Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[bahihs]

Religion gives moral guidelