Ask an atheist

[Free]

Maybe conscience isn't the right word. A male in any other species would never walk away and say, "She loves you, not me." In no other species would they take the long view and make difficult choices now in hopes that the future generations would have a better world. There are people who will literally give others the coat off their back. This behaviour seems counter intuitive to what should be beneficial for survival, but I am understanding a bit better.

 

You seem to be asking about selflessness. Can animals display selflessness? Female king cobras, which we can all agree are not icons of compassion, build large nests to lay their eggs. They are the only snakes to build nests. They then forego all food and drink for the two-three months that it takes for the eggs to hatch. But here is the kicker...they then leave just before the eggs hatch because cobras by nature are snake eaters and if they hang around, they are sure to eat their own young. Is this selflessness or just an instinct which evolved to enable the survival of the species?

 

My dog is a little fearful and gets wary of anything unfamiliar even floating plastic bags. But when I go near him, he seems to gain courage and advance towards the object which causes his fear. I suppose he finds courage in his "pack". Dogs are known to risk their lives for their owners. Is this selflessness or just an instinctual behavior of "sticking with the pack" that enables them to face an otherwise dangerous world thereby increasing their chances of survival?

 

I think the higher you go in the ladder of intelligent animals, the more difficult it becomes to understand why certain emotions may have developed. Certainly not everything is known about evolution of emotions and I think this is a fascinating area of study.

 

Conscience is the big one that still doesn't make sense, but that is okay. :) I really appreciate the responses.

 

If by conscience you mean the ability to discern right from wrong, I think of it more as conditioning. Humans are not born with an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong - they have to taught. In this we are not unique - animals can be trained to conform to rules as well. The sense of right and wrong - what forms our value system - I feel is a product of the culture we grow up in, the experiences we have and the ideas we are exposed to.

 

Humans do however have self awareness (in which again we are not unique) and a greater capacity to reason than any other species. We are therefore able to make the connection between our actions and their consequences and *feel responsibility*. I suppose that is what leads to our inner motivation to do the right thing. I am not entirely sure if we are unique in this. Perhaps research on other self aware animals will uncover the presence of a conscience in other species as well.

[Laura Corin]

 

Richard Dawkins' belief scale

 

 

I'm a 6.

 

Laura

[albeto]

Can you make explain this line of thinking a little bit more? I remember you saying something similar in another thread and can't make sense of it. Faith-based groups were instrumental in starting hospitals and working to help the poor in this country. There are many faith-based groups that travel to other countries in order to help. Part of why they go is because they believe their religion teaches them to do it. Christianity even teaches its followers to love their enemies. Are you maybe thinking along the lines of groups that refuse medical treatment for their kids for religious reasons?

 

 

Faith-based groups travel to other countries in order to help the decimation made by faith-based groups. Imagine a world in which ethnic cleansing was a universally horrifying concept. Imagine a world in which behavior wasn't punishable by death when the only victim is the honor of a mythological character. Imagine a world in which resources like time, money, research were spent on things like finding alternative, sustainable fuel, medical advancement of disease, prevention of mental health illness, and not protection of religious beliefs in public policy. It is taboo in our society to criticize a persons religious faith. This forum illustrates that in the sense that religious beliefs here are granted systematic protection offered no other belief system. The thing is, like Sam Harris says, "these taboos are offensive, deeply unreasonable, but worse than that, they are getting people killed."

 

HERE is a pictorial essay that hopefully helps to explain what I'm trying to say.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

How would you feel about one of your children becoming a "believer"? I think I know what you would do - that is support them, etc. like I would if one of my children decided to become atheist. But I won't lie, it would be a disappointment to me if one of children left the faith in which I am raising them. Would it be a disappointment to you?

 

To be honest, the more I think about it, yes I think I would be a little disappointed. That doesn't stop me from exposing them to the religions and letting them make their own choice, though. That is for them to decide and if they come to a different conclusion than I have, I am OK with that.

[albeto]

I'm a strong 6.

 

Was it linked upthread? I can't remember and don't want to check, so for the curious -

 

Richard Dawkins' belief scale

 

 

I'm a 7.

 

^_^

 

I know there is no god in the same way I know my shoes don't fly around my room at night when I'm sleeping. Could this be a possibility? I suppose, there could be some physical law that just so happens to elevate my shoes at the moment I'm asleep and coincidentally never get caught on video or by other eyewitnesses, but knowing what we know about physics and shoes, I'm darn confident that ain't happening. The idea that a being resembling any one of the many faces of the Abrahamic religious god-characters could be possible is, in my opinion, as ludicrous as believing burps prevent magical sparkly unicorns. The credibility of the correlation is the same to me - "God made me whole/happy/well/peaceful/etc" vs. "I've burped my whole life and I've never seen a sparkly unicorn."

 

So yeah, 7. Maybe 8.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

My dh is an atheist, but I am not. For other atheists on here, do you believe in anything happening after you die? Just blackness and nothingness, or do you believe in any sort of reincarnation or Jungian collective consciousness-type deal?

 

I believe nothing happens when you die. No afterlife, no reincarnation, no heaven, no hell, just nothingness.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

Why are so many atheists so militant about it? Why can't you just inwardly roll your eyes at what religious folks believe but keep your opinions about it to yourself?

