Atheist satisfaction

[Polak]

I have realised recently that a lot of atheists are satisfied with being atheists and some of them are actually very aggresive to Christianity or genereally people with faith. When you ask some atheists about God they get angry and say they do not believe in that nonsense while some of them even like to taunt those who believe. Many of them also start to say things like ‘If there was a God then he is not a very nice/good/loving one if he lets this and that go on.’ It leads me think that some of these atheists are perhaps athesists because of something that happened to them in life. Perhaps they are angry at God and their way of of expressing their anger is to say they do not believe. I have had similar instances in my life. I was never an atheist but I have bordered on agnosticism before and let God know that no action from him means perhaps he is not there and if he is then he does not care or is not not exactly doing much to strengthen my belief.

The other issue I have is the issue I menitioned in the first sentence, their satisfaction. Despite trying to work it out in numerous ways I cannot understand why a person would be happy there is no God, particularly those who have tough lives with little money and see others who ‘live it up.’ I understand why a rich person would feel they do not need God as they have, or think they have, everything they could want, but you even get it from some poorer people. Does it satisfy them that this life, as unfair as it might be, is as fair as we can ever expect it to be? Surely they should be doing whatever they can to get rich and live it up, even if it means breaking the law, right? Why should they struggle through life and watch as some enjoy it with big houses, nice cars and constant holidays, knowing that a lot of them probably enjoy it due to money they have either gotten illegally or received undeservedly. Despite this many say they do not believe in God and are happy with their beliefs. It might be religion they do not like and belief in God would mean following rules or feeling somewhat guilty when you do something you know is wrong. With noone watching over you from above it does not feel as bad.

 

[ColumnadeFuego]

Something I have never understood is the motivation to be moral towards other humans and live a good life if one does not believe in eternal or the afterlife. I’ve heard someone say so that it is to make life as good as it can be here - but that seems such a shallow answer to me. Why not just forego life here if there is not something better? That’s my reasoning anyway. I would be interested to know how others true non-believers feel.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, I can understand an atheist who believes in a moral code without believing in God.

But even the “atheist” psychanalyst Erich Fromm insisted that we all need an object of devotion.

What is the atheist’s object of devotion? Perhaps he or she has one. But it can’t be an exciting one with festivals and communal celebrations (perhaps April Fool’s Day as only the fool says there is no God).

If I were an atheist, I would be open to the thoughts and belief systems of others, listening and learning from them all, rather than attacking them.

The fact is that the world’s cultures have been shaped by religious weltanschauung of one sort or another. Atheism has the benefit of living off the moral and cultural spawns of religion. But what can they produce that could replace or match these?

And what about the way people tend to believe “just because.” We don’t come to faith after exhausting all philosophical or scientific arguments. Our faith is in us because, ultimately, God put it into us to believe. This last argument is what convinces me about the truth and necessity of faith in human life.

Alex

 

[GloriousOrder]

As an atheist, I was quite satisfied that I knew everything there is to be known. The moment I bumped into C.S. Lewis, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various 17th century logicians, however, my self-assurance fell away. It seems that the satisfaction of these poor people is based entirely on their own ignorance of basic philosophical concepts. They say “I love science!”, “I am rational!”, and “I am logical”, but have no interest in reading the most basic metaphysics and analytic systems of Aristotle, for instance. If they ever do read the ideas of a great Greek philosopher, it is some personal summary of an interpretation of a translation of a distant work by Plato.

Modern atheists are profoundly platonic in a negative, dualistic way. They say that we cannot know any truth outside purely material reality. Basically-speaking, contemporary atheism is based entirely on a nihilistic view that tends to deny the very existence of metaphysics. “All we see is all there is” remains their motto, and it is very childish, denying the possibility of knowing anything outside “science”, as vague as that is. As they tend to rant about X Evil Religion or Y War Started By Religion, it is hard to get a reasonable word in. You may attempt to help them by presenting an encyclical such as Fides et Ratio, which sets out true logical thought, but they suddenly lose interest in the subject and start talking about video games - as congenial as if nothing had ever happened. For papal encyclicals and Catholic documents on Faith and Reason, they often say they just don’t care to read long essays by people who support paedophilia (yes, I’ve heard this excuse).

