Atheism And "Lack Of Hope"

[wolfcall]

couple things that are bothering me here. i heard mention of bloody atheists regimes... that has always bothered me that people will shove that up but forget there are very few religions on this planet that do not have blood on their hands. to say atheism leads a life unfulfilled makes me wonder if one who lives one life in hopes of reaching their deity as limited to those that experience many lives. the moral compass idea gets to me to say that atheists have limited morals is like mentioning a perfect human. i have seen no man of his faith live up to all his standards the difference i see is that a deity is required to own up to good or evil whereas with the atheist he has to recognize his own actions and consequences and weigh them accordingly. to say that moral code fails with atheism is just like watching religions twist words. the mormon church came to be because many churches got that the deity existed but not how to handle the fine details. by that definition alone you have done evil or opposed the idea of another against their moral compass and view of a deity. the problem is the bias is created in that the mass has a tendency to fall on whats popular and use it as an excuse instead of actually educating themselves. atheists have also done great things in history and they didnt require a deity looking over their shoulder and telling them right from wrong because they chose how they wanted their world to be as an individual. as for the question about deaths of children instead of offering comfort and trying to bring them closer to god sometimes its better to raise your hand and use them as an example to help prevent the problem from coming up again. that means the atheist instead of crying about the dead recognizes the death understands it is both a part of life and disheartening in that they never got to choose how to fulfill their life and pass of natural causes could also follow up on the idea and instead of offering silent prayer offering loud changes to prevent further life loss. a single death is a tragedy but to recognize that a million deaths is a statistic is to also recognize there is a problem and instead of understanding it as the will of god and god will fix it might feel the need to help institute the change that is required to lessen that number. but the idea they cannot strive for the same goals without a deity is in my opinion biased based on the idea that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

[pogi]

couple things that are bothering me here. i heard mention of bloody atheists regimes... that has always bothered me that people will shove that up but forget there are very few religions on this planet that do not have blood on their hands. to say atheism leads a life unfulfilled makes me wonder if one who lives one life in hopes of reaching their deity as limited to those that experience many lives. the moral compass idea gets to me to say that atheists have limited morals is like mentioning a perfect human. i have seen no man of his faith live up to all his standards the difference i see is that a deity is required to own up to good or evil whereas with the atheist he has to recognize his own actions and consequences and weigh them accordingly. to say that moral code fails with atheism is just like watching religions twist words. the mormon church came to be because many churches got that the deity existed but not how to handle the fine details. by that definition alone you have done evil or opposed the idea of another against their moral compass and view of a deity. the problem is the bias is created in that the mass has a tendency to fall on whats popular and use it as an excuse instead of actually educating themselves. atheists have also done great things in history and they didnt require a deity looking over their shoulder and telling them right from wrong because they chose how they wanted their world to be as an individual. as for the question about deaths of children instead of offering comfort and trying to bring them closer to god sometimes its better to raise your hand and use them as an example to help prevent the problem from coming up again. that means the atheist instead of crying about the dead recognizes the death understands it is both a part of life and disheartening in that they never got to choose how to fulfill their life and pass of natural causes could also follow up on the idea and instead of offering silent prayer offering loud changes to prevent further life loss. a single death is a tragedy but to recognize that a million deaths is a statistic is to also recognize there is a problem and instead of understanding it as the will of god and god will fix it might feel the need to help institute the change that is required to lessen that number. but the idea they cannot strive for the same goals without a deity is in my opinion biased based on the idea that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Yes, religion and atheism both have their bad apples and good ones. I think perhaps we should leave it at that.

The only thing that I will say is this. You are right that atheists have also done great things in history, but this does not disprove the influence of God in such acts.

Edited January 12, 2013 by pogi

[wolfcall]

also another hitting point that stuck in my craw. hitler and ghandi were not athiest. to compare 2 religious men as an example of atheism is a poor example. i would have gone delving for a few better ideals.

as for proving or disproving god that is subjective based on the idea that one side recognizes that god may influence while the other side recognizes that they are reactive to their enviroment instead of a higher power.

another thought is that the atheist questions why god does not feed the starving while the theist will wonder why the atheist is not out there helping to feed them. both valid questions and leave you to wonder if its really about the deity or just merely about the ideas that need to be represented. to really throw into the mix you then may question which deity influenced the idea and how so. for to only give in to the concept of only this one god is to leave out the opinions of others thereby allowing for a limited scope and again a bias. and to say god is the only influence eliminates the idea of free will. thereby leaving a lot of questions.

