Atheists!

[Skavau]

Mirdath and atheists,

Hello again.

What is your motivation to continue this bittersweet journey which is our lives; this emotional rollercoaster?

Life is an end in itself to me. I enjoy existence, I enjoy the ‘journey’ and where it takes me.

Why do you many of you bother waking up 5 days a week to go to work for a boss who probably doesnt care about you and who might be even underpaying you? Why do you bother to love others; what is love and is it even real?

That is a question which demands a massive answer. And I truly mean massive. I would essentially have to explain what I believe underpins all of human morality, human endeavour and human civilisation.

Needless to say - the conclusion is not God, but the conclusion is conviction to survive and the rationality of altruism and co-operation in order to actually survive. All else follows.

Why are you posting here, I mean why bother?! Are you looking for answers or are you just killing time?

A Christian made the thread, not Atheists.

Further, if there is no God, then everything you and this world does or thinks or discovers is in vain and is worthless.

Define ‘vain’ and define ‘worthless’. We need to actually be on the same page.

Do you go about your life because doing so is honourable to you? But then again, what is “honour” if there is no eternal life?

Why is eternal life the only expression of honour?

I also would love to know, why do most atheists get married and have a family? Why follow what is based on Christian values? Why not have endless, meaningless sex?

You really do not understand what you’re talking about.

First of all not all marriages are based on Christian values. Second of all, I would suspect that a lot of Atheists actually do not get married and/or have a family. Moreover I would suspect equally that a lot of Atheists also have a lot of endless, meaningless sex.

And there is no coherency amongst Atheists on ‘what to do’. You are projecting a coherent philosophy on life from Christianity onto Atheists and it is false and unfair. Atheism only means to ‘disbelieve in God’. There is no coherent Atheistic manifesto or Atheistic ‘way of life’. All it is equals a disbelief in an assertion. An Atheist can take his or her ethical ideology from Kantianism, Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, Universalism, Moral Subjectivism or whatever he or she likes.

Atheism is silent on lifestyle and ethics.

 

[Skavau]

MH:

I was talking about the idea of marriage. The permanent union of a woman and man.

How is the ‘permanent union’ of a woman and man an exclusively Christian idea?
MH:

Btw, according to an atheist, whats wrong with infidelity? What if your wife or husband never finds out? For an athiest is it sill “wrong”?

You are still making elementary mistakes by asking for an ‘Atheist consensus’ on issues of morality. There is no inherent moral consistency amongst Atheists any more than there is for those who like to play gold.

I can guess what you are getting at however, and I ask why you do not just go out and ask it: Why are Atheists moral?

Is that your question?

tGette:

So the existence of earth and the universe is not evidence of God?

You’ve cracked it! Exactly.

It is no more ‘evidence’ of God than it is ‘evidence’ of Thor. It is only evidence that it exists.

tGette:

God is not dependent upon creation, creation is dependent upon God.

Except if there is no creation - then we are not dependent on God nor are we a ‘creation’ of God.

tGette:

Scientists have no clue how the brain works, but we do know that it works somehow. You are saying there was no higher power in making the brain work?

Scientists do have some clue how the brain works because otherwise we would not be able to identify progressive diseases such as Alzheimers. We would not be able to identify brain damage.

So your point is in fact, false.

tGette:

That since we do not understand then there certainly can be no God because we simply do not understand?

The irony is incredible.

It is often Theists who assert that a lack of knowledge in a certain area is evidence indicative of God. It is often Theists that say ‘The Big Bang was caused by God’ on the basis that we are silent on what came before it. If you say that a lack of understanding is not good reason for presumption then I humbly suggest you take a look at your own community and likely the reasons behind your own convictions in God.

Moreover, no Atheist ever says there ‘certainly is no God’ much less that a lack of understanding is good reason to presume there is no God. You are arguing on a strawman.

tGette:

Scientists cannot even predict the weather on our planet and we are supposed to trust them on the String Theory? Even if the string theory were true, it does not disprove God. It would just prove a unique way in which God is governing the world.

Nothing can disprove God. You cannot disprove a negative.

Moreover, the weather can be predicted.

 

[Skavau]

Melanie:

It’s rather interesting, don’t you think, that one proof of God’s existence are those that deny it?

No.

Because it isn’t ‘proof’ of anything. It only shows that some people contest God’s existence.

tGette:

Also, with all of this talk about Him, He exists in some form. Atheists are always talking about God, so in that sense He does exist in their world in some way.

