Why do some people prefer to be atheists?

[aclausen]

Again, I never claimed Christians were immune to supporting violence. However, the fact that the vast majority of the genocides of the 20th Century where committed by people who chose to separate themselves from God, whether by embracing atheism (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin), or by creating their own religion (Hitler) cannot be refuted.

If God exists, and God is love, then people who separate themselves from God should be predisposed to do bad things when they obtain power. In the 20th Century, that is exactly what happened.

The question of why do religious fall into the same trap is an important question.

The answer is unknown, but is worth pursuing.

Nonsense. The answer is simple. Belief in God does not guarantee good behavior, and if someone can convince you that your prejudices are religiously justifiable, then they can get your hooks into you. There are a pack of lunatics running around Syria and Iraq convinced that they are doing God’s work.

The Holocaust was not an isolated event, invented out of thin air by National Socialism. It was the conclusion of nearly 2,000 years of European anti-semitism. It was a rather short fall for many Christians (nor all, by any means, but many) from more generic and seemingly less virulent forms of anti semitism and the extreme forms adopted by the Nazis. They had little trouble finding collaborators among the citizens of occupied countries and allies.

If Feesinandt and Isabella has bad access to an advanced bureaucratic regime and Zyklon B, the Reconquista.might have been more vile than it was.

As to atheist states as I have already pointed out they dispensed with earlier religions and then see about creating state cults that looked an awful lot like religions. Stalin and Mao were hardly the first men to portray themselves as demi-gods. It is, in fact, one of the most ancient justifications of power humans have ever developed.

 

[tonyrey]

Our starting point is our ability to think for ourselves. Otherwise what we believe would be the result of factors beyond our control and we would all be irrational!

Indeed but we have some control over what we believe. Otherwise we wouldn’t be responsible for anything let alone our beliefs - and there would be no reason to believe we are ever rational!

 

[dedo]

Nonsense. The answer is simple. Belief in God does not guarantee good behavior, and if someone can convince you that your prejudices are religiously justifiable, then they can get your hooks into you. There are a pack of lunatics running around Syria and Iraq convinced that they are doing God’s work.

The Holocaust was not an isolated event, invented out of thin air by National Socialism. It was the conclusion of nearly 2,000 years of European anti-semitism. It was a rather short fall for many Christians (nor all, by any means, but many) from more generic and seemingly less virulent forms of anti semitism and the extreme forms adopted by the Nazis. They had little trouble finding collaborators among the citizens of occupied countries and allies.

If Feesinandt and Isabella has bad access to an advanced bureaucratic regime and Zyklon B, the Reconquista.might have been more vile than it was.

As to atheist states as I have already pointed out they dispensed with earlier religions and then see about creating state cults that looked an awful lot like religions. Stalin and Mao were hardly the first men to portray themselves as demi-gods. It is, in fact, one of the most ancient justifications of power humans have ever developed.

Utter nonsense.

To claim that all political belief systems are “religions” beyond nonsense.

If God exists, then worshiping Marxism and embracing atheism is separation from God. It is not following God in a different way.

The facts are the facts. And the facts are that the worst genocides in history were committed by people who separated themselves from God when they obtained power.

The muslim fanatics in the Middle East are amateur killers compared to the atheist killers of the 20th Century.

Trying to concoct bizarre arguments does not change the facts.

 

[aclausen]

Utter nonsense.

To claim that all political belief systems are “religions” beyond nonsense.

If God exists, then worshiping Marxism and embracing atheism is separation from God. It is not following God in a different way.

The facts are the facts. And the facts are that the worst genocides in history were committed by people who separated themselves from God when they obtained power.

The muslim fanatics in the Middle East are amateur killers compared to the atheist killers of the 20th Century.

Trying to concoct bizarre arguments does not change the facts.

The facts are that two of the major genocides were carried out by people who believes in Gosz whatever their leaders may have believed. If belief in God is some sort of insurance against evil, then it is a pretty poor one. Just ask the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Utter nonsense.

To claim that all political belief systems are “religions” beyond nonsense.

I’d say “ideology” is a better word. This can be inclusive of religions and political systems.

 

[tonyrey]

Nonsense. The answer is simple. Belief in God does not guarantee good behavior, and if someone can convince you that your prejudices are religiously justifiable, then they can get your hooks into you. There are a pack of lunatics running around Syria and Iraq convinced that they are doing God’s work.

The Holocaust was not an isolated event, invented out of thin air by National Socialism. It was the conclusion of nearly 2,000 years of European anti-semitism. It was a rather short fall for many Christians (nor all, by any means, but many) from more generic and seemingly less virulent forms of anti semitism and the extreme forms adopted by the Nazis. They had little trouble finding collaborators among the citizens of occupied countries and allies.

