Is there "hope" for atheists?

[Amandil]

Good point, Bradski–

Many people feel a religion is a way to stop them from doing “bad” things. Again, it goes back to the “having a purpose” idea I suppose. I’m not sure why some people feel they cannot stop immoral acts for their own good and the good of others, and can only stop if they feel a God is ordering them to do so or else.
But I’m guessing some feel they cannot?

And, of course–some people become Buddhists or Mormons and then stop committing “immoral acts”. So any belief system can help out in this respect.

But by the same token, one can become a Pantheist or Humanist–and even Atheist-- and be helped in that way, too.

.

And you clearly missed the point as he did.

 

[Bradski]

What is love? What is accomplishment? What is passion? What is grace? What is goodness?

What does any of these things mean from the perspective of atheism?

What is their worth when you meet the end and become worm food? Can you take them with you?

I’m certain you don’t think that someone who has no belief in the Christian God cannot know what those things are. Everyone does. Whether any of us manage a life containing those things are another matter be they Christian or atheist (and having just watched a documentary on the Phelps family, it certainly isn’t guaranteed if you class yourself as a Christian).

But there is one certain thing: you do not necessarily need belief to do so.

And if you do manage it, then no, you can’t take them with you. So do a Reverse Pascall and live this life like it’s going to be your only one.

I mean, what have you got to lose? If it is the only one, then you have lived it well and if it isn’t, you get all the benefits of a second.

 

[Ion]

** Originally Posted by Bradski View Post
There is happiness in good music, a decent whisky, blue skies and powder snow, a clear night in the outback, a last minute try to win the game, a good drama, a fifteen knot breeze on the harbour with a boat load of friends and cold beer…look, I could go on. But are all those things fulfilment? Well, given the choice, I would rather have a life with them than without.
But real fulfilment comes from the love of family and friends. The things I mentioned should not be pursued at the expense of family but you’re going to have to go a long way to convince me that having them as well is a bad thing.**

My opinion is that happiness is something which when remembered long time afterwards gives you joy in your soul. For example I did drink excellent whiskey and I remember it was very good, and we were joyful and everything was ok, but now I can’t feel anything, the memory is dull. So it was rather pleasant. You can’t trick your soul it is happy.

 

[Amandil]

But again, not all Atheists do the above. I think you are saying that you did. But what Bradski and I are telling you is that there are many Atheists who do not feel and live this way. Perhaps you were the kind of person who did, but there are many who do not.
And, of course, there are many God-believing people who do live life as you describe above.

I’m not even going to bother to ask you how precisely that you know this.
DaddyGirl:

I’m not understanding why are you telling other people–insisting, even-- that they are not happy or fulfilled. Just because you yourself would not be happy/fulfilled with their life and beliefs, it doesn’t mean they–or millions of others–are not.

It begs the question as to if they really know what true joy or fulfillment really is? Why sell yourself short?
DaddyGirl:

I certainly don’t find hope in “things” that “bore” me the next moment. I seek out “the good in others” as you say. But it has nothing to do with believing in a God.

Really? Where do you suppose their good is derived from?
DaddyGirl:

Many Atheists do exactly what you describe above–pursue virtue, self-sacrifice, love. Again, people do this without believing in a God as well.

“Many”? What do you define as “many”?

And for what reason? I’m not getting the reason from the perspective of atheism what is the purpose to virtue, love, self-sacrifice in your system?
DaddyGirl:

To make such a generalized statement would be…incorrect. I know many who do not feel it is unattainable and “give up”. In fact, they attain it.

You’re actually making the claim that you know atheists who attain perfect virtue?

That’s funny.

 

[Amandil]

Bradski:

There is happiness in good music, a decent whisky, blue skies and powder snow, a clear night in the outback, a last minute try to win the game, a good drama, a fifteen knot breeze on the harbour with a boat load of friends and cold beer…look, I could go on. But are all those things fulfilment?

Clearly you’re equivocating again.

Bradski:

Well, given the choice, I would rather have a life with them than without.

Yet you remain an atheist.

Bradski:

But real fulfilment comes from the love of family and friends. The things I mentioned should not be pursued at the expense of family but you’re going to have to go a long way to convince me that having them as well is a bad thing.

Show me where I said that they were.