I accept the concept of God exists.

tGette:

They know who God is they just deny Him. God is a big part of their lives. They spend all their time trying to refute the idea of His existence when their time spent is on God. If it was as simple as saying there is “NO GOD” then should it not be as simple to leave it at that and never think about it again?

I think you should look in the mirror sometime in the near future.

You started this thread looking for Atheists to respond. You got what you wanted and now you have the audacity to claim that that Atheists spend “all their time” trying to refute God? This is nothing but projection.

First of all, I do not try and ‘refute’ God - since it is an impossible venture and against logic. Second of all, I do not spend ‘all my time’ commenting on God.

Third of all, do you not think that it might be possible that some Atheists perhaps find God and religion interesting despite not believing?

MelanieAnne:

I’ll give you an example that was once given to me. Imagine your wristwatch. You know, the thing on your arm that tells you what time it is. Now imagine that your watch is being invented. So the parts of your watch are scattered all around. The inventor of the wristwatch, of course, has to be there because that is the person that made it happen. The parts of your watch didn’t come together as if by some magic, they came together because someone put them together.

This is just William Paley’s design argument updated.

What exactly do you find so convincing about it? We know that watches are created because we know the origins of watches.

MelanieAnne:

When was the last time you saw all the parts of a watch come together by themselves to make the watch? I suspect the answer is “never”.

Correct. That is again because we know the origins of watches.

Us.

MelanieAnne:

The problem is in your assumption that someone had to make the one who made the watch. The Creator is the Creator. The Creator doesn’t need to have a Creator. God is God.

This is an arbitrary exemption. You have negated your own standpoint. You said everything must have a creator and now you have gone back on it by declaring an exemption clause for what you describe as ‘God’.

I’m calling Occam’s Razor. If God is of no need of a creator, then by extension why not the universe?

 

[crowonsnow]

All of this “objective observation” business may be very valid as far as it goes. But I have found that Atheists are some of the most cantankerous, cranky, and generally unhappy people to be around. All the time. Those I have come in contact with seem to grow more and more opinionated with age, do not appear to engage in self-examination EVER, and selfish self-indulgence is the order of the day for them. It may work for them in their life, but it does not work well for those who have to endure their presence.

Of course, my experience with Atheists is not large, nor is my “survey” a scientific one, it is merely anecdotal, but there you are. As a group, not a happy one, and often rather gloomy company too.

Well you did say anecdotal. Good disclaimer.

I sure didn’t set out at one point in life to become atheist, anymore than I set out to have hobbies. I’m sure the same is true for people who think that gods are something real.

But that’s a pretty pat response. I doubt there are many atheist friends in the lives of people with this kind of attitude, which strikes me as exclusionary. It actually prohibits friendship from occurring. Sadly, it is the same attitude that is used in race, ethnic, religious, political, etc discussions.

Belief in gods is just an overdeveloped superstition which has been selected for for thousands of human generations. Hence its prevalence. I don’t hold this against a person. It actually makes my life that much more interesting, though I could do without its darker components.

ETA:

And hey, MelanieAnne, thanks for the chat.

Could I pester a response from you to my question in post 44? Pretty please? Here it is again:

Would you say that we’re in agreement with regards to the OP, namely that that which is built can only come from that which is unbuilt? That seems to be the case from my perspective. Your religious dogma is identical to my scientific conclusion, with the exception that you add another variable you call a god.

Thanks again and have a super day!

 

[crowonsnow]

Same here… lol. Mind powers.

Um, I meant God+Dogma. Apes dunt have religion. I know I didn’t clarify, but there is no way we could have achieved morality with out religion. And Atheism does away with it. So, again, why would we need to digress to a state of secularism, when that is what apes do? Hmmm…

It doesn’t appear to me that elephants have religion. Apes certainly are religious. But elephants certainly appear moral to me.

Could you please explain to me how elephants are not moral? What exactly is it about elephant behavior that leads you to believe they have no morality?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well you did say anecdotal. Good disclaimer.

I sure didn’t set out at one point in life to become atheist, anymore than I set out to have hobbies. I’m sure the same is true for people who think that gods are something real.

But that’s a pretty pat response. I doubt there are many atheist friends in the lives of people with this kind of attitude, which strikes me as exclusionary. It actually prohibits friendship from occurring. Sadly, it is the same attitude that is used in race, ethnic, religious, political, etc discussions.

Belief in gods is just an overdeveloped superstition which has been selected for for thousands of human generations. Hence its prevalence. I don’t hold this against a person. It actually makes my life that much more interesting, though I could do without its darker components.