[wolfcall]

the reason i put the part about which deity is that most religions are competing for their soul so to be the only one who states can stake a claim is not giving the devil his due so to say.

[canard78]

As one atheist posted, "Even if there is life after death, that doen't mean there is a God." What exactly would he see in the spirit prison that would change his mind?

I love C.S. Lewis' take on this in the last few chapters of The Last Battle.

The reaction of the dwarves suggests Lewis considered this problem too.

[Tacenda]

couple things that are bothering me here. i heard mention of bloody atheists regimes... that has always bothered me that people will shove that up but forget there are very few religions on this planet that do not have blood on their hands. to say atheism leads a life unfulfilled makes me wonder if one who lives one life in hopes of reaching their deity as limited to those that experience many lives. the moral compass idea gets to me to say that atheists have limited morals is like mentioning a perfect human. i have seen no man of his faith live up to all his standards the difference i see is that a deity is required to own up to good or evil whereas with the atheist he has to recognize his own actions and consequences and weigh them accordingly. to say that moral code fails with atheism is just like watching religions twist words. the mormon church came to be because many churches got that the deity existed but not how to handle the fine details. by that definition alone you have done evil or opposed the idea of another against their moral compass and view of a deity. the problem is the bias is created in that the mass has a tendency to fall on whats popular and use it as an excuse instead of actually educating themselves. atheists have also done great things in history and they didnt require a deity looking over their shoulder and telling them right from wrong because they chose how they wanted their world to be as an individual. as for the question about deaths of children instead of offering comfort and trying to bring them closer to god sometimes its better to raise your hand and use them as an example to help prevent the problem from coming up again. that means the atheist instead of crying about the dead recognizes the death understands it is both a part of life and disheartening in that they never got to choose how to fulfill their life and pass of natural causes could also follow up on the idea and instead of offering silent prayer offering loud changes to prevent further life loss. a single death is a tragedy but to recognize that a million deaths is a statistic is to also recognize there is a problem and instead of understanding it as the will of god and god will fix it might feel the need to help institute the change that is required to lessen that number. but the idea they cannot strive for the same goals without a deity is in my opinion biased based on the idea that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Thank you for this! My sister, I feel may be an Atheist and she is almost too good. I pale in comparison. Her moral compass is working very well. I don't like it when people say if there isn't a God than why be good if there isn't a consequence to their action. They need to check their God given compass and fix it. And I believe those that think this life is it might take fuller advantage of it and not wait to work on a relationship or see that lives need to be saved now and not think they'll be better in heaven, if that makes sense. (I'm thinking of the starving that's going on in other countries). Edited January 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[yootaw]

That's true, not necessarily a slacker, or someone who takes a lot of time to find the answer to the question on whether or not god exists. Sometimes it's just a mattre of not understanding the question or what it would take to find the answer, rather than how much time it actually takes.

What do you claim to know regarding whether or not there is a god/God (referring to the most supreme being in all existence) ?

Using logic, you can know there is one at this very instance, right now. Can you now acknowledge that there must be?

Truth is relative to reality, otherwise what you think is true really isn't. There is a God. That's truth, and not just my personal belief. Even if I didn't believe there was a God it would have no affect at all on reality. God exists whether or not I believe in him/them.

As I suggested earlier, just start with the idea that God is the most supreme being in all of existence, meaning that whatever being is the most supreme is the one you can properly refer to as god/God. That's just plain logic with a basic understanding of what the word god/God means. You don't have to go on groping in the dark about this issue. You should instantly be able to see that god/God does really exist, even though you may not know which being is the most supreme from all others.

See above. All it requires is a little thought and contemplation.

You seem to be saying that the existence of God is self-evident, and that all you need to do is think about it a bit and it will be clear to you. Is that a fair summary of your position here?