And while you’re at it show me what that is worth, or any of those experiences, when your facing non-existence.

 

[Amandil]

You consider all the above as worthless if there is no afterlife???

.

I’m asking you to explain what they are and what is their point or purpose according to the atheist worldview. Do they even have a purpose or are they just constructs and distractions?

Let’s actually think this through. I’m going to play devil’s advocate.

I’m an atheist now. Why should I care about any of those things?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Please don’t worry about evangelizing the atheists! We are A-okay!

You are A-okay! with having no soul and no purpose in life except to enjoy the pleasures of food, drink, friends, and family?

But that means you are no more meaningful than a monkey who realizes the same pleasures.

Atheism is too simplistic. It reduces us to mere animals, when we know there is more to us and we have hope for even more beyond that. The affirmation of soul is easy to understand. The denial of soul and immortality is not so easy to understand. Why do some people want no better an ultimate destiny than the lowest amoeba? Do they have proof that no God exists, nor any such ultimate destiny? The desire for God and ultimate destiny ought to be proof enough. For why would nature plant such desires in the vast numbers of mankind if it was obvious they could never be fulfilled?

 

[Bradski]

Clearly you’re equivocating again.

Do you mean I’m being unclear? Ambiguous? Cannot decide between two options? What do you mean?

Yet you remain an atheist.

What? I remain an atheist because I find enjoyment in whisky and sailing and those other things? You’re losing me…

And while you’re at it show me what that is worth, or any of those experiences, when your facing non-existence.

No wonder you became a Christian. Honestly, if you really felt that those experiences were not worth having if there was no afterlife, then it was the best thing you could have done.

 

[Oreoracle]

People have been asking questions such as “How is such-and-such important if you’re an atheist?” It is important to realize that atheism is not a philosophy; it can be more accurately described as the rejection of a philosophy. It doesn’t make claims about what is or isn’t valuable. Atheists, as individuals, may have other supplementary philosophies to decide on those matters.

It’s like asking someone, “You’re a pro-lifer, so how do you deal with questions about warfare?” The pro-life position doesn’t determine the answers to questions concerning warfare, so different pro-lifers may have different opinions on the matter.

 

[belorg]

You are A-okay! with having no soul and no purpose in life except to enjoy the pleasures of food, drink, friends, and family?

I don’t want to speak for DaadyGirl, but my answer wouold be yes.

But that means you are no more meaningful than a monkey who realizes the same pleasures.

I am not so arrogant as to think I am more meaningful than some other animal.

Atheism is too simplistic. It reduces us to mere animals,

I think “mer” animals is rather condescending.

when we know there is more to us and we have hope for even more beyond that. The affirmation of soul is easy to understand. The denial of soul and immortality is not so easy to understand. Why do some people want no better an ultimate destiny than the lowest amoeba?

First of all, the truth does not depend on what you or I want.
Secondly, why not be happy with what you actually have. Are people who always want morz actually happier than people who are content with what they have?

Do they have proof that no God exists, nor any such ultimate destiny?

Actually, yes, I have such proof, or at least some very solid arguments.

The desire for God and ultimate destiny ought to be proof enough. For why would nature plant such desires in the vast numbers of mankind if it was obvious they could never be fulfilled?

That sounds like the argument from desire, which deserves a separate thread, but the vast majority of mankind also want more than they will ever get.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

People have been asking questions such as “How is such-and-such important if you’re an atheist?” It is important to realize that atheism is not a philosophy; it can be more accurately described as the rejection of a philosophy. It doesn’t make claims about what is or isn’t valuable.

As a matter of fact, it does make such claims. It claims God is not valuable. It claims the soul is not valuable because there isn’t one. It claims immortality is not valuable. In most cases it claims religion is not valuable because it deals with illusions.

Atheism is not an island unto itself. It is connected to a continent of values.

Or it disconnects itself from a continent of values.

In either case, we cannot say it does not make claims about what is or isn’t valuable.

 

[Bradski]

People have been asking questions such as “How is such-and-such important if you’re an atheist?”

It is utterly beyond me. I could be sitting in a bar discussing life with a fellow traveller and we could be showing each other pictures of our families, discussing our careers, telling them about our friends. I could be saying what pleasure I’ve had watching my kids grow up, what a great marriage I have.