 

My grandfather was most likely an atheist (at least he never mentioned any sort of spiritual beliefs and refused to answer any questions about the subject by saying that it was private) but he also never once denigrated others' beliefs. What has changed between that generation of atheists and today's atheists?

 

There are people militant about everything, including religious people. I don't see atheists as any different. Some are, some aren't, just like any other group. I could also say the same about religious people, why can't they keep their opinions to themselves instead of trying to share all the time? Or tell children that they are going to hell, etc.? Of course not all of them do that, just like not all atheists are militant about their non-belief. Every individual is different.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

I think the easiest way to understand the difference between agnosticism and atheism is the Spectrum of Theistic Probability posited by Richard Dawkins. I think most "atheists" are actually at a 6 on that scale since there's no rational way to disprove the existence of a god. Dawkins himself places himself at a 6.9. So, we could go around calling ourselves agnostics. I personally chose to self-identify as an atheist after reading Francis Collins' Language of God. He's so obnoxiously dismissive of agnosticism in that book, that I took to calling myself an atheist in reaction. I think that Dawkins is right that there are far fewer 7s than 1s on that scale, but it's easier to express near certainty with the atheist appellation than the agnostic one.

 

Whoops, forgot the link:

 

http://en.wikipedia....tic_probability

 

6 here.

[zoobie]

All these posts about how individual members love to sing Christmas songs are all well and good, but it is misleading to suggest that that is how atheists are, as if they are all the same or share this view. I find the number of posts going on about this to be a bit odd.

 

My points are is that not all atheists have warm feelings about Christianity or being assumed to be Christian. The idea that dealing with religion is like playing a video game -- we suspend disbelief and just have a good old time -- is not my perception of most atheists. I do not know many atheists who spend large amounts of time attending religious services, for example, so the analogy to playing video games and unicorns breaks down pretty quickly.

 

Atheists have been suing the US government to remove "God" from money and the pledge of allegience, or receive exemptions relating to it, for DECADES. There is an atheist movement that may not represent all atheists, but certainly speaks loudly on behalf of them in a variety of situations. They are not fine with Christmas music everywhere and God language woven into the government. They find this to be a violation of their rights.

http://ffrf.org/

 

Further, I know a variety of atheists. Some associate as Jewish atheists. Others group up in Asian countries. Others left Islam. Many Iranian atheists, whatever their background (Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian...), are wary of religiosity. The assumption that everyone left Christianity is not true of atheists I have known, although it may be the background of most of the atheists posting here.

 

And most of all, my question about Laura's experience singing in a choir as a hobby of hers throughout the year was a question about Laura singing in a choir. Not about someone else singing Christmas songs, or anything else. It was only about Laura, and she answered very graciously. It was NOT meant to be a "gotcha!" question at all, and Laura didn't seem to take it as such. I was asking -- because I was genuinely interested! -- about her experience as an atheist finding meaning and joy through singing religious music. I also think her experience as a British woman who has lived in a variety of nations for years gives her a unique perspective.

 

 

The ACLU isn't a bunch of atheists. It's not solely atheists who have a problem with state-sponsored religion. I know Christians who fully support the ACLU. How many Christian sects are there? Wanting the government to stay away from promoting any one religion should be important to us all.

[Cricket]

 

 

Faith-based groups travel to other countries in order to help the decimation made by faith-based groups. Imagine a world in which ethnic cleansing was a universally horrifying concept. Imagine a world in which behavior wasn't punishable by death when the only victim is the honor of a mythological character. Imagine a world in which resources like time, money, research were spent on things like finding alternative, sustainable fuel, medical advancement of disease, prevention of mental health illness, and not protection of religious beliefs in public policy. It is taboo in our society to criticize a persons religious faith. This forum illustrates that in the sense that religious beliefs here are granted systematic protection offered no other belief system. The thing is, like Sam Harris says, "these taboos are offensive, deeply unreasonable, but worse than that, they are getting people killed."

 

HERE is a pictorial essay that hopefully helps to explain what I'm trying to say.

 

 

I'd disagree with your conclusions :-) but it gives me a better idea on where you are coming from. Thanks!

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

This may be too individual to answer, but what about prayer/other religious rituals? I don't mean "prayer for the lost soul" type of prayer, but I'm hurting or in need type of thing. Do you find it offensive for someone to pray/perform a spiritual based ritual upon your behalf? I've heard everything from don't pray for me because I don't believe, to yes, if it makes you feel better okay.

 

Is karma considered a spiritual belief?

 

Does atheist simply mean no belief in an all-encompassing creating deity? Or can you believe in a kind of "cosmic consciousness" that is organic, but nothing more than part of our natural world? Would that fall into a pagan category. Sorry, I have scattered thoughts and I'm out of coffee.

 

I don't find it offensive for someone to pray for me in general. I don't think it is going to change the outcome, though, but I do appreciate the thought in them doing what they feel is helpful. The same as when someone ask for prayers I will respond "thinking of you" or whatever it may be and I hope that is taken the same way, but maybe it isn't. I do get miffed with prayer at times though in other situations, like natural disasters, football games, etc., sometimes it just doesn't make sense to me but I get that it does to others, do what makes you happy. :) However, after a death or something like that, people trying to comfort with, "don't worry, he is god's arms now", or on the death of a child that I read recently, "god picked him so young because he needed that special rose for his garden" etc. would bother me if they were speaking to me and assuming that I felt the same way. Honestly, it would probably make me very sad and upset in that situation, to be honest.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

Another question. If you were raised with a religious belief and became atheist, how would you have liked your family, especially parents, to deal with it? What did they do right or wrong in accepting your atheism? There's a reason, just not sure the story is relevant to the answers.