[cdowis]

The Atheist would argue that it is up to the Diest to prove that 'God' exists in the same way that he would ask someone to prove that 'The Loch Ness Monster' exists.

Delighted to take that on.

But first we need to understand what you mean by "proof". We need to understand, for example, what you would accept as "proof". Looking, for example, at entangled proton pairs, what would you accept as proof of the characteristics of those entangled pairs.

To save bandwidth, I am not talking about the "world" accepting proof, but let's get personal. What would YOU accept as proof, you personally. Would you prefer to conduct the experiments personally, or to take eye witness evidence.

Edited January 12, 2013 by cdowis

[pogi]

and to say god is the only influence eliminates the idea of free will. thereby leaving a lot of questions.

He is not the only influence. There is both a good and bad influence. Whereby we have a choice, which makes moral agency and free will possible.

as for proving or disproving god that is subjective based on the idea that one side recognizes that god may influence while the other side recognizes that they are reactive to their enviroment instead of a higher power.

I don't see it as one or the other. I agree that man is reactive to his environment, but I also recognize divine inspiration. Chauncey C. Riddle said it well:

We live in a universe of order. Law governs and controls all things, both physical and spiritual. This is another way of saying that there is a regularity of causes and effects apparent everywhere. One application of this principle is that all things act (effects) in relation to their environment (causes). Some things are acted upon; they simply react in a regular way to what is happening in the environment. Water solidifies when the surroundings are cold, boils away when they are hot, and flows freely when the surroundings are at a medium temperature.

Some people suppose that man is like water, only responding to his natural environment. They observe that men buy what is advertised, shun that which is disgraced, cleave unto that which is pleasurable. These people predict successfully what most men will do by assessing their physical environment. They can do this because the natural man is not free. He is acted upon like water. Since most men are natural, the accuracy of such predictions runs high.

But, thanks to God, no natural man need remain natural. Though he must respond to his environment under the law of cause and effect, all men who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ preached with the power of the Holy Ghost have a choice of environments. Having heard, they then can choose between reacting to their physical environment, as does the natural man, or they can react to the spiritual environment of which the gospel makes them aware. As long as the Holy Spirit labors with them, they can choose to respond to either one. This is the agency, the freedom of man: to choose to be natural, governed by the physical environment and their own flesh, or to be spiritual, governed by their own spirit as it yields to the Holy Spirit.

“Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

“And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

“And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.” (2 Ne. 2:27–29.)

http://www.lds.org/e...prayer?lang=eng

Edited January 12, 2013 by pogi

[wolfcall]

the atheist wants more individualism though so recognizes enviromental influences whereas the theist wants to generally be part of a greater whole with the divinity and so gives only and reacts only according to the divinity to do otherwise would oppose his ideals. acting for the sake of the divine instead of the sake of self where as they feel that its empty in that the atheist does not require the divine to be fulfilled and so is assumed to always be unfulfilled. whereas the atheist sees the view that there is no solid evidence except the fact of a handful of books that are assumed by the divine but even admit man is flawed so therefore may also have flaws as they are translated from divine to understanding of men. i see imposing will which questions whether divinity truly accepts individuality. the atheist would rather be himself without being told how to be himself.

[thesometimesaint]

also another hitting point that stuck in my craw. hitler and ghandi were not athiest. to compare 2 religious men as an example of atheism is a poor example. i would have gone delving for a few better ideals.

as for proving or disproving god that is subjective based on the idea that one side recognizes that god may influence while the other side recognizes that they are reactive to their enviroment instead of a higher power.

another thought is that the atheist questions why god does not feed the starving while the theist will wonder why the atheist is not out there helping to feed them. both valid questions and leave you to wonder if its really about the deity or just merely about the ideas that need to be represented. to really throw into the mix you then may question which deity influenced the idea and how so. for to only give in to the concept of only this one god is to leave out the opinions of others thereby allowing for a limited scope and again a bias. and to say god is the only influence eliminates the idea of free will. thereby leaving a lot of questions.

Hitlers' only God was Hitler. However he wasn't the only murderous Atheistic tyrant of the mid 20th Century. I've never claimed that Theists are any better than Atheist, but they certainly are no worse.