That someone else (who happens to be an atheist) is rude or difficult does not make me or anyone else “exclusionary”. That’s preposterous. I submitted it as an observation, one that I (and others) have routinely observed. Your response is condescending and uncharitable, something prohibited on this forum. Although it does tend to prove my point.

That you may have circumscribed your existence in such a way is your business. Do not seek to impose your limitations on the rest of us or blame anyone’s personality problems on others. The cranky person is responsible for their own behavior.

 

[crowonsnow]

That someone else (who happens to be an atheist) is rude or difficult does not make me or anyone else “exclusionary”. That’s preposterous. I submitted it as an observation, one that I (and others) have routinely observed. Your response is condescending and uncharitable, something prohibited on this forum. Although it does tend to prove my point.

That you may have circumscribed your existence in such a way is your business. Do not seek to impose your limitations on the rest of us or blame anyone’s personality problems on others. The cranky person is responsible for their own behavior.

Thanks for the feedback. I shall attempt to mend my ways.

Now could I get a response to the unbuilt/built query? Or need I not wait?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Thanks for the feedback. I shall attempt to mend my ways.

Now could I get a response to the unbuilt/built query? Or need I not wait?

I’m not sure what you mean by unbuilt/built.

 

[Filius99993]

It doesn’t appear to me that elephants have religion. Apes certainly are religious. But elephants certainly appear moral to me.

Could you please explain to me how elephants are not moral? What exactly is it about elephant behavior that leads you to believe they have no morality?

Explain how they are. How exactly can you HAVE morals except for the ones you give yourself if you are an atheist? There is no basis of morality, save for your conscience. Why do we have consciences anyway? Is it because, like Heinlein suggests, because we have always been taught that certain things are right and wrong? Where did our forefathers develop it? Was it a mechanism used for group survival? How?

 

[crowonsnow]

I’m not sure what you mean by unbuilt/built.

MelanieAnne:

I’ll give you an example that was once given to me. Imagine your wristwatch. You know, the thing on your arm that tells you what time it is. Now imagine that your watch is being invented. So the parts of your watch are scattered all around. The inventor of the wristwatch, of course, has to be there because that is the person that made it happen. The parts of your watch didn’t come together as if by some magic, they came together because someone put them together.

You’re asserting that the entire universe is built but that your god is unbuilt, that it just exists. I’m asserting that a watch is built, but that the universe from which it arose is unbuilt.

Both of us seem to be asserting that that which appears built is coming from that which is unbuilt, something that we both believe just happens to exist, namely your god and my universe.

So are we in agreement?

 

[crowonsnow]

Explain how they are. How exactly can you HAVE morals except for the ones you give yourself if you are an atheist? There is no basis of morality, save for your conscience. Why do we have consciences anyway? Is it because, like Heinlein suggests, because we have always been taught that certain things are right and wrong? Where did our forefathers develop it? Was it a mechanism used for group survival? How?

I’m asking you to be a good observer, to put your observations ahead of your conclusions.

So when you observe elephant society and the behavior contained therein what is immoral about it?

Is it something about how they raise and defend their young? Is it something about how they eat and communicate? Is it something about how they show affection or anger? Is it their sexual behavior? What is it you find to be different from human behavior that you deem it to be therefore lacking moral fiber, morality?

 

[MelanieAnne]

You’re asserting that the entire universe is built but that your god is unbuilt, that it just exists. I’m asserting that a watch is built, but that the universe from which it arose is unbuilt.

Both of us seem to be asserting that that which appears built is coming from that which is unbuilt, something that we both believe just happens to exist, namely your god and my universe.

So are we in agreement?

I don’t know that we’re in agreement but that doesn’t mean we need to fight about it.

I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about these concepts ~ that’s something I guess I spent more time on decades ago ~ but, if pressed for an answer, I would say that the universe WAS built, by God. I guess that would be OUR universe built by MY (?) God.

We agree that God wasn’t “built”.

 

[Skavau]

Explain how they are. How exactly can you HAVE morals except for the ones you give yourself if you are an atheist?

Everyone gives themselves ‘morals’ (although I would not at all describe the act of moral understand at all like that). Everyone decides independently, culturally or socially what they deem to be right or wrong.

Filius99993:

There is no basis of morality, save for your conscience.

Under what reasoning? There is a basis of morality. The basis of morality is to enhance human co-operation and to establish human civilisation.