We’re both agreeing how awful life is for some people and how great it us for us. How blessed we feel. And then I mention that I’m an atheist and the other guy says: well, all that stuff you’ve been telling me is all bulldust. It’s impossible for you to feel all that. It’s all an illusion!

It beats me…

 

[Amandil]

Do you mean I’m being unclear? Ambiguous? Cannot decide between two options? What do you mean?

Pleasure and happyness, even subjective happyness, are not the same thing.

Bradski:

What? I remain an atheist because I find enjoyment in whisky and sailing and those other things? You’re losing me…

Clearly.

Bradski:

No wonder you became a Christian. Honestly, if you really felt that those experiences were not worth having if there was no afterlife, then it was the best thing you could have done.

I came to the realization that the logical conclusion to atheism is nihilism.

And I maintain that those atheists who refuse to see this are deceiving themselves.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And I maintain that those atheists who refuse to see this are deceiving themselves.

I agree with this. People lie to themselves all the time. Even Christians do it often.

I would know.

 

[Oreoracle]

As a matter of fact, it does make such claims. It claims God is not valuable.

That’s quite a distortion. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. Some forms of atheism allow that God may exist, and some are open to the possibility that gods are valuable. I am such an atheist. Heck, it’s clear that people even value God as a concept whether or not he actually exists.

It claims the soul is not valuable because there isn’t one.

Again, no. It doesn’t make claims about souls. I know atheists who believe in spirits, for example.

It claims immortality is not valuable.

Wrong again. Some people don’t believe in gods but believe in reincarnation nonetheless.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s quite a distortion. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. Some forms of atheism allow that God may exist, and some are open to the possibility that gods are valuable. I am such an atheist. Heck, it’s clear that people even value God as a concept whether or not he actually exists.

Again, no. It doesn’t make claims about souls. I know atheists who believe in spirits, for example.

Wrong again. Some people don’t believe in gods but believe in reincarnation nonetheless.

In reply to all of these objections, I am thinking about the atheist I was. I did not believe God is valuable. I did not believe my soul was valuable because I did not believe I had one. I did not believe I would live beyond the grave.

You can disagree, but I think that is the generic definition of atheists, even if there are some who defy the generic definition.

 

[Amandil]

In reply to all of these objections, I am thinking about the atheist I was. I did not believe God is valuable. I did not believe my soul was valuable because I did not believe I had one. I did not believe I would live beyond the grave.

You can disagree, but I think that is the generic definition of atheists, even if there are some who defy the generic definition.

The problem is that they expect us to just assume with them that disbelief in God is a necessary default position.

That assumption necessarily assumes also a belief that there is no God.

IOW, they’re beginning from their assumed conclusion. It begs the question.

If disbelief is the necessary default position, then that rule also applies for atheism.

 

[Amandil]

That’s quite a distortion. Atheism is just the lack belief in a god. Some forms of atheism allow that God may exist, and some are open to the possibility that gods are valuable. I am such an atheist. Heck, it’s clear that people even value God as a concept whether or not he actually exists.

So I’m to take from this that people who adopt the moniker “atheist” are what precisely?

Oreoracle:

Again, no. It doesn’t make claims about souls. I know atheists who believe in spirits, for example.

That makes total sense.

It seems more and more that the word has now become so watered down by atheists that it has almost no meaning at all.

 

[Oreoracle]

So I’m to take from this that people who adopt the moniker “atheist” are what precisely?

They lack belief in a god. I don’t know why this simple definition doesn’t satisfy you all. There are no tricks, no sleight of hand. We aren’t trying to Trojan Horse some extra assumptions into it to outwit Christians as part of some clever conspiracy. That is all it means.

 

[Amandil]

They lack belief in a god. I don’t know why this simple definition doesn’t satisfy you all. There are no tricks, no sleight of hand. We aren’t trying to Trojan Horse some extra assumptions into it to outwit Christians as part of some clever conspiracy. That is all it means.

How is that not a proposition?

And if they lack belief in God, what does that mean?

Lack of a belief in God is clearly not the same as lack of a belief in the tooth fairy.

It’s apparently become so vague what atheism entails now, because so many people redefine for their own ends and situations, that it’s nearly impossible to address it objectively.