If Feesinandt and Isabella has bad access to an advanced bureaucratic regime and Zyklon B, the Reconquista.might have been more vile than it was.

As to atheist states as I have already pointed out they dispensed with earlier religions and then see about creating state cults that looked an awful lot like religions. Stalin and Mao were hardly the first men to portray themselves as demi-gods. It is, in fact, one of the most ancient justifications of power humans have ever developed.

The rejection of a belief on the grounds of how it originated is an example of the genetic fallacy. It has no bearing on whether it is true or false…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If belief in God is some sort of insurance against evil, then it is a pretty poor one. . .

The evil from which it protects is within.

We are sinners all, although we have the capacity for love. It is a very difficult road to follow with a narrow gate at the end.
I understand that you do not believe this, but the church which Christ established provides us with surest way to eternal life in paradise.

 

[tonyrey]

The facts are that two of the major genocides were carried out by people who believes in Gosz whatever their leaders may have believed. If belief in God is some sort of insurance against evil, then it is a pretty poor one. Just ask the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Belief in evil presupposes the reality of goodness which has no rational foundation in a godless universe. If only matter exists nothing matters!

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Belief in evil presupposes the reality of goodness which has no rational foundation in a godless universe. If only matter exists nothing matters!

It is possible…indeed it is quite probably the case.

For without an objective agent of Truth and Goodness, good might need be little more than what improves one’s own position…whereas evil might merely be that which might cause one hurt and/or injury. My good might be your evil and vice versa.

Yet even so, is it to be considered impossible to train one’s self to think of the hurt of others as being equal to the hurt of one’s self? Of course such training is possible. Indeed Christianity does exceedingly well in this regards.

Alternately, if God is the source of all Good how might one find within His creation Evil? For would not the infinite expression of Good from a being of supreme and simple power naturally resonate in every atom? Would one not expect to find a natural harmony within the oceans? In the forest? Animals tangibly aware of goodness?

For the alternative is that God expressly created/allowed Evil…meaning that not only is He capable of doing so, wished to do so, and ultimately so did, but also that He cannot be a simple being of pure Love for having done so.

This necessarily adds complexity to God…potentially providing Him with a composite nature…perhaps even a personality…?

How to solve this apparent contradiction?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If belief in God is some sort of insurance against evil, then it is a pretty poor one. Just ask the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Belief in God is not insurance against anything. It is a fundamental premise of Christianity that we are all (including atheists) fallen from original grace. It is another fundamental premise of Christianity that you can choose between God and the devil. Christianity urges us to choose God. What does atheism urge us to choose between, since it believes neither in God nor in the devil?

 

[tonyrey]

Belief in God is not insurance against anything. It is a fundamental premise of Christianity that we are all (including atheists) fallen from original grace. It is another fundamental premise of Christianity that you can choose between God and the devil. Christianity urges us to choose God. What does atheism urge us to choose between, since it believes neither in God nor in the devil?

In fact consistent atheists don’t believe we are free to choose anything because we are simply biological computers programmed by our genes and environment…

 

[tonyrey]

Belief in evil presupposes the reality of goodness which has no rational foundation in a godless universe. If only matter exists nothing matters!It is possible…indeed it is quite probably the case.

Without a rational foundation even truth and knowledge are illusions. Biological machines know nothing and simply react to their environment but it is obviously self-contradictory to believe we know nothing because how can we know that we know nothing? If it is true we know nothing then “the rest is silence…”

Yet even so, is it to be considered impossible to train one’s self to think of the hurt of others as being equal to the hurt of one’s self? Of course such training is possible. Indeed Christianity does exceedingly well in this regards.

Without free will we cannot choose to train ourselves. We are not in control neither of ourselves nor anything else.

Alternately, if God is the source of all Good how might one find within His creation Evil? For would not the infinite expression of Good from a being of supreme and simple power naturally resonate in every atom? Would one not expect to find a natural harmony within the oceans? In the forest? Animals tangibly aware of goodness?

Only the Creator is perfect and successful in every respect.The mere fact of being creatures implies that we have limitations, failures and frustrations.

For the alternative is that God expressly created/allowed Evil…meaning that not only is He capable of doing so, wished to do so, and ultimately so did, but also that He cannot be a simple being of pure Love for having done so.

Evil is the negative aspect of Creation. It is unreasonable to expect finite beings to be constantly successful. Variety is not only the spice of life it is also its essence! In a physical universe there has to be darkness as well as light and death as well as life.

This necessarily adds complexity to God…potentially providing Him with a composite nature…perhaps even a personality…? How to solve this apparent contradiction?