A lack of interest in true inquiry is at the heart of atheist satisfaction. They don’t “know themselves”, as Delphi says and as Bl. Pope John Paul II reiterates in that encyclical; the poor creatures don’t even seem to want to know themselves. This tragedy is exactly why the divine liturgy of Good Friday asks God’s help in converting the atheists specifically.

 

[ColumnadeFuego]

o.

Modern atheists are profoundly platonic in a negative, dualistic way. They say that we cannot know any truth outside purely material reality.

I would say that would make them generally anti-Platnoic since Plato’s forms were by no means material.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I would say that would make them generally anti-Platnoic since Plato’s forms were by no means material.

Sorry to be unclear…

I meant that they postulate many ulterior universes, for example (Richard Dawkins), but then say there is absolutely nothing we can know about those alternate realities. I really should have said that they’re neo-platonic in a negative, Kantian way. The things of the spirit and of moral truth are considered real by many atheists I’ve met, but they deny that we can know anything about them. Whereas true Catholic philosophy sees an open window blurred by fog and smoke (but still transparent), the modern Kant-like atheist philosophy sees a heavy blackout curtain drawn over the window into reality - except that which is material.

Forms are not really posited by our atheist peers today, but something “else”, hehe.

 

[ColumnadeFuego]

Oh, I see what you’re saying now. Sorry for being picky.

I recently read a Physics book called Warped Passages discussing the various possible dimensions about which we know little to nothing or even if they exist. I myself think it is possible though I am not a physicist. Point being, I thought it was odd that such research into the currently unproved, hypothesized dimensions was taking place. Seems almost as if this type of thing could apply since science is generally, at least in my knowing, seen as the bulwark of empirical evidence and the material proofs.

 

[hunter123]

Something I have never understood is the motivation to be moral towards other humans and live a good life if one does not believe in eternal or the afterlife. I’ve heard someone say so that it is to make life as good as it can be here - but that seems such a shallow answer to me. Why not just forego life here if there is not something better? That’s my reasoning anyway. I would be interested to know how others true non-believers feel.

So the only reason for being good to people and doing the right thing is fear of God? I have heard that is the lowest level of spirituality. Thats sounds similar to a child who is good because he wants his gift from Santa. The Golden Rule improves life and society for everyone and regardless of your faith anyone can live by it.

 

[GloriousOrder]

So the only reason for being good to people and doing the right thing is fear of God? I have heard that is the lowest level of spirituality. Thats sounds similar to a child who is good because he wants his gift from Santa. The Golden Rule improves life and society for everyone and regardless of your faith anyone can live by it.

Ah, but why do you follow the Golden Rule? Why is it a legitimate Rule? Who handed it to us? Who made it apply to the whole human species? It is absolutely true that this rule pervades every culture, but why does it? Simply because a certain thing is common does not necessarily make it true, as we all know so well. Arguing for an observance of the Golden Rule on purely utilitarian terms is pointless, because we follow that Rule for a reason other than “improvement of life and society”; we follow it because it’s right.

God made the Golden Rule in our hearts, and it is the law written upon each soul. We follow it almost by inclination, though we can ignore it until someone reminds us of it. There is absolutely nothing secular about this beautiful moral law, but everything about it speaks of the Lord!

 

[ColumnadeFuego]

So the only reason for being good to people and doing the right thing is fear of God? I have heard that is the lowest level of spirituality. Thats sounds similar to a child who is good because he wants his gift from Santa. The Golden Rule improves life and society for everyone and regardless of your faith anyone can live by it.

That’s not what I was trying to say, though it came across as such. I’m speaking from the point in that statement of someone who doesn’t believe in God therefore has no fear of God at all. Why be moral then? I’m thinking more along the lines of the Ring of Gyges here.

Also, what really is morality anyway? How does one who doesn’t believe in God define morality? I’m not saying it can’t be done, just inviting conversation as to how it is done and how this could be done outside of any religious/cultural influence.