 

 

One more. How do you prefer people refer to your atheism? Obviously, it's not a faith system. Does belief system have too many religious connotations? Is there a right word or is simply using atheist or atheism the one correct term?

 

Accepting and not bringing it up every chance they get, not trying to convert my children, etc. would be my preference.

As far as referring to it, I usually just say "not religious" or "secular" depending on the situation.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

I have a question. Do you mind it if other people talk about their faith? I'm not talking about people who are trying to shove their beliefs down your throats, but people who bring up religion naturally during conversation, because it is a big part of their life.

 

I have many friends that talk about their faith often, it doesn't bother me at all. I know it is a big part of their lives and it comes up naturally for them.

[Jen in NY]

Can you make explain this line of thinking a little bit more? I remember you saying something similar in another thread and can't make sense of it. Faith-based groups were instrumental in starting hospitals and working to help the poor in this country. There are many faith-based groups that travel to other countries in order to help. Part of why they go is because they believe their religion teaches them to do it. Christianity even teaches its followers to love their enemies. Are you maybe thinking along the lines of groups that refuse medical treatment for their kids for religious reasons?

 

 

 

Not the OP, but IMO it is yet another way to define "the other" --- (which might look like: You are Christian, I am not. You are American, I am not. You are white, I am not. etc..... ) And sometimes in the name of religion, this otherness gets used nicey-nice... as you described. Sometimes not so much.

 

I don't think it is different from any other way that people sort each other on a regular basis, which probably had roots in evolutionary advantage. It's just that adherents to religion can claim "Divine Right"... that they are correct in their good (or bad) actions because God is on their side (and if God is for us, who can be against?) .... and that makes me wary.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

My weird, possibly morbid, question of the day....

What does an atheist funeral look like? Is there any kind of service or anything? I've been contemplating Kay's request for no service, and I kind of find it intriguing, and a bit sad for her family and friends. I kind of like the idea of a "wake" or a party of sorts... Just rambling thoughts and questions.....

 

Honestly I've never been to one and never really thought about it. We had an atheist wedding, so I assume it would be much the same. A similar process but with words that mean something to the individual instead of the religious ones. For me personally, I don't really care, at that point I'm not getting anything out of it, so it would be the living. I could see that being an issue with my religious family and very atheist husband. I'd hope both would keep the others wishes in mind and they could come to a compromise that would help comfort all involved.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

I've got an anonymous question via PM to post here for answers.

 

"Is an atheist born or made?"

 

 

Personally I think atheists are born. This is coming from someone who doesn't believe in a soul or an auto-religion within, kwim? If you don't subscribe to that belief, then it doesn't stand to reason that an infant can be born believing in anything. I think some atheists are made after they've experienced a time of religion, too. So... I was born an atheist, but born into a Catholic family. So I ended up an ex-Catholic/atheist after a time period in that faith.

 

 

OK so my first thought is that everyone is born atheist. Babies aren't born with an innate religion, it is learned IMO. But then I can see where an atheist can definitely be made at one point in their life as well after they already have religion in their life and then they develop different beliefs or lack there of. So, I'm going with both. :)

[albeto]

I'd disagree with your conclusions :-) but it gives me a better idea on where you are coming from. Thanks!

 

 

No worries! Thanks for listening.

 

:)

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

By the way, has anyone watched Zeitgeist? 1/3 of it is about religion and how most of the baseline beliefs of most of the major religions are based on the same things (a lot of astronomy and other life cycles), and how none of it is original. Not even the story of the virgin birth of the son who is supposed to be the savior, dies, rises again and saves the universe. All of it pre-dates Christ, for sure, and there are countless examples (I have not verified all of it, but did research a lot to see if it was true. It was.).

 

I highly recommend it. You can see it for free on YouTube. It's interesting.

 

(Disclaimer: I remember another part was about 9/11 is an inside job, and I have no patience for that. It was still an hour or so of entertainment for me.)

 

I did watch it. I thought parts of it were a little wacky but I didn't know much of that about the similarities in a lot of the older religions and how it matched up with christianity, it made it seem much less original, assuming it is true. I knew some of those points, or had heard them before, but not all of them together like that.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

How do you as an atheist explain or account for various theist beliefs throughout history? Do you think religious beliefs were formed to explain natural things? Do you foresee a future where all religious beliefs are replaced by science?

 

Yes and yes. In addition, I also think religion has largely been a means to control people at various points in history.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

I hope I didn't miss this in the previous posts.

 

Are Christmas images truly offensive to most/all atheists? By that I mean both "secular" or cultural Christmas symbols like the Christmas trees and also the religious ones.

 

It seems like every year, during "that" season, there is some big controversy over symbols. It's a big holiday, celebrated by Christians and nonchristians alike. I get that an atheist (or any nonchristian) would not want to sing, or have their children sing (as in a school choir) religious Christmas songs. Since those songs are meaningful to me, I'd rather people who thought the subject was just a bunch of malarky not sing them, kwim? But I honestly don't get that the Christmas/Holiday tree in the town square, or a nativity scene would be offensive. Annoying, yes. Tiresome, sure. Some of that stuff drives me crazy too.