[thesometimesaint]

the atheist wants more individualism though so recognizes enviromental influences whereas the theist wants to generally be part of a greater whole with the divinity and so gives only and reacts only according to the divinity to do otherwise would oppose his ideals. acting for the sake of the divine instead of the sake of self where as they feel that its empty in that the atheist does not require the divine to be fulfilled and so is assumed to always be unfulfilled. whereas the atheist sees the view that there is no solid evidence except the fact of a handful of books that are assumed by the divine but even admit man is flawed so therefore may also have flaws as they are translated from divine to understanding of men. i see imposing will which questions whether divinity truly accepts individuality. the atheist would rather be himself without being told how to be himself.

Humans don't work that way. From our very first breath we're constantly being told how to be.

[pogi]

the atheist wants more individualism though so recognizes enviromental influences whereas the theist wants to generally be part of a greater whole with the divinity and so gives only and reacts only according to the divinity to do otherwise would oppose his ideals. acting for the sake of the divine instead of the sake of self where as they feel that its empty in that the atheist does not require the divine to be fulfilled and so is assumed to always be unfulfilled. whereas the atheist sees the view that there is no solid evidence except the fact of a handful of books that are assumed by the divine but even admit man is flawed so therefore may also have flaws as they are translated from divine to understanding of men. i see imposing will which questions whether divinity truly accepts individuality. the atheist would rather be himself without being told how to be himself.

You want individualism and agency? Do you want individualism and agency driven by an independently intelligent being capable of acting independently, or, do you want individualism and agency driven by a complex network of lifeless and inanimate chemicals reacting with their environment?

You want morality? Do you want morality from a real and loving being who knows and wants us to be happy, or, do you want morality driven again by lifeless, valueless chemicals and electric current which themselves have no values and morals?

You obviously don't really have a choice between the two options. But you can choose which to believe.

Edited January 12, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

You want individualism and agency? Do you want individualism and agency driven by an independently intelligent being capable of acting independently, or, do you want individualism and agency driven by a complex network of lifeless and inanimate chemicals reacting with their environment?

You want morality? Do you want morality from a real and loving being who knows and wants us to be happy, or, do you want morality driven again by lifeless, valueless chemicals and electric current which themselves have no values and morals?

You obviously don't really have a choice between the two options. But you can choose which to believe.

All life as we know it is electro-chemical reactions. We have faith that the total is greater than the sum of its parts.

[yootaw]

Hitlers' only God was Hitler. However he wasn't the only murderous Atheistic tyrant of the mid 20th Century. I've never claimed that Theists are any better than Atheist, but they certainly are no worse.

Was Hitler an athiest? I don't think that this is accurate, but I'd be interested in any sources indicating that he was.

[pogi]

All life as we know it is electro-chemical reactions. We have faith that the total is greater than the sum of its parts.

That is certainly part of life as we know it, but I lived before I ever experienced a physiologic electro-chemical response. My individuality and agency exists independent of this electro-chemical experience. I am simply pointing out that the later without the former gives us no more individuality and agency than a bunch of random chemicals reacting in a petri dish.

[canard78]

the atheist wants more individualism though so recognizes enviromental influences whereas the theist wants to generally be part of a greater whole with the divinity and so gives only and reacts only according to the divinity to do otherwise would oppose his ideals. acting for the sake of the divine instead of the sake of self where as they feel that its empty in that the atheist does not require the divine to be fulfilled and so is assumed to always be unfulfilled. whereas the atheist sees the view that there is no solid evidence except the fact of a handful of books that are assumed by the divine but even admit man is flawed so therefore may also have flaws as they are translated from divine to understanding of men. i see imposing will which questions whether divinity truly accepts individuality. the atheist would rather be himself without being told how to be himself.

What do you mean? A lot of the Chinese are atheists (of sorts) but very collectivist. The sense of community and filial piety means they are absolutely not individualists.