 

[freethinker83]

Surely they should be doing whatever they can to get rich and live it up, even if it means breaking the law, right? Why should they struggle through life and watch as some enjoy it with big houses, nice cars and constant holidays, knowing that a lot of them probably enjoy it due to money they have either gotten illegally or received undeservedly. Despite this many say they do not believe in God and are happy with their beliefs. It might be religion they do not like and belief in God would mean following rules or feeling somewhat guilty when you do something you know is wrong. With noone watching over you from above it does not feel as bad.

Being an atheist doesn’t mean someone has no morals. I try to live my life in a way where I try not to cause harm to others. Think of it as the “treat others the way you would like to be treated” type of philosophy. I don’t break laws that would involve harming someone, whether it be physically, mentally, or financially. I also don’t do this because it is illegal, I do it because it is the right thing to do. For example, I wouldn’t want someone to steal my lawnmower so I wouldn’t do it to anyone else. I do break laws that seem to have no moral weight. For example, I speed, have occasionally used marijuana, etc.

Also, just because I do not believe in God doesn’t mean I feel no guilt when I do something wrong, this is a large misconception on your part. I am of course human and err sometimes. When I wrong someone I do feel guilty about it and try to make it right with that person.

Saying that religion is the only way to a moral life is like saying using a grill is the only way to cook a steak.

 

[freethinker83]

Something I have never understood is the motivation to be moral towards other humans and live a good life if one does not believe in eternal or the afterlife. I’ve heard someone say so that it is to make life as good as it can be here - but that seems such a shallow answer to me. .

My motivation is to enjoy the time I have with friends and family. Why do I need belief in an afterlife to want to live well? I believe in what i see as reality and want to improve it.

Why not just forego life here if there is not something better? That’s my reasoning anyway. I would be interested to know how others true non-believers feel.

I do not think it is likely I will experience anything when I die. Why wouldn’t I want to experience everything I can while I live? In my mind the end of my life essentially means the end of the world for me. I will avoid that day as long as possible!

 

[GloriousOrder]

Being an atheist doesn’t mean someone has no morals. I try to live my life in a way where I try not to cause harm to others. Think of it as the “treat others the way you would like to be treated” type of philosophy. I don’t break laws that would involve harming someone, whether it be physically, mentally, or financially. I also don’t do this because it is illegal, I do it because it is the right thing to do. For example, I wouldn’t want someone to steal my lawnmower so I wouldn’t do it to anyone else. I do break laws that seem to have no moral weight. For example, I speed, have occasionally used marijuana, etc.

Also, just because I do not believe in God doesn’t mean I feel no guilt when I do something wrong, this is a large misconception on your part. I am of course human and err sometimes. When I wrong someone I do feel guilty about it and try to make it right with that person.

Saying that religion is the only way to a moral life is like saying using a grill is the only way to cook a steak.

You broke those laws about marijuana, speeding, etc. because you know it would pleasure you to commit the illegal acts. It has nothing to do with morality on your part, but self-fulfilling pleasure. Merely refusing to steal something because you don’t want someone else to steal from you is hardly “moral”; it’s selfish, inherently, because it’s focused on your wishes in opposition to others’. This is no condemnation of you, personally, but an objective analysis of the pattern of thought.

Where is the ultimate wrong that you compare your wrongs to? What is the ultimate good that you are able to hold to your good deeds? How can you qualify - or even quantify - any good you do when there is no absolute good, only the cold evolution of a random universe? The analogy about the steak is really lame, I’m sorry , because properly cooking a steak is a utilitarian virtue that has nothing to do with the eventual destiny of a sentient being in eternity.

 

[freethinker83]

You broke those laws about marijuana, speeding, etc. because you know it would pleasure you to commit the illegal acts. It has nothing to do with morality on your part, but self-fulfilling pleasure. Merely refusing to steal something because you don’t want someone else to steal from you is hardly “moral”; it’s selfish, inherently, because it’s focused on your wishes in opposition to others’. This is no condemnation of you, personally, but an objective analysis of the pattern of thought.