Filius99993:

Why do we have consciences anyway? Is it because, like Heinlein suggests, because we have always been taught that certain things are right and wrong? Where did our forefathers develop it? Was it a mechanism used for group survival? How?

The basic mechanism for human co-operation is found on the fact that we rely on each other to advance our species. We rely upon the opposite gender to pro-create. This at least is mutual human interest in survival.

And from mutual interest in survival, co-operation grows further. As soon as a community exists and has the capacity of expansion, we have the acknowledgment of a code of conduct.

 

[drpmjhess]

But I have found that Atheists are some of the most cantankerous, cranky, and generally unhappy people to be around. All the time. Those I have come in contact with seem to grow more and more opinionated with age, do not appear to engage in self-examination EVER, and selfish self-indulgence is the order of the day for them…

My boss is a brilliant scientists, a philosophical atheist, and one of the most compassionate women I’ve ever known, far more so than many people I’ve encountered on Catholic Answers. I’m not arguing that atheism is the cause of her compassion, nor that theism is the cause of a Christian’s compassion. Nor am I trying to explain why our lunchroom, which includes ten atheists and two Christians, is far less gloomy than some churches I’ve experienced. I’m simply making a non-scientific observation.

Petrus

 

[MelanieAnne]

My boss is a brilliant scientists, a philosophical atheist, and one of the most compassionate women I’ve ever known, far more so than many people I’ve encountered on Catholic Answers. I’m not arguing that atheism is the cause of her compassion, nor that theism is the cause of a Christian’s compassion. Nor am I trying to explain why our lunchroom, which includes ten atheists and two Christians, is far less gloomy than some churches I’ve experienced. I’m simply making a non-scientific observation.

Petrus

Sounds like you’ve met much better Atheists!

 

[drpmjhess]

All it is equals a disbelief in an assertion. An Atheist can take his or her ethical ideology from Kantianism, Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, Universalism, Moral Subjectivism or whatever he or she likes. Atheism is silent on lifestyle and ethics.

Skavau, I agree with you about the silly “atheist endless sex” assertion. However, you trivialize religious belief by defining it as merely “belief in an assertion.” It may be that for an atheist God is only an “assertion” in which one disbelieves, but a theist understands by “God” something much deeper than that; she understands a lived experience of the ground of all being, a being that can properly be called personal, and yet a being infinitely transcending personhood.

Petrus

 

[Skavau]

Skavau, I agree with you about the silly “atheist endless sex” assertion. However, you trivialize religious belief by defining it as merely “belief in an assertion.”

If I referred to religious belief as a belief in an assertion, you would be right. However, I never said that religious belief was simply a belief in a single assertion.

All I said was that Atheism is disbelief in an assertion - namely the assertion that God exists. A religion is a coherent ideology of life and existence. It is more than an assertion.

drpmjhess:

It may be that for an atheist God is only an “assertion” in which one disbelieves, but a theist understands by “God” something much deeper than that; she understands a lived experience of the ground of all being, a being that can properly be called personal, and yet a being infinitely transcending personhood.

I do not doubt that some Theists might understand God to be like that.

 

[AnAtheist]

How exactly can you HAVE morals except for the ones you give yourself if you are an atheist?

How did you get yours? Did your god speak to you directly, or did you get your morals through teaching?

There is no basis of morality, save for your conscience. Why do we have consciences anyway? Was it a mechanism used for group survival? How?

Yes. A group that is not working together has less chances for survival. Morals are a way how a group can work smoothly together.

 

[crowonsnow]

I don’t know that we’re in agreement but that doesn’t mean we need to fight about it.

I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about these concepts ~ that’s something I guess I spent more time on decades ago ~ but, if pressed for an answer, I would say that the universe WAS built, by God. I guess that would be OUR universe built by MY (?) God.

We agree that God wasn’t “built”.

Not fighting.

So in both our models we see things built coming from something unbuilt? Yes?

(You could say built/unbuilt, designed/undesigned, etc.)

 

[drpmjhess]

Sounds like you’ve met much better Atheists!

MelanieAnne, I think compassion may be only loosely connected with religious belief. I have of course met atheists who are not “nice” people, and theists who are. I’m sure membership in a community of belief influences action, but it could go both ways. A Gallup poll about a decade ago showed that the more conservative a person’s religious belief is, the more likely she or he is to be prejudiced against others and closed to change. And Mohammad Atta was motivated by religious devotion when he flew into the World Trade Center. I wonder to what degree “niceness” is genetic and antedates rather than results from environmental influences.

Ptrus