 

I do know atheists who celebrate Christmas with Santa, etc. (I don't know what they are celebrating, exactly, and the one time I asked I was quickly told how offensive the question was. I didn't get an answer, just a cold shoulder.) So it's a bit confusing to me.

 

Thanks!

 

 

The images to me are not offensive. The assumption that everyone is celebrating the same thing at that time of year can be, though, depending on how it is presented. I don't love it in government funded places (that goes for all the religious holidays, not just Christmas).

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

I have a question for those who were once Christian but are now atheist. How have your views/opinions of sin changed? I have always had a hard time with the concept of sin. I am asking as a former Christian, now agnostic leaning strongly towards atheism. I have no one IRL to discuss this with, without the you know what hitting the fan!

 

I don't believe in sin. Like things such as sex before marriage, etc. I don't view as a "sin". The only reason they are a sin is because people believe that it is against what their god wants/expects of them IMO. And since I don't have a god, that same line of thinking doesn't work for me. I go by what I feel is right and wrong in each individual situation.

[Mekanamom]

 

 

OK so my first thought is that everyone is born atheist. Babies aren't born with an innate religion, it is learned IMO. But then I can see where an atheist can definitely be made at one point in their life as well after they already have religion in their life and then they develop different beliefs or lack there of. So, I'm going with both. :)

 

 

Yes, I agree. Nature vs. nurture questions usually seem to have elements of both when we're talking about human behavior (psychology, sociology, anthropology).

[Karen in CO]

First, thanks for all the kind responses.

 

 

 

Now that (bolded) is an - unexpected, I guess - response. Maybe it is because of the way the media portrays atheists' attitudes about Christmas, or maybe my (admittedly limited) exposure to atheists has been pretty negative when it comes to such subjects, but my impression was that any nonbeliever would think the story is stupid and even harmful, not brilliant. A cause for mocking, nothing more.

 

I guess the few atheists I have become well-acquainted with have no respect for other beliefs, which is different than I'm seeing in this thread. So this has been very helpful. Of course no group is a monolith (my church is not like Westboro Baptist) but as always it's easy to see an unfamiliar group in that way.

 

 

I read the nativity story to my kids every year. It is part of our Christmas traditions. I try not mock other people's religion. I can enjoy cultural stories without believing them to be true.

[Laura Corin]

Off to bed. Be good.

 

L

[Audrey]

 

It's the pagan thing. Whatever people lacking imagination or education might have to say, one can be an atheist pagan. I have had a couple of people tell me I can't be, but since I am very good at it, I don't believe them. ;)

 

 

 

I am an atheist pagan, too. And, I think I do it pretty well, too, thankyouverymuch. :D

[Audrey]

Not even Dawkins himself will commit to being a 7. You're in good company. :)

 

 

 

I don't really know where to put myself on that scale. I know there is no such thing as a god, as I was brought up to believe but never did, yet I don't really care if there is or isn't. It simply isn't relevant to me at all whether there is or isn't. Even if one came floating down and touched me personally with its noodly appendage, it makes no difference in how I'm going to continue living my life.

[Audrey]

OK so my first thought is that everyone is born atheist. Babies aren't born with an innate religion, it is learned IMO. But then I can see where an atheist can definitely be made at one point in their life as well after they already have religion in their life and then they develop different beliefs or lack there of. So, I'm going with both. :)

 

 

This.

 

You have to be taught religion. No one is born with religion, ergo everyone is born a de facto atheist. You might later learn a religion, and then you might also turn away from religion later, but you were still born an atheist. There is no such thing as inherent religion/spirituality. It's purely a construct of nurture, not nature.

[mamaraby]

I don't really know where to put myself on that scale. I know there is no such thing as a god, as I was brought up to believe but never did, yet I don't really care if there is or isn't. It simply isn't relevant to me at all whether there is or isn't. Even if one came floating down and touched me personally with its noodly appendage, it makes no difference in how I'm going to continue living my life.

 

 

I can relate to his, though I would say on the scale I'm a strong 6.

[poppy]

Just want to add, I am an atheist (a 6 on the scale) who is a member of a church. I joined a local Unitarian Universalist congregation this year. For those not familiar, both Unitarianism and Universalism were Protestant groups, but the modern UU church is a community that welcomes all, including atheists. And Christians. I would say most of our members come from "born Catholic" and secular Jewish traditions. But there is a good representation of other faiths. A former Baptist minister joined the same week I did. He is still strongly Christian.

 

I joined because I enjoy going to church on Sunday mornings, hearing interesting readings, singing and listening to music. I joined to be among like minded people -- interested in social justice, truth, reason, compassion and community. I also wanted a Sunday school experience for my kids. They are learning about the wide variety of faiths as well as ethics and character building. It's been a great experience for us.

[unfrumpable.]

 

 

I don't really know where to put myself on that scale. I know there is no such thing as a god, as I was brought up to believe but never did, yet I don't really care if there is or isn't. It simply isn't relevant to me at all whether there is or isn't. Even if one came floating down and touched me personally with its noodly appendage, it makes no difference in how I'm going to continue living my life.

 

 

This makes me wonder where others stand regarding if there ever was actual proof of a higher power.

 

It would have to be irrefutable proof, not just one person saw it, proof that everyone could see and experience.

[T'smom]

 

 

This is very true. I know some religious groups do positive things for people (poor people, etc.), but it comes with strings attached. There is an ulterior motive. That is the sort of thing I have a major problem with.

