Ask the godless heathen - AKA Ask An Atheist — Page 3

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

Indeed.

If God were to ignore my actions in this world and cast me to hell simply because I didn't worship him...I submit that he/she is a god not worthy of worship.

 So you want to worship a God you don't believe in for all eternity rather than be rid of him forever? The first option is what I call heaven, the second is what I call hell.

What you are unintentionally saying is "if God decided that I wouldn't have to worship him for eternity because I didn't worship him on earth, I wouldn't want to worship him."

 I'm saying a perfect being does not require worship.  Worship is a human invention.

The crew of The Enterprise concur.

(btw I really like ST5, there I said it)

DuracellEnergizer said:

timdiggerm said:

The usual idea is that, without some sort of ultimate authority, there's no way to absolutely say that something is bad.

Or good, for that matter. And this is one of the reasons why atheism holds no appeal for me; a godless universe is ultimately an amoral universe, regardless of what anyone may say.

3 things. What's a moral universe? what's wrong with an amoral universe anyway? and how would the two differ in reality?

On a new strand. Theists look to religion to inform and re-enforce their beliefs but that's also kinda true of atheists too.

In my early teens when my political and philisophical opinions where very much still forming, Babylon5 inspired and re-assured me. The message of the show of tolerance and resistence in the face of oppression were very powerful. This scene kinda sums up how I feel about things...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvmtHGwRSuQ

^ Beautiful stuff.

Some very powerful episodes in the show were about religious faith like 'Passing through Gethsemane'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m9GQ3thO8o

(Shame that clip ^ doesn't have the powerful episode end)

If I have a 'good book' it was that show. Anybody else have similar things that informed them in such a way?

(btw B5 creator/writer J. Michael Straczynski was raised Catholic and is now an atheist if anybody was wondering)

damn, 3 pages...        ; )

timdiggerm said:

You're asking me if I think genocide is bad. I'll tell you, I think murder is bad, genocide is horrific. On what grounds? Well, I wouldn't kill anybody.

Not good enough. "I wouldn't do it" is hardly a firm ground for condemning the acts of others.

It seems to be good enough for homophobes.

The "Do unto others" rule, doesn't only exist in Christianity and probably 99% of other religions in the world (look it up). It's plain common sense, dictated by self preservation, killing people is "bad" because it would be detrimental to the survival of the species.

Unless you're killing people who would be detrimental to the survival of the species, of course.

Well, since we now live in a civilized society, we can afford not to kill them, and lock them up, say Charlie Manson, or Pol Pot who died under house arrest.

However, you can look at the good that came from the bad. If it weren't for Schicklgruber, Von Braun wouldn't have left Germany, and maybe a German or Russian cosmonaut would've walked on the Moon. I like to think that WWII, while a horrible scar in humanity's past, has brought life to endless material for comedians, whole generations of them. Some have based their entire career on it!

It's unknowable how much good could have happened without the war, the war could have happened without the holocaust and still led to the space race, and the death of millions is hardly a satisfactory justification for men on the moon.

Don't twist my words, there, buddy. I never said anything about it being a "satisfactory justification".

I'll make another example that will, no doubt, make every American cringe. We all know lots of people died on 11 Sept 2001. We all feel bad about it. But maybe (to quote comedian Louis C.K.) there were a couple of assholes that day, on the towers. We don't know for sure, but statistically we can assume at least one person saw the buildings collapse, and sighed with relief, because somebody they had a beef with, was in the middle of that disaster.

Yeah and some people sighed with relief because America had taken a blow and some people sighed with relief because the Jews were dead and... I don't see where you're going with this.

Don't bother reading a second time, then, you won't get it.

The usual idea is that, without some sort of ultimate authority, there's no way to absolutely say that something is bad.

Well, turns out there is no ultimate authority, in every sense. What was good once, may not fly today. In other words, humanity will make its own rules. If everybody agrees killing each other is good, well, guess what, it's good. But until further notice, it's bad.

And enough people agreed that the Final Solution was a good idea. That wouldn't fly today, but it sure did then.

I feel like I rambled. Did that answer your question?

Nope.

 Too bad. I'm not as eloquent as most of you, so I just try my best to put into words what goes thru mah brains.

timdiggerm said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

timdiggerm said:

What makes a person evil?

 Feeling empathy yet ignoring it.

 Okay, so the guards at the death camps may have been evil, but Hitler, sufficiently insulated from the messy reality of the gas chambers, was probably fine?

The SS were weak minds, turned by propaganda to believe that the individuals they were dealing with weren't even human. The first step in the elimination of the Jews was introducing a word to define them in everyday speech: rats. That is how they called them. And if you take humanity away from somebody, killing them is almost a given.

