Why would somebody embrace the worst possible scenario?

[IWantGod]

I don’t join in the xenophobia about atheists. I know some atheists who are very moral people, more so than some religious people I know. I think atheists use the reason God gave them to come to the obvious conclusion that there is no definitive, empirical evidence for God, which is something religious people need to be reminded of from time to time.

I appreciate what you say about faith, but this thread isn’t about whether or not atheists can be good people (a common mistake in these types of discussions).

In fact the question of whether or not people can be good (as an objective activity) is meaningless if the atheist is correct about metaphysical naturalism.

Instead we are talking about the metaphysical consequences of Atheism and why someone would embrace those consequences without certain evidence… In fact i find that atheists rarely if ever truly embrace the metaphysical consequences of their atheism. They reject God, but everything else stays the same.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Athiests often like to say that “if God didn’t exist then humans would invent him” but i think the reverse is true. Adam and Eve is basically the story of the opposite being case.

 

[jfz178]

I have been on internet message boards of all kinds for a long time. Threads are informal conversations with strangers. If you have a conversation with strangers, people can and will digress and “riff” on the topic. That’s natural.

Just because you start a thread, doesn’t mean you own it, anymore than you own a conversation you start. As long as people are not violating etiquette, they can say what they want. If you don’t like it, just ignore their post. That’s the way message boards work.

 

[IWantGod]

Well, to be fare i can express my opinion too. Also, while i don’t usually mind threads turning into something completely different than what it started out to be, i felt the need to make it clear that this thread is not about proving that the atheist cannot do good. From what you wrote i assumed that’s what you think this thread is about.

 

[jfz178]

You keyed on one thing I said and ignored my main point. I just want to point out that I was answering your question in my own way. The main point of my answer that people choose atheism, “the worst possible scenario,” because of valuing reason over faith. The rest of my answer might be window dressing, but I did try to answer your question.

You want me to stay on track on “your” thread, but then you don’t stay on track with the main point of my honest, sincere and thought-out response. You are welcome to your opinion and to take your responses in whatever direction you want, just like I am, but to criticize me when I actually tried to answer you question seems disingenuous.

 

[RandomAlias]

Wait a second… Is this the Philosophy Forum? Oh yeah. that explains why I’m not connecting.

In this thread I’m seeing a lot of… I don’t know the scholarly term for it. Maybe projection. Merriam-Webster defines projection as “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people.” Projection in math and physics is similar but described the other way around: projection is the reduction of an object’s representation by forcing it to fit a simplified model, as for example a camera reduces a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional photograph, and may further reduce it from color to black-and-white.

Most of you are attempting to describe atheists by forcing them into your incomplete models. You seem to require the atheist to be not only rational, but rational on your terms. The truth is that atheists are human. They are not always rational. They experience emotions. They seek truth, appreciate order, desire peace, and are capable of acting with selfless love. A lot like you and me.

@fredystairs wrote:

Scripture says that God is love (1 John 4: 8); without God there is no love and thus no motivation to do good, no reason to love God and neighbor

I think that is an example of force-fitting love into a simplified model. Human love is more complex. It’s not all about reason, and it’s not all about reward. To some extent, it is a built-in function of the human brain and mind. If you say a true atheist can’t love his neighbor, that’s based a lot of assumptions, and fails to explain evidence of love, such as atheists who live virtuously and perform good works.

So cut them some slack, admit that you don’t fully understand human nature, and open your eyes to what we have in common.

 

[IWantGod]

You keyed on one thing I said and ignored my main point. I just want to point out that I was answering your question in my own way. The main point of my answer that people choose atheism, “the worst possible scenario,” because of valuing reason over faith. The rest of my answer might be window dressing, but I did try to answer your question.

I don’t think that its entirely true that atheist embrace the worst possible scenario out of reason, because

1. Empiricism doesn’t lead to metaphysical naturalism and one wouldn’t reasonably expect the scientific method to prove that existence has a purpose and a meaning. So personally, while i think some people are just innocently mistaken, i think that this line of thought is an excuse, a cop-out to justify ignoring other forms of inquiry and evidence that are not scientific in nature
2. Ultimately everybody has to have faith in something. God is not the only object of faith that humans pursue. in life. Nobody would do anything of any importance if they really thought that their actions were pointless and meaningless. I just don’t believe that. I don’t believe they take the worst possible scenario seriously. They simply reject God and get on with their lives. In fact i think atheism survives only because they haven’t truly embraced the consequences of metaphysical naturalism, because its not reasonable to embrace the worst possible scenario…

 

[IWantGod]

You keyed on one thing I said and ignored my main point.