 

Some religious groups do things to help without strings. Many, many individual churches will help anyone who asks. Anyone. There is no ulterior motive. (I know that many groups DO have strings and ulterior motives, but many do not.) They will help if they know of a need even if they are not asked. I'm sorry that this has been your experience and the experience of many others.

[MSNative]

Not the OP, but IMO it is yet another way to define "the other" --- (which might look like: You are Christian, I am not. You are American, I am not. You are white, I am not. etc..... ) And sometimes in the name of religion, this otherness gets used nicey-nice... as you described. Sometimes not so much.

 

I don't think it is different from any other way that people sort each other on a regular basis, which probably had roots in evolutionary advantage. It's just that adherents to religion can claim "Divine Right"... that they are correct in their good (or bad) actions because God is on their side (and if God is for us, who can be against?) .... and that makes me wary.

 

I agree with you that this is probably some universal human characteristic. Anti-religious communist governments have killed millions of people. (Please do not take this comment as equating atheism with communism. Just a comment on the bad side of people showing up in both religious and atheistic groups. Evil has been done by humans in both groups.)

 

So, here is my question springboarding off that. Religious groups would say that the "bad" side of human nature is evil, Satan, etc. What do atheists say? What causes the evil behavior and choices that people make - society, environment, etc.?

 

On the other side - how does one define "truth" or "good?" Is there an absolute or universal truth? If so, what is the standard?

 

FYI - this thread is on fire right now and two pages were posted while I was reading so I apologize if these questions have already been asked. Also, please read my tone as respectful and curious. I am truly interested. Thank you for opening this thread up. I am finding it very enlightening.

[Jen in NY]

I agree with you that this is probably some universal human characteristic. Anti-religious communist governments have killed millions of people. (Please do not take this comment as equating atheism with communism. Just a comment on the bad side of people showing up in both religious and atheistic groups. Evil has been done by humans in both groups.)

 

Yes --- I agree with you, and that was kind of my point, I think. All sorts of groups, including ones that have absolutely nothing to do with religion of any kind, have done terrible things. The religious ones just claim that they have an omnipotent power on their side, which makes it hard to argue with them.

 

So, here is my question springboarding off that. Religious groups would say that the "bad" side of human nature is evil, Satan, etc. What do atheists say? What causes the evil behavior and choices that people make - society, environment, etc.?

 

On the other side - how does one define "truth" or "good?" Is there an absolute or universal truth? If so, what is the standard?

 

FYI - this thread is on fire right now and two pages were posted while I was reading so I apologize if these questions have already been asked. Also, please read my tone as respectful and curious. I am truly interested. Thank you for opening this thread up. I am finding it very enlightening.

 

Hi : ) I have a massive headache, so I am heading off to bed in about two seconds, but I wanted to answer this .....

 

And here I am only speaking for myself, because I don't think "atheists" are in any way a group that has any kind of unified philosophy....

 

So, for myself... my answer to how does one define "truth" or "good" is that I am not sure. I think you have to do the best you can with what you have in front of you at the time. And at this point in my life I'm OK with the shades of grey. I know that's not a satisfactory answer for a lot of people. I usually just ask myself, what can I do in this situation that will effect the most good or the least harm? So far, this has been enough for me.

 

Hopefully others will chime in with additional thoughts as I sleep off this searing pain in my brain. :oP

G'night, all.

[MSNative]

Hi : ) I have a massive headache, so I am heading off to bed in about two seconds, but I wanted to answer this .....

 

And here I am only speaking for myself, because I don't think "atheists" are in any way a group that has any kind of unified philosophy....

 

So, for myself... my answer to how does one define "truth" or "good" is that I am not sure. I think you have to do the best you can with what you have in front of you at the time. And at this point in my life I'm OK with the shades of grey. I know that's not a satisfactory answer for a lot of people. I usually just ask myself, what can I do in this situation that will effect the most good or the least harm? So far, this has been enough for me.

 

Hopefully others will chime in with additional thoughts as I sleep off this searing pain in my brain. :oP

G'night, all.

 

Thanks for answering. I appreciate your taking the time when you are feeling so awful. Sleep tight and feel better! Headaches stink!

[Guest inoubliable]

 

So, here is my question springboarding off that. Religious groups would say that the "bad" side of human nature is evil, Satan, etc. What do atheists say? What causes the evil behavior and choices that people make - society, environment, etc.?

 

"Evil" is a religious or philosophical concept, but I would say that bad things are done by people because of environment, mental illness, and brain damage among other reasons.

 

On the other side - how does one define "truth" or "good?" Is there an absolute or universal truth? If so, what is the standard?

 

"Good" is a religious or philosophical concept, as well. "Goodness" is part of human nature, I think. Affection, bonding, sense of community. That is "good". IMO.

 

FYI - this thread is on fire right now and two pages were posted while I was reading so I apologize if these questions have already been asked. Also, please read my tone as respectful and curious. I am truly interested. Thank you for opening this thread up. I am finding it very enlightening.

[albeto]

So, here is my question springboarding off that. Religious groups would say that the "bad" side of human nature is evil, Satan, etc. What do atheists say? What causes the evil behavior and choices that people make - society, environment, etc.?

 

Depends. Which atheist are you asking, and in what context? I tend to think of behaviors as solutions to problems. All solutions are not effective, they can cause unforeseen problems for the individual or for others. Many solutions are not socially appropriate, but depending upon the society, what may be considered "evil" in one is benign in another (for example, homosexuality).