DominicCobb said:

I thought about starting this thread and then saying that I probably wouldn't answer any questions because atheists don't have a set set of beliefs. Any question that gets answered just comes down to the answerer's view on life. 

So I just want to make it clear that these answers don't represent the beliefs of all atheists. I'm sure we all know that but it's a common misconception that all atheists think the same thing and treat others and the world the same way. I actually see atheism as the belief system that faces the most prejudice (let me be VERY clear that what I mean by this is that I think many theists have a low opinion of atheists - I do not mean AT ALL that they are persecuted or are the victim of any sort of violence, because they aren't).

What really annoys me the most is when theists see atheists as people who have no soul or sense of empathy. Again, I don't mean you guys, but I've met people in the world like this. Just anecdotally I feel like a lot of theists have a low opinion for atheists that they'd never have for a theist with a different religion.

Personally, my hands are off religion so it annoys me when people try to argue against my atheism (which, again, I don't think you see a theist doing this to a theist of a different religion) because I just want no part in religion. For me, God doesn't exist, and that's that. 

Of course, this makes it all the more rewarding when I meet a theist who totally respects my beliefs.

This wasn't really a question, but whatever.

 Quoted For Thruth, and appreciated.

TV's Frink said:

Since I attack religion for "knowing" I have to do the same on the other side.

Leo, what makes you so sure there isn't a God?

 My own, personal, complete rejection of anything metaphysical. I even go as far as rarely using the verb "believe", and never using the word "soul" because it has no meaning for me.
The two worlds, the physical and the metaphysical, by definition should be totally and utterly separated. There could never be any contact between the two.

Also, while on one hand I do love and participate in humanity's quest for knowledge, on the other hand I do not agree to the postulate that every creation must have a Creator.

Did that answer your question? Any follow ups?

If hell does exist it will probably be like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY

...and I'll feel a proper nitwit. ;-)

Reegar said:

Leonardo said:

Too bad. I'm not as eloquent as most of you, so I just try my best to put into words what goes thru mah brains.

Whoever told you that? You're the most approachable person in this thread so far, and have explained your thoughts well. :)

 Thank you, I appreciate that, but I must say you come off as more coherent. I am all over the place, I'm the first to recognize that.

Jaitea said:

If God created us perfect and individual and has a paradise for our soul, why send us to earth in the first place?......why let his creations become tainted by sin on earth?

J

 Well, it's about the journey, isn't it? The good witch could have told Dorothy to use the ruby slippers, but she wouldn't have met Scarecrow, Tin Man and the Lion if she had done so.

Might I ask how do you pronounce your name? Is it Hai-T? Or Hai-Teh-Ah?

RicOlie_2 said:

You are, whether intentionally or not, avoiding my main question. How can you be sure that murder is wrong if it can have practical benefits for society in some cases? What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself? Is survival of the fittest, the most cooperative, or the competitive cooperative the way to go and what makes you think that instead of something else? If someone disagreed with you why are you so sure you would be right?

I wasn't trying to avoid it, I just thought I'd answered it already. But anyway murder does not "have practical benefits for society in some cases" because the family of the murdered person would be harmed, the person themselves would be harmed (They are part of society) and society would be less-rich to the tune of one life. If a percentage of the population were happy about the murder then those people lack empathy (As I've already said). For the record I'm against the Death-Penalty in all cases (Except littering and talking/texting in a f*cking cinema!).

"What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself?" Fairly abstract question but my sense of empathy is directly derived from my own sense of self-preservtion and well being (As I've also already said) or to use a quote I read somewhere (I forget where) "Do unto to others as you would have done unto you".

"Survival of the fittest" only applies in pure terms to animals as they lack a sense of empathy. Empathy is what makes us uniquely human. Sure in most human contexts the "fittest" will win but they had a choice to concede or to never compete... an animal does not. For example, my cat derives pleasure from toying with a mouse, torturing it and then ripping it's head off and giving it to me as a present. My cat isn't evil, it just lacks a sense of empathy for the mouse. But my cat still has emotions and feelings however and would be hurt if I treated it in the same way as it treated the mouse but that would never change it's behaviour. That's only something we humans have evolved.

It's a shame when religous people choose to ignore this sense of empathy and instead choose to act against their own nature to follow the commandments in a book. e.g. "Homosexuality is wrong because my religion says it is, despite the evidence of my feelings of empathy for them (Because I'm a good person) and them being happy that way, them doing no harm to anyone else and me knowing that gay guy at work that is actually really nice etc etc".

Bingowings said:

I evoke Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics, for no apparent reason.

 I had to google that to remind me. That episode where Picard and Riker debate the nature of Data as a being was amazing.