I did say that i appreciate what you said about faith. So that is not true is it.

 

[jfz178]

Thank you for reacting to my point, which was a reaction to your question. I guess this is over my head. I have Faith in God. But I couldn’t define “metaphysical naturalism” as the saying goes, “to save my soul.” I’ll bet 99.9% of my fellow Catholics couldn’t either. So think I will just stay out of the Philosophy threads.

 

[IWantGod]

Thank you for reacting to my point, which was a reaction to your question. I guess this is over my head. I have Faith in God. But I couldn’t define “metaphysical naturalism” as the saying goes, “to save my soul.” I’ll bet 99.9% of my fellow Catholics couldn’t either. So think I will just stay out of the Philosophy threads.

Metaphysical naturalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the worldview. For the working assumption without suggesting ultimate truth, see Methodological naturalism.

v t e
Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and scientific materialism is a philosophical worldview, which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

Metaphysical naturalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jdavani]

Because they think it’s most likely the truest scenario. Just like we have faith they do too. Just different conclusions.

 

[jfz178]

Oh thanks. That clears it right up! LOL

 

[JamalChristophr]

It’s a good business practice.

Always under promise, then over deliver.

 

[JamalChristophr]

It could actually be worse. There could be an evil God in a worst possible scenario and he’s really gonna make us pay in the next life, just for fun, then more in the next life. I would say that’s an even worse case scenario.

 

[Bradskii]

The worst possible scenario

1. There is no God.

2…There is no good and evil

3…There is no purpose or meaning other than what we fantasize

4…We are all going to die and cease to exist.

The one constant we all share is that if someone holds our head under the water we will all fight for our lives. Its in our nature.

The Theist is often criticized for trusting in something they can’t physically prove. But why would you embrace the worst possible scenario if you don’t know for certain that its true?.

If the one follows the other, then the one must proceed from the other. So let’s work it backwards

One neighbour does something good (he saves a child from drowning). The other neighbour does something evil (he rapes his daughter).

Therefore there is a God?

Doesn’t seem to work…

 

[IWantGod]

An action can only be evil if there is a God.

 

[IWantGod]

What i is an evil God?

An Evil God is not ontologically possible.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

My argument is different in that i identify our immediate situation if there is no God. The problem is we are already in the worst possible scenario if the atheist is right.

Really, that’s the worst case? Doesn’t seem that bad.

There is no good and evil there is no value or meaning other than the fantasies in our heads, and we are going to die and cease to exist and most of us are going to live a life of struggle before that happens.

Aren’t these subjective anyways? Each faith and denomination has a different view on what God determines to be good and evil. Doesn’t the prospect that we might cease to exist beat the possibility of never ending torment for making a wrong choice in life?

All of our percieved achievements in life are not going to mean anything when we are gone. It will be like we never existed at all. Its crazy.when you really think about.

May I suggest that this is not a problem and causes me no distress. A major disconnect is that this line of thought attempts to solve a problem that the audience does not view as a problem.

 

[IWantGod]

Aren’t these subjective anyways?

It doesn’t matter to you whether something is truly good or evil.

It doesn’t matter to you if the value, meaning and purpose you perceive in your activity and the beings around you is just a fantasy in your head.

May I suggest that this is not a problem and causes me no distress.

It doesn’t matter to you if you cease to exist. Existence is just something happening to you.

May i suggest that, unless you are living in a subjectively induced dreamworld, i don’t believe you.

 

[IWantGod]

Doesn’t the prospect that we might cease to exist beat the possibility of never ending torment for making a wrong choice in life?

If what you want is righteousness and good it should not be a concern. It seems strange to me that someone would rather cease to exist rather than face the possibility of heaven or hell. I don’t want to cease to exist and i don’t want to go to hell either.