 

Human behavior is very complex. The variables that contribute to habits and impulses are exceedingly complex. We're just now as a society beginning to understand how behavior works (Phineas Gage being one, if not the first, well documented cases of the effect of the brain on personality and behavior). Parents are generally no longer blamed for the developmental disabilities of their children (autism is no longer attributed to "refrigerator mothers"), nor is their inappropriate behavior understood to be willfully naughty. Slowly but surely, we're changing how we respond to unacceptable behaviors . We are starting to understand how, through objective data like EEGs and brain scans, psychopaths possess significant impairments that affect their ability to feel emotions, read other people’s cues and learn from their mistakes.

 

On the other side - how does one define "truth" or "good?" Is there an absolute or universal truth? If so, what is the standard?

 

The standard depends on the culture. We are learning how children develop those traits which are universally human. Beyond that, the culture determines what is socially appropriate and what is not. Equal marriage is socially appropriate in the Netherlands, and has been legally protected since 2001, for example, but the very same behavior is criminal in Nigeria, resulting in prison time even for supporting such a thing. In the United States, we have laws to reflect a social standard that does not support pedophilia, whereas in other cultures, the very behavior is protected by law. I personally like what Sam Harris has to say in this talk about using objectively determined well-being as a measure for moral code.

 

FYI - this thread is on fire right now and two pages were posted while I was reading so I apologize if these questions have already been asked. Also, please read my tone as respectful and curious. I am truly interested. Thank you for opening this thread up. I am finding it very enlightening.

 

I didn't read it any other way.

 

:)

[MSNative]

My internet connection is tormenting me. It won't open the Harris video. Grr. I'm very interested to follow this line of thought. Thank you for sharing. I will respond after I've had a chance to read your links and pondered for a while. Thanks!!

[Rosie_0801]

This makes me wonder where others stand regarding if there ever was actual proof of a higher power.

 

It would have to be irrefutable proof, not just one person saw it, proof that everyone could see and experience.

 

Two ways to look at this:

 

1. There are higher powers that aren't deities. I can't break the laws of nature, but they can break me if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

2. I'll start believing in a deity when one comes and badgers me so much it becomes more ridiculous to disbelieve than believe.

 

 

Is there an absolute or universal truth?

 

Hmm. An absolute or universal truth? I might have to quote my mother. "You are not the only one in the world." :p

[Free]

I agree with Jen that atheists are not a unified group and that each of us has our own philosophy. So please know, that I am not speaking for all atheists but only for myself.

 

Religious groups would say that the "bad" side of human nature is evil, Satan, etc. What do atheists say? What causes the evil behavior and choices that people make - society, environment, etc.?

 

I consider the problem of what we call evil, to be caused by human psychology. The very emotions that enabled our survival in the wild - anger and fear - are not as useful when living in a civilized society. They cause divisiveness and hatred and the desire to control others in order to protect ourselves.

 

I think all faith traditions recognized this too, and most religions exhort their followers to eschew anger and fear in favor of love and courage.

 

But this is not easy. Managing our emotions has to be learnt and not all families are equipped to teach their children the best way to cope with negative feelings. For many it takes years of practice, patience, maturity, experience and maybe even some therapy to get to a place where one can feel tranquility and joy in spite of negative provocations.

 

So for me whenever I see evil being perpetrated, I feel sad for the victims, but I also a feel a tiny little bit sadness for the perpetrators. I may have been the only one in my country to have had tears in my eyes when I read the newspaper on the morning Ajmal Kasab was hanged.

 

On the other side - how does one define "truth" or "good?" Is there an absolute or universal truth? If so, what is the standard?

 

In some other forums I frequent, the overwhelming view among atheists seems to be that there is no objective standard for good. I agree only partly. I agree that what seems good today for our place in time, may not be so in future. For example the question of voluntary euthanasia. As medical treatments keep advancing and human life spans keep getting longer, there will I suppose sometime in the future arise the question of whether people should have the right to die. I don't know the answer. Another example is genetic modification of humans. I am sure future humans will grapple with far more complex issues than we can imagine now and as such the idea of *what is good* keeps changing.

 

But on the other hand, I think there can be an objective standard for *how to decide what is good*. Most atheists use the golden rule when deciding matters of right and wrong, but I especially like

on this when he says morality should be about maximizing well-being for the whole of human society.

 

ETA: I did not read Albeto's post before responding, but it seems we cover pretty much the same ground in our responses and we have both linked to Sam Harris's TED Talk.

[kubiac]

Does atheist simply mean no belief in an all-encompassing creating deity? Or can you believe in a kind of "cosmic consciousness" that is organic, but nothing more than part of our natural world? Would that fall into a pagan category. Sorry, I have scattered thoughts and I'm out of coffee.

 

I think I'm a "cosmic consciousness" kind of atheist. My overall religious persuasion is, at this point, more or less "null." I don't consider myself active in any particular belief system, but I do hew to what I consider the rationalism of atheism, while still sensing that we are all...networked.

 

The best description of my belief system comes from Leaves of Grass, from passages like this:

 

 

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

 

I loafe and invite my soul,

I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

 

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,

Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their

parents the same,

I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,

Hoping to cease not till death.

 

Creeds and schools in abeyance,

Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten,

I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard,

Nature without check with original energy.