[mfbukowski]

couple things that are bothering me here. i heard mention of bloody atheists regimes... that has always bothered me that people will shove that up but forget there are very few religions on this planet that do not have blood on their hands. to say atheism leads a life unfulfilled makes me wonder if one who lives one life in hopes of reaching their deity as limited to those that experience many lives. the moral compass idea gets to me to say that atheists have limited morals is like mentioning a perfect human. i have seen no man of his faith live up to all his standards the difference i see is that a deity is required to own up to good or evil whereas with the atheist he has to recognize his own actions and consequences and weigh them accordingly. to say that moral code fails with atheism is just like watching religions twist words. the mormon church came to be because many churches got that the deity existed but not how to handle the fine details. by that definition alone you have done evil or opposed the idea of another against their moral compass and view of a deity. the problem is the bias is created in that the mass has a tendency to fall on whats popular and use it as an excuse instead of actually educating themselves. atheists have also done great things in history and they didnt require a deity looking over their shoulder and telling them right from wrong because they chose how they wanted their world to be as an individual. as for the question about deaths of children instead of offering comfort and trying to bring them closer to god sometimes its better to raise your hand and use them as an example to help prevent the problem from coming up again. that means the atheist instead of crying about the dead recognizes the death understands it is both a part of life and disheartening in that they never got to choose how to fulfill their life and pass of natural causes could also follow up on the idea and instead of offering silent prayer offering loud changes to prevent further life loss. a single death is a tragedy but to recognize that a million deaths is a statistic is to also recognize there is a problem and instead of understanding it as the will of god and god will fix it might feel the need to help institute the change that is required to lessen that number. but the idea they cannot strive for the same goals without a deity is in my opinion biased based on the idea that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

I think if you didn't use periods at all this would be easier to read.

[mfbukowski]

You want morality? Do you want morality from a real and loving being who knows and wants us to be happy, or, do you want morality driven again by lifeless, valueless chemicals and electric current which themselves have no values and morals?

Not sure this is such a good argument against atheism. Some atheists believe indeed that morality evolved out of "lifeless valueless chemicals and electric current which themselves have no values and morals"

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Morality-Life-Mind-Philosophical/dp/0262600722

I don't think there IS a good argument one can make in favor of God, unfortunately- it is all up to testimony. If there were good arguments, there would be no atheists.

That's why my comments are pretty sparse on this thread.

[pogi]

Not sure this is such a good argument against atheism. Some atheists believe indeed that morality evolved out of "lifeless valueless chemicals and electric current which themselves have no values and morals"

http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0262600722

I don't think there IS a good argument one can make in favor of God, unfortunately- it is all up to testimony. If there were good arguments, there would be no atheists.

That's why my comments are pretty sparse on this thread.

I have also claimed throughout this thread that there is not a good argument for or against God, and that it is silly to argue about it. I am also not arguing against atheism. I am simply pointing out the different perspectives of morality, individuality, hope, and agency in the two models. I find comfort in knowing that these things are not evolutionary illusions used to promote homeostasis for some mysterious and unknown reason (or lack of reason).

Edited January 13, 2013 by pogi

[Calm]

the atheist wants more individualism though so recognizes enviromental influences whereas the theist wants to generally be part of a greater whole with the divinity and so gives only and reacts only according to the divinity to do otherwise would oppose his ideals.

Are you stating that the atheist is about "my will be done" and the theist is about "Thy Will be done"?

[Calm]

I think if you didn't use periods at all this would be easier to read.

He needs space between paragraphs and capitals as well as better punctuation for ease of reading. Edited January 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[wolfcall]

as to hitler read some of his works and youll find he was not atheist i would have gone with a different leader as a choice who was atheist. as to the atheist concept would you put it any other way as the atheist in no way recognizes a divine at all. atheist follows more along the line of what is and how to interact with that instead of what could be he affects the now and the future of others nows instead of his future after the ultimate demise.

[thesometimesaint]

Was Hitler an athiest? I don't think that this is accurate, but I'd be interested in any sources indicating that he was.

Hitler was raised Catholic. But he hardly acted like one.

Show me what you do and I'll know what you believe.

[mfbukowski]

He needs space between paragraphs and capitals as well as better punctuation for ease of reading.

True, but it's fine with me if he keeps it as it is.