Well I don’t refrain from stealing only because I don’t want the act committed on me, I misrepresented myself. I don’t steal because I know it is wrong. I do not want to harm another person. Why? I’m not sure, probably because we evolved with a sense of empathy. Most sane people would at least feel some guilt from committing harm on someone else.

Where is the ultimate wrong that you compare your wrongs to? What is the ultimate good that you are able to hold to your good deeds? How can you qualify - or even quantify - any good you do when there is no absolute good, only the cold evolution of a random universe? The analogy about the steak is really lame, I’m sorry , because properly cooking a steak is a utilitarian virtue that has nothing to do with the eventual destiny of a sentient being in eternity.

There is no “ultimate” anything in my life, and I’m okay with that. I simply try to live a positive life by loving and respecting those around me. I guess my “ultimate” good would be to pass that attitude on to my children so that they can continue with it.

 

[ColumnadeFuego]

Well I don’t refrain from stealing only because I don’t want the act committed on me, I misrepresented myself. I don’t steal because I know it is wrong. I do not want to harm another person. Why? I’m not sure, probably because we evolved with a sense of empathy. Most sane people would at least feel some guilt from committing harm on someone else.

How do you know it is wrong? Things like the Stanford Prison Experiment and, though fictional, Lord of the Flies would indicate that in different circumstances morality doesn’t necessarily affect such “good” action. Things like that indicate that when threatened by external forces.

Viktor Frankl also indicates this, sort of (he also contradicts it as well with a few examples). I guess my question is - how do you know/decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong?

There is no “ultimate” anything in my life, and I’m okay with that. I simply try to live a positive life by loving and respecting those around me. I guess my “ultimate” good would be to pass that attitude on to my children so that they can continue with it.

What benefit do you get out of living a positive life or, more importantly, why do you see it as better to live such a life than to not?

Also, p.s. thanks for adressing some of my earlier questions.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Well I don’t refrain from stealing only because I don’t want the act committed on me, I misrepresented myself. I don’t steal because I know it is wrong. I do not want to harm another person. Why? I’m not sure, probably because we evolved with a sense of empathy. Most sane people would at least feel some guilt from committing harm on someone else.

Yes, because sanity consists in a conformity between the perception of your intellect and the outside world. Objective reality, when congruous with the notions of it in your head, is true sanity. We call someone sane because he sees and knows things as they truly are. Since you truly see that it is right and just to feel guilt after harming others, you must also see that there is an objective, clear standard of respecting others. Why does this standard exist? Did we just make it up to clarify the boundaries of society? If so, this is only for the sake of utilitarian order, and not necessarily to follow a higher, ultimate order which obliges and compels us. If the “don’t harm someone else” rule is only made up for societal order, what of someone who comes along and says “societal order be damned”?

You’re giving us something, but you don’t go far enough!

There is no “ultimate” anything in my life, and I’m okay with that. I simply try to live a positive life by loving and respecting those around me. I guess my “ultimate” good would be to pass that attitude on to my children so that they can continue with it.

How can you say there is no “ultimate anything” in life? Being, for example, is one “thing” or “good”, and it exists absolutely; however, there are things whose being/existence is not in themselves, but predicated on other things. If all things were predicated on other things and there was no “ultimate being”, there simply wouldn’t be anything extant at all… because there would always be one step further back into nothingness, without any foundation - the foundation we perceive would just be founded on something else. Now, does this make any sense? Comparing your mind’s idea that: 1. there is no “ultimate reality” to existence with 2. the objective fact that all reality is based on something self-existent, your negation is literally insane.

There is an ultimate heat, you know, by which the heat of candles are compared. We might say that the flickering orange flame is not “as hot” as white heat, but they are both measured by a standard of “hot” or “cold”, regardless. How can we put the ultimate standard-test to everything except existence/humanity/God? This is not consistent. Laws apply to everything everywhere at all times, regardless!