[kubiac]

"Is an atheist born or made?"

 

I don't think I was born an atheist, and but I became an atheist almost as soon as I was exposed to organized religion. The equation just didn't resolve properly in my head and I couldn't participate based on that alone.

 

Later, in late high school, I took a comparative religion class and tried to be Buddhist for about a month.

 

I was an angry atheist a few times in my youth but as I've aged (matured?), I've decided that whatever anybody needs to get them through the day is fine by me, so long as they're not disturbing anyone else.

[kubiac]

How do you as an atheist explain or account for various theist beliefs throughout history?

 

Security blanket.

 

Do you think religious beliefs were formed to explain natural things?

 

In part. I think the leading quality of religious belief is actually that it is, by definition, a community of belief. Humans are deeply social creatures, and I suspect that the shared ideology and the para-village quality of a local religious group are incredibly powerful attributes of religion.

 

Do you foresee a future where all religious beliefs are replaced by science?

 

Highly unlikely, although I suspect that certain regions of the world may eventually develop atheist majorities.

[kubiac]

Can you make explain this line of thinking a little bit more? I remember you saying something similar in another thread and can't make sense of it. Faith-based groups were instrumental in starting hospitals and working to help the poor in this country. There are many faith-based groups that travel to other countries in order to help. Part of why they go is because they believe their religion teaches them to do it. Christianity even teaches its followers to love their enemies. Are you maybe thinking along the lines of groups that refuse medical treatment for their kids for religious reasons?

 

I would hone in on the "suffering as divine justice" part of what she said.

 

Why did baby Quinn from our mommy group get cancer and die at 18 months after suffering horribly? Was it random bad luck? Or was there a higher power deciding that Quinn needed to die? If there is a higher power who makes decisions like this, why is he considered a god and not a demon?

 

I've noticed a theme in religious belief of "it was meant to be" and "god decides/decided this for me"--this seems highly suspect to an atheist, just as a matter of math (similar to how does Santa all but defy physics to deliver all the presents?), not to mention that as an empathetic human, sometimes trying to retroactively explain the horrors of the world seems like it's really just digging the knife in deeper.

 

I would rather it be that Quinn died horribly for no particular reason than that she died because a decision was made by a higher power.

[Audrey]

 

I would hone in on the "suffering as divine justice" part of what she said.

 

Why did baby Quinn from our mommy group get cancer and die at 18 months after suffering horribly? Was it random bad luck? Or was there a higher power deciding that Quinn needed to die? If there is a higher power who makes decisions like this, why is he considered a god and not a demon?

 

I've noticed a theme in religious belief of "it was meant to be" and "god decides/decided this for me"--this seems highly suspect to an atheist, just as a matter of math (similar to how does Santa all but defy physics to deliver all the presents?), not to mention that as an empathetic human, sometimes trying to retroactively explain the horrors of the world seems like it's really just digging the knife in deeper.

 

I would rather it be that Quinn died horribly for no particular reason than that she died because a decision was made by a higher power.

 

Beautifully said.

[Laura Corin]

 

 

 

So, here is my question springboarding off that. Religious groups would say that the "bad" side of human nature is evil, Satan, etc. What do atheists say? What causes the evil behavior and choices that people make - society, environment, etc.?

 

On the other side - how does one define "truth" or "good?" Is there an absolute or universal truth? If so, what is the standard?

 

 

This may have been answered already, but I've been asleep, so I'm going to work through the posts slowly.

 

For me: people are capable of great good and great evil. I do think that some people are born more prone to bad acts than others - they find it less easy to control their impulses, for example. The rest, for me, is all about training and life circumstances.

 

I go by the golden rule, common to many cultures: do unto others... It sits well with me and is a workable basis for a society.

 

L

[Onceuponatime]

 

 

I would rather it be that Quinn died horribly for no particular reason than that she died because a decision was made by a higher power.

 

Isn't the no particular reason just as problematic? It still leaves us feeling helpless and hopeless, which is why religion may have come along in the first place.

 

I don't propose making a god of science, but we are making tremendous strides in the understanding of how heredity, environment, and even human choice affect us and our descendents. There are reasons why things happen, and we may not like the reasons, but they are there. It is painful to think that it may be our (a universal our) own, nature's, or our ancestor's (unintentional) fault. However, it could motivate us to make changes or become "prophets" of change. This doesn't deny the very painful nature of the subject, but it does allow us to feel like there may be some small things we can do to reduce such occurances in the future.

 

Even with all that, death is still a major issue in the world today. Everybody dies, sooner or later, it is just our nature. Such finality is usually painful and unacceptable. Religion often provides a way of coping with the pain.

 

On a related note, I've recently discovered Karl Marx's thoughts on religion. The most often quoted portion is "religion is the opium of the people." This is usually taken out of context and used in a derogatory sense, but the paragraph surrounding that phrase is quite beautiful. I wish I could cut and paste it here, but for some reason my computer won't let me. It is easy enough to find if you "google" it.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Isn't the no particular reason just as problematic? It still leaves us feeling helpless and hopeless, which is why religion may have come along in the first place.

 

I don't propose making a god of science, but we are making tremendous strides in the understanding of how heredity, environment, and even human choice affect us and our descendents. There are reasons why things happen, and we may not like the reasons, but they are there. It is painful to think that it may be our (a universal our) own, nature's, or our ancestor's (unintentional) fault. However, it could motivate us to make changes or become "prophets" of change. This doesn't deny the very painful nature of the subject, but it does allow us to feel like there may be some small things we can do to reduce such occurances in the future.

