Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

Stile you ask: That big lie (religion) is the best scam in town. Nothing can top it. As soon as you start incorporating heaven, hell, gods and demons etc, people really perk up and listen to the message. You can rarely get that kind of effect in a natural world setting. Adults might respond to the kind of beauty present in the arts and sciences, but for kids and I would even venture to say most adults too, there is no comparison between the two strategies. Game over, no contest, fiction, fire & brimstone win. We're not robots we respond to that kind of thing. I think it goes back to some sort of successful primal survival behaviors. Dawkins says also as much in his The God Delusion (as far as getting kids to follow orders and tribal customs). First of all, I bring up Catholicism only because it is the one I know best and have the most experience with. Whatever cultural or religious experiences I had there, I am certain could have been had in so many other of the worlds religions. So, I imply no bias in that respect. Getting back to the question, your comparison is not very different on some levels, the glaring difference though is that in the church setting you have the participation of the group of church members whereas in the nature scene it is to me more of a personal experience. That feeling of group participation is by no means any small effect and not to be underestimated. In this comparison I see hardly any real difference although that whole delusion thing, faith etc, turns into a group delusion perhaps even hysteria in some religious forms, this then is more intense than your average community event.

My apologies. I understand that religion is different in certain ways. I'm more asking what sort of good or beneficial differences it has that would be a good thing to adopt? You are correct. Of course, this is nothing I'd care to take away from religion. It's certainly not something I consider myself "missing". It's more like something I'm glad I've gotten away from. Yes, we respond to all sorts of stimuli.Of course, if ruling through fear and manipulation is your idea of good and beneficial... I pity your children. Again, you are correct. I didn't mean to underestimate group participation in any way. Of course, you do understand that group participation only requires a group, right? It does not require religion. Simply bring your group to the nature scene.Again, I'm not seeing anything here that can only be found in religion. Groups of people share experiences all over without religion. If by "more intense" you mean "more deluded and further away from reality", then yes, I agree.
If by "more intense" you somehow mean a larger sense of community spirit, then no, you are wrong. You're just going to boring BBQ's.I'm sorry for being misleading before, I'm not simply wondering about the sorts of things religion offers that are different. I'm wondering if there are any good, beneficial things that are only available from religion.What virtues do you think religion possesses that cannot be easily duplicated by non-religious activities?By "virtues" I mean anything that would be desireable or beneficial to be a part of. I'm looking for things to add to my life. I do not care to add anything negative.

I've heard it described as, "The religious experience." I don't know how to have one. Your ideas about communing with nature I think are on the right track, as well as participating in community events. But I still think that the various religions of the world have the market just about cornered on religious experiences. I haven't had one since I was a kid receiving one of the sacraments. These days the closest I get is by watching sunsets or being in the mountains, jungles or maybe even going to a sports stadium full of screaming fans or connecting with great works of art or architecture.It's the religious experience I would say is a part of what you can take away from participating in an organized religion. But still don't get me wrong, I'm only saying a redeeming quality exists and this is what it is.I'm bit wary recommending you attend a church. As far as I'm concerned I have not completely reconciled my own problem with the idea that something based upon a lie has some worth. I'm an atheist and I'm simply trying to understand the dynamics of putting forth a reason to send a possible future child of mine into the Catholic faith. I'm leaning toward doing it, as for me the whole thing was completely and utterly positive. But as I said I don't believe in God, Santa Claus or faeries they've all become for me equally likely.I'm sure I don't need to tell you about values and altruism being fostered by religions. These things are also some positive foundation for religion. But these are also easily taught outside of any organized religion.

