Argument from Meaning

and I am unimpressed.

I am sorry that you are unimpressed. The argument from beauty and from complexity are considered weak arguments, but they are nonetheless valid arguments.

The argument from personal experience is valid to the one experiencing the event. It is not an objective argument, but neither is the argument about the existence of gravity, or that I have a headache right now. You cannot objectively prove either, yet they remain true.

The arguments from personal preference and from meaning probably don't add value to this discussion, which might be why you are unimpressed.

But, of course, you cannot objectively prove that you are unimpressed, so that is an argument from personal experience right there.

[paulpatter]

My position is not that it is only about ourselves, but it is ultimately about ourselves.

No one can pass through this life and not impact the lives of others; it isn't possible to do that. John Donne got it right when he said "No man is an island." Hence, when you say "it is ultimately about ourselves," you are correct in a strictly personal sense, but not in a social/familial sense.

: I prepare to pass on to my children the success I achieve for them, yes, but ultimately for my own satisfaction of knowing that they will be heirs to whatever that success is. But it isn't like I can see their inheritance if I cease to exist, so why should I care about having any success at all?

Let's reverse the scenario. Assume you achieve no success; in fact, assume you lead a totally non-productive life, including dying with a criminal record and deeply in debt. Knowing that you will die in that condition--even though you won't be around to see it--would be deeply disturbing, right? Consquently, it follows that you should, indeed, care about "having any success at all." The fact that you won't see your heirs benefit from it, doesn't change the fact that it will exist as a force for good in their lives, and you will be remembered as their benefactor.

: What do I care if the family name is associated with honor, or with my exemplary life? There won't be a me to care.

You said you love your children, and the truth is there is a me to prepare to pass on that love to them now, while you are in a position to do so. Again, the fact that you won't see your good works in action doesn't change the fact that they will exist--and will make a difference in the lives of those for whom you care deeply. Surely that knowledge should be a source of satisfaction to you.

: I'll be dead, and everything I've ever done will die with me, from my perspective.

Hmmm. . . . When you die, will your service/legacy/influence/example as a husband and father--not to mention your estate--die with you? I don't think so.

[Jason]

what I was trying to explain is that even if you were going to exist forever that still does not explain why you should even try to be a better person at all or help others.

That is in fact why we are here - to learn why we should try to be a better person and help otheres.

it seems to me, though, that if you are going to exist forever then single events become less important. they would be one drop in an infinite ocean that never ends as opposed to a limited existence. If you think limited existence is a problem, an infinite one is even worst.

Which is more important, a marriage that lasts 50 years or a marriage that lasts for the rest of eternity? Both are single events.