“In God we live, move and have our being”. The Creator doesn’t change but He causes change. He doesn’t cause evil but permits evil because it is an inevitable consequence of being finite. He creates persons in His own image because being a person is the highest form of existence which enables us to control this planet to some extent and even destroy it. As Pascal pointed out we are greater than the universe in that we know it exists but it doesn’t know we exist. So it is reasonable to believe the universe didn’t create us even though we couldn’t exist without it - at least as physical beings - but our minds can exist without the universe because they transcend it…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In fact consistent atheists don’t believe we are free to choose anything because we are simply biological computers programmed by our genes and environment…

Yes, the usual atheist argument is for determinism of all kinds. This is the irony of the atheist view: that it frees us from the shackles of religion only to shackle us with the conviction of robotic determinism.

The only atheists I am familiar with who argued for free choice were Jean Paul Sartre and Ayn Rand. Sartre near his end ceased to be an atheist.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, the usual atheist argument is for determinism of all kinds. This is the irony of the atheist view: that it frees us from the shackles of religion only to shackle us with the conviction of robotic determinism.

I like what Rossum said (I think in another thread) in that he believes we keep getting another chance to improve on what we have already done. I’m really not certain I could have lived another life other than the one I have lived. It is a world of my making (within reason).

I think the only free will that could ever be considered as real would be that we would have were we given a second chance at life (and then a third and a fourth). Like the guy in Groundhog day who was trying his luck with the heroine. This line obviously didn’t turn out so good, so next time, try another.

Next time don’t cheat on your wide. Spend more time helping others. Work less and be with the kids more. Etcetera etcetera. Who wouldn’t want that second chance?

Maybe I’m a closet Buddhist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Maybe I’m a closet Buddhist.

That would surely be consistent with being an atheist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That would surely be consistent with being an atheist.

Not sure if you are kidding or not, but my understanding is that there are forms of Buddhism that do not include the belief of any gods.

 

[Rohzek]

Yes, the usual atheist argument is for determinism of all kinds. This is the irony of the atheist view: that it frees us from the shackles of religion only to shackle us with the conviction of robotic determinism.

The only atheists I am familiar with who argued for free choice were Jean Paul Sartre and Ayn Rand. Sartre near his end ceased to be an atheist.

Toss in Chomsky and Colin McGinn as atheists who think free will exists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not sure if you are kidding or not, but my understanding is that there are forms of Buddhism that do not include the belief of any gods.

And there are other kinds of Buddhism that think there are gods, but they needn’t be considered important or relevant. That’s a kind of polytheistic atheism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And there are other kinds of Buddhism that think there are gods, but they needn’t be considered important or relevant. That’s a kind of polytheistic atheism.

When I read this I think of something in an Oxford publication about a certain group on another continent and their religious views.

"…another important distinction between [their] religion and institutionalized religion is that there is no such thing as worship of God in the former. Worshiping is usually a formalized group activity that takes place at a designated area or facility. No such activity is found in [their] society. Nor is there a practice of individualized personal worship. The problem is conceptual. The word worship does not correspond to anything in [their] language. The nearest thing to worship in [their] language is the word Som. But this means “to serve,” and it is not apparent how any being can serve the supreme being. What can he possibly need? What difference can such a “service” possibly make to him. So even though in Christian missionary translations Som is used to mean “worship”, that practice is open to question. "

–The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Without a rational foundation even truth and knowledge are illusions. Biological machines know nothing and simply react to their environment but it is obviously self-contradictory to believe we know nothing because how can we know that we know nothing? If it is true we know nothing then “the rest is silence…”

Without free will we cannot choose to train ourselves. We are not in control neither of ourselves nor anything else.

Is it not possible to have free will without a creator present to provide for such a thing? Why might biology be incapable of eventually providing for itself the means to choose?

Only the Creator is perfect and successful in every respect.The mere fact of being creatures implies that we have limitations, failures and frustrations.

Why must God be perfect?

Evil is the negative aspect of Creation. It is unreasonable to expect finite beings to be constantly successful. Variety is not only the spice of life it is also its essence! In a physical universe there has to be darkness as well as light and death as well as life.
“In God we live, move and have our being”. The Creator doesn’t change but He causes change. He doesn’t cause evil but permits evil because it is an inevitable consequence of being finite.

Are spirits finite? If so, will evil yet exist in Heaven? If not finite, how is it possible to consider Lucifer and his angels as evil?

Further, given that evil ultimately triumphs among the living why might God have allowed good only to partially triumph among the dead?

He creates persons in His own image because being a person is the highest form of existence which enables us to control this planet to some extent and even destroy it. As Pascal pointed out we are greater than the universe in that we know it exists but it doesn’t know we exist. So it is reasonable to believe the universe didn’t create us even though we couldn’t exist without it - at least as physical beings - but our minds can exist without the universe because they transcend it…

A possibility…yet does not, in a similar vein, the bacteria or virus know its host even without the host being aware of same? Yet which might be considered superior?