I cannot argue with that. Religion certainly does a very good job of creating that social atmosphere where feelings of a sharing, caring community can be felt almost instantly. In certain churches, anyway.My point is to simply show that this same feeling can be matched or even exceeded by any other sharing, caring group of people. Religion is not a required ingredient... although it certainly has "perfected the art" in a way, I suppose. That is, the situation can be recreated with any group of people, but (practically speaking) it is easiest to find a group of people willing to participate in this sort of community spirit at the local church (currently, anyway). Especially if one finds themselves in an area away from close friends and family. Like most things, practice makes perfect
Some people find the easiest route through meditation and reflection in a serene environment.
Others find it easiest being around a group of people focused on creating an "intense" atmosphere.Personally, I find it easiest when I "lose myself" having fun with friends. That moment where "time flys" as you're having fun. But everyone's different. I find I can even recreate this just focusing on letting my mind release all it's thoughts (and therefore worries and troubles) for a moment.It certainly is easiest for some people to attain this sensational feeling when at a church focused on producing such feelings. But it's by far not the only way to attain the feeling, and if you're not careful it can be used as a tool for manipulation (cults and such). Of course, there certainly are a lot of "good" churches out and about too. Heh Don't worry about me, I've been to plenty of different churches. Even focused on a few for long periods of time. Sometimes I do not edit my wording enough here and I'm sure it comes off as a bit more harsh than I'm actually intending. What you want to do with your family is absolutely your personal decision. I went through the whole Catholic school thing growing up as well too, and it was also completely positive for me. My only gripe is with people who espouse that religion provides something amazing that you can only get from that religion. I have yet to uncover such an idea.

Good stuff man, thanks.

This post is a reply to this Message 36. I think the topic fits here better, and I don't want to ruin the nice topic of that thread. I agree with most of your re-written position (yes, I did miss it while it was in a long post that wasn't directed to me... but I found it now).I actually think you're spot-on correct from A.1 all the way to your conclusion of A.3.But your last paragraph does not logically follow. Your conclusion states "Do what you want. (Good and evil are irrelevant.)" And I agree that Good and evil are irrelevant at the most basic, absolute level. Until we subjectively decide to make one of them relevant.Then you say "A.3 should inevitably lead to evil".But, this doesn't logically follow at all. How can something inevitably lead to evil when you just said that good and evil are both irrelevant? That's not logical or rational.What rationally follows is what I said... that we all must make a subjective decision whether or not we want to be good (and care about other people) or evil (and not care about other people).Therefore, as long as we decide to be good and care about other people, then we won't be lead to evil at all. Therefore, I again state that I am an atheist and I lay claim to goodness and rationality. (It is rational to acknowledge a subjective decision when no objective decision is possible).Basically, you can't say that good and evil are irrelevant and then say that evil is inevitable. It doesn't make any sense. It's certainly not logical.Even if you want to argue that evil is "easier" or "simpler"... it doesn't matter (although I think this would be incredibly difficult to show in all cases). I am still intelligent enough to make my own decision to subjectively choose to be good. And since we both agree that there is no objective facts in order to base a fundamental answer on (I agree with your A.2 that "there is no binding reason to care about other humans in the slightest" at the most basic and absolute level). Then it is rational to acknowledge that a subjective decision must be made until such a time that objective information can be identified (which likely will never happen, but we'll see).If evil actually is "easier" or "simpler"... this only makes it more honourable to subjectively decide to be good.As long as the subjective decision exists (which you acknowledge by stating that good and evil are essentially irrelevant), no matter how lopsidedly "easy" one choice may be over the other, it is ridiculous to assert that evil should logically follow in any way.The mere presence of the subjective decision totally destroys any arguement of evil (or good) inevitably following through way of logic. It's a subjective decision, there is no objective information on which to base any logic. Objective logic cannot exist until after the subjective decision is made, it's the only rational course of action possible.So, no, there is nothing at all to suggest that atheists should somehow logically be evil. It doesn't make any sense.