Perhaps if things never ended, or there was no death, we could say it was possible for God not to exist. As things are here, now, it is impossible for God not to exist. The silliness of atheist satisfaction rests squarely in the fact that you don’t recognise how absolutely ridiculous the proposition is from a metaphysical point of view. Self-satisfied atheists just don’t make the effort; generally, this is the reason for self-satisfaction on anyone’s part. I’m certainly not satisfied…

 

[SteveGC]

I don’t steal because I know it is wrong. I do not want to harm another person. Why? I’m not sure, probably because we evolved with a sense of empathy.

Do you have a hypothesis as to where the sense of empathy came from? Does it seem rational to you that empathy evolved out of chaos or randomness? Would it have been equally as likely that apathy was the sense that evolved? If so, how does that not lead you to search openly for a source of this basic moral realm? Why is it that the atheist will openly acknowledge the existence of moral behavior, but stop short of science in their searching for its origin? The most they will concede is that it “evolved”, but why stop there? Science doesn’t even stop there for things that it discovers have evolved. Evolved from what is the typical next question.

As others have stated, most people are obedient toward a basic common morality (regardless of their belief in it’s origin) because it was written on their heart when they were created. Even those disobedient to it are subconsciously aware of it through their guilt of immoral actions.

 

[freethinker83]

How do you know it is wrong? Things like the Stanford Prison Experiment and, though fictional, Lord of the Flies would indicate that in different circumstances morality doesn’t necessarily affect such “good” action. Things like that indicate that when threatened by external forces. .

I don’t know how I know that it is wrong, and I’m okay with that. I would assume it has to do with the fact that we are social animals and evolved that way. Anti-social behavior was probably bred out of our species for the most part. Look at other social animals such as wolves or apes. They also have certain sets of “rules” that they don’t generally violate. I’m sure they don’t know the reason why.

I honestly don’t give to much thought to why I have a sense of right or wrong. I highly doubt that without religion people would suddenly run around killing, raping, and stealing. I’m confident that you wouldn’t. Similarly, if heroin were legalized tomorrow I wouldn’t go out and buy some to try.

What benefit do you get out of living a positive life or, more importantly, why do you see it as better to live such a life than to not?

Also, p.s. thanks for adressing some of my earlier questions.

Honestly this question is almost laughable. What do I get out of it? It helps me to enjoy my relationship with the world around me.

I also apologize as I’m not a great orator and don’t always get my thoughts out clearly.

 

[freethinker83]

Do you have a hypothesis as to where the sense of empathy came from? Does it seem rational to you that empathy evolved out of chaos or randomness? Would it have been equally as likely that apathy was the sense that evolved? If so, how does that not lead you to search openly for a source of this basic moral realm? Why is it that the atheist will openly acknowledge the existence of moral behavior, but stop short of science in their searching for its origin? The most they will concede is that it “evolved”, but why stop there? Science doesn’t even stop there for things that it discovers have evolved. Evolved from what is the typical next question.

As others have stated, most people are obedient toward a basic common morality (regardless of their belief in it’s origin) because it was written on their heart when they were created. Even those disobedient to it are subconsciously aware of it through their guilt of immoral actions.

You seem pretty angry that I don’t believe in God…

No, I don’t offer a hypothesis, and I don’t really care why I am moral to be honest with you. I agree, maybe I shouldn’t claim that it evolved as I am not a scientist. Not all atheists are scientists, and not all Christians are theology experts.

That being said, it is somewhat insulting when others imply that without belief in god one can’t be a moral person.

 

[SteveGC]

Being, for example, is one “thing” or “good”, and it exists absolutely; however, there are things whose being/existence is not in themselves, but predicated on other things. If all things were predicated on other things and there was no “ultimate being”, there simply wouldn’t be anything extant at all… because there would always be one step further back into nothingness, without any foundation - the foundation we perceive would just be founded on something else. Now, does this make any sense?

I like Peter Kreeft’s argument to explain this…

From the First Cause argument for the existence of God:

Specifically, the analogy of the borrowed book, about 7 paragraphs into it.

peace.