 

Even with all that, death is still a major issue in the world today. Everybody dies, sooner or later, it is just our nature. Such finality is usually painful and unacceptable. Religion often provides a way of coping with the pain.

 

On a related note, I've recently discovered Karl Marx's thoughts on religion. The most often quoted portion is "religion is the opium of the people." This is usually taken out of context and used in a derogatory sense, but the paragraph surrounding that phrase is quite beautiful. I wish I could cut and paste it here, but for some reason my computer won't let me. It is easy enough to find if you "google" it.

 

Not kubiac, but since I'm up this early anyway I'll take a stab at it. :)

 

The "no particular reason" isn't problematic for me. It doesn't leave me feeling helpless or hopeless. Death is unavoidable. It can be tragic and it can cause grief, for sure. But I don't feel helpless in the face of it - accepting that death is unavoidable and that it is the natural order of things is freeing. I don't feel hopeless, either. Rather, I live my life to the fullest while I can and help others do the same as I can.

 

I understand how religion helps some people in coping with the pain and loss of a loved one. I cannot imagine asking a being (that presumably had the power to save the dead person but didn't?) "why?", but I do take comfort in surrounding myself with the people in my life that I love. When my maternal grandmother died, I enjoyed the same supportive community that a church would have provided but through my friends, family, and coworkers. When my paternal grandmother died, I had the same community. Since her death seemed more... tragic in a way (ALS), I also spent time reading about ALS and donated my senior year graduation money to a research group. I felt supported and I also felt like I was *doing* something.

 

I never thought Marx's published opinions on religion were much about religion at all. I was taught that what he said about religion was more about society. Religion was a means to explain to the people *why* their life was so shitty - "It's god's plan" - or *why* certain people were in charge even though things weren't getting better - "god works in mysterious ways". Religion is a reflection of society at the time - it gives hope to people who need it, those whose lives don't make sense, those who feel their lives *should* be better, *could* be better, those who need to feel like there is a purpose to their suffering now (because a glorious afterlife awaited them).

 

I don't think Marx felt religion was a truly awful thing. I don't know any atheists who claim that, either, tbh. Yes, I see the quote you mentioned on the internet at times. Usually in some internet meme. But if you read Marx much, or if you look at his quote within the context of the larger piece, you see that he was talking about society and not religion. Had religion really been an enemy in Marx's eyes, he'd have written about it much more frequently than he did, IMO. And he did recognize that religion serves that purpose of consoling the masses. What he was ultimately against was a society where religion was needed for consolation. JMO, of course.

 

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the exp

ression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

^[1]

^"

[Lisbeth]

My parents are atheists. I used to be one. My mom will sing in church, because to her, it's just a pretty song. Crosses in public, attending Baptisms, etc, don't bother her. Each subsequent generation seems to need to be offended more easily. It's not everyone, though.

[Onceuponatime]

Not kubiac, but since I'm up this early anyway I'll take a stab at it. :)

 

The "no particular reason" isn't problematic for me. It doesn't leave me feeling helpless or hopeless. Death is unavoidable. It can be tragic and it can cause grief, for sure. But I don't feel helpless in the face of it - accepting that death is unavoidable and that it is the natural order of things is freeing. I don't feel hopeless, either. Rather, I live my life to the fullest while I can and help others do the same as I can.

 

I understand how religion helps some people in coping with the pain and loss of a loved one. I cannot imagine asking a being (that presumably had the power to save the dead person but didn't?) "why?", but I do take comfort in surrounding myself with the people in my life that I love. When my maternal grandmother died, I enjoyed the same supportive community that a church would have provided but through my friends, family, and coworkers. When my paternal grandmother died, I had the same community. Since her death seemed more... tragic in a way (ALS), I also spent time reading about ALS and donated my senior year graduation money to a research group. I felt supported and I also felt like I was *doing* something.

 

I never thought Marx's published opinions on religion were much about religion at all. I was taught that what he said about religion was more about society. Religion was a means to explain to the people *why* their life was so shitty - "It's god's plan" - or *why* certain people were in charge even though things weren't getting better - "god works in mysterious ways". Religion is a reflection of society at the time - it gives hope to people who need it, those whose lives don't make sense, those who feel their lives *should* be better, *could* be better, those who need to feel like there is a purpose to their suffering now (because a glorious afterlife awaited them).

 

I don't think Marx felt religion was a truly awful thing. I don't know any atheists who claim that, either, tbh. Yes, I see the quote you mentioned on the internet at times. Usually in some internet meme. But if you read Marx much, or if you look at his quote within the context of the larger piece, you see that he was talking about society and not religion. Had religion really been an enemy in Marx's eyes, he'd have written about it much more frequently than he did, IMO. And he did recognize that religion serves that purpose of consoling the masses. What he was ultimately against was a society where religion was needed for consolation. JMO, of course.

 

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

 

 

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the exp

ression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

^[1]

^"

 

Maybe it got lost in the translation but this is basically what I was trying to say in the first place. :-)

[Guest inoubliable]

Maybe it got lost in the translation but this is basically what I was trying to say in the first place. :-)

 

Oh aye. :) I was agreeing and explaining my own thoughts on it.