Hi Stile I agree 100% with your points and the above conclusion.I don't know if I've missed the flow of the preceding argument that was on a different thread, but I would always add the following points in these arguments about good and evil:- Humans are social species that benefit from cooperting with each other. (We are not unique in this respect: individuals in many if not most other species also benefit from cooperating with each other.) In my opinion, in humans this beneficial cooperation is the foundation of moral behaviour, and the concept of good and evil.- If you accept the Theory of Evolution, there is little doubt that individuals that cooperate well together will be more likely to survive and produce similar offspring. Hence, we have formed an instinctive empathy for others. It's why we feel sad if we see others in trouble. This may seem a little strange in the global village that we live in today, where we may feel sad for someone we don't even know, but the instinct was formed in a time when we lived in small communities where we would be closely related to most of the people we ever met.- At a more objective level, we can also make a rational decision to be helpful to others. Societies that are the most peaceful and egalitarian, and which treat individuals with respect, tend to be the most prosperous.What goes around comes around. The Golden Rule, etc. And there shouldn't be any evolutionary pressure on us to lose our empathy even in the modern world. The consequences of being unselfish are generally still advantageous.So, apart from the fact that there is no logical reason for atheists to automatically be evil, there IS a logical reason for most people, whatever their creed, to be good.

Don't worry about it, the core of the arguement was copied in my quote. The rest of that discussion was... let's say "not an example of good communication." I agree with these points.However, when I talk about morality, I actually strive to stay away from these points. I strive to stick to the more intellectual and personal decision points. I like to think that the natural and evolutionary explanations are no longer required (and therefore not necessarily relevant) to modern reasons for morality. I certainly agree that they are (were?) the basis for everything, but I like to focus more on points like your next one: I agree completely.When I'm talking about the subjective decision that must be made, I'm talking about the infinite regression of why, why, why questions:Why should we be helpful? -because it promotes peace
Why should we promote peace? -because it's nice and good
Why do we want to be nice and good? -because a nice and good society kills each other less
Why should we care if we live or die?
...At some point (what I've been referring to as the most basic, absolute level), we just have to acknoweldge that it's a subjective decision.Some of us find living to be important. Some of us do not (strange, but they exist...).
Some of us find being good and nice to be important. Some of us do not.
Some of us want to promote peace. Some of us do not.
Some of us want to be helpful. Some of us do not.At some point, it's a subjective decision underlying all that.Personally, I think it's better that being good and moral is a subjective decision. Where's the honour in being a good person if it's objectively possible to show that we should be that way? There is no honour there, only rational obedience to being logical.The subjective decision allows for honour and heros to exist.

quote:

---

Why should we be helpful? -because it promotes peace
Why should we promote peace? -because it's nice and good
Why do we want to be nice and good? -because a nice and good society kills each other less
Why should we care if we live or die?
...

---

If we do any of that because we want something (peace, nice, good, less death, promote the species.... anything at all) it removes the honour of doing it because we think it's right.That's where the honour lies... in doing something because we think it's right. Not as a means to an end, but just because we think it's right.And, in the same vein, it must be because we think it's right rather than knowing it's right. If we know it's right, then it's a simplistic, easy, objective answer. Honour only exists if we are left in the objective "absolute dark" where we can only think it's right.Honour exists in following the hope that Good triumphs over Evil. If this somehow becomes an objective fact, then we remove the hope and therefore we remove the honour.

Some interesting points. I'm not sure I agree with everything you say about honour, etc. Bit busy now, so I'll sleep on it and get back to you.

Believe it or not, I'm not sure I agree with all of it either That's what I like about this forum, it's a great place to test ideas/theories/thoughts. I toss out something that "sounds good" to me, like I just did. And I'm sure that if there's any illogical nonsense in it we'll get to the bottom of it. Illogical nonsense doesn't stand up for very long around here.I'm not here to promote my position, get others to agree with me, or "win" debates.I'm here to learn, and the best way I've found so far is to throw out a stance and let the discussion widdle it down to the actual parts that are logical/rational. Excellent.A reasoned, well thought-out reply is always much more appreciated than a quick off-the-cuff reaction.

I'm beginning to learn that!(Still sleeping on it.)

Interesting topic, thanks Stile.My only real problem in my (newly affirmed) strong atheism is that there is no room for an afterlife. When you're dead, that's it, the end. There is a tiny part of me that still wants to entertain some notion of continued existence, but that tiny part is outweighed by my overwhelming feeling (and the overwhelming evidence) that death is the end.The only consolation I find for this feeling is the realisation that I am priveleged to exist for the time that I do.I'm thrilled when writers talk about the extremely low odds of being here at all. This concept can be thought about in deep terms, such as the fact that we would certainly none of us be here now if not for various environmental conditions being just right throughout the history of the universe.But in more immediate terms, the fact that my mother gave birth to me after having miscarried on her previous attempt has always given me pause to consider how close I was to never existing.My British daughter, as another example, exists solely because of a chance encounter in a Yahoo chatroom with her mother, which developed over time and culminated in my migration to the UK and the conception of our child. Stacey (my daughter) very nearly never existed at all.If, in just two generations (mine and my child's), our line had two "near-misses" in terms of non-existence, it stands to reason that there were many similar events in the lives of our ancestors that played out in such a "fortuitous" way as to allow me to be here typing this now. In the face of my realisation that "the end is nigh" (I'll put it off for a little while longer I hope), I can take solace in having had the chance to inhabit this world, albeit for only a fraction of a second in geological terms.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Debating with deists.

Similarly, I often think about the fact that I was born where and when I was, which is a much more comfortable/affluent place and time than most of humanity can claim. It can make me feel guilty sometimes.

A very real and very large issue.The first thing to point out is that this issue is subjective. Therefore, it actually isn't an issue for everyone. But I do conceed that this is an issue for the majority of people, by far. (My wife, actually, gets extremely overwhelmed when she dwells on such thoughts). I must also conceed that it's entirely possible that certain people exist who may never be able to "be okay" with this issue.In hopes that those certain people are not reading this post, I will present some possible avenues of solace that I can think of:1. As you stated, we can find comfort in life itself. Death can be scary, but if it is, than not even existing in the first place is even scarier. So, we should be thankful for the lifespan we happen to have. I know I didn't bargain my way into being here 2. I find comfort in "the unknown" by understanding that it is unknown for everyone. That is, no one knows what, exactly, will happen or what, exactly, the process will feel like. It makes me feel better to understand that I'm not "missing knowledge" that is available to me and that I find important. I know I am missing the knowledge, but the fact that this knowledge is unavailable to everyone makes me feel better. (But I'm kinda weird )3. This ties into what you say about there being "overwhelming evidence" that death is the end. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I agree that there is no indication while we are alive that there is any sort of existance after death. And, for all logical decisions that need to be made (anything we find important), I agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly such that we should accept that death is the end. But fear of death is not a logical/rational problem. Therefore we are not restricted to finding a logical/rational solution.The fear of death being the end is a subjective problem. Therefore, it is rational to accept subjective (or irrational) answers. As long as we don't forget to acknowledge that we're doing so. We don't want to make any mistakes and start thinking that our irrational comforts are actually objective in some way In this sense, I think we should understand that "after death" (if it exists at all...) is totally unknown. There is no objective evidence from anyone coming back from death and telling us what it is like. Even those who do "come back" obviously were not "totally dead" or else it would have been impossible to revive them. This leaves the door open for all sorts of irrational possibilities that we may draw irrational strength from to help with our irrational fear.For example: It can be good and healthy to have a subjective belief in God if it's helping to make you feel better as a person. As long as you understand that belief is subjective, it can be very useful and healthy to use in order to find relief to other irrational fears.Other examples:
Maybe the Christians are right about a heaven and hell (let's assume an actually fair one, though).
Maybe we return to some sort of collective-consciousness.
Maybe this universe is a "test-bed" for learning under certain conditions.
Maybe reincarnation is real with a short rest-period where you rejoin your own personal meta-consciousness where you can enjoy all your experiences and then decide to rejoin this world as something else for additional experiences.
Maybe there is nothing but happiness and joy... constant high.
Maybe there is nothing at all (it's quite possible that certain people will find solace in this itself).4. The last point (which I also draw strength from) is one of my favourite quotes:"To die would be a great adventure"
-Peter PanCuriosity and the unknown can be scary. It can, however, also be an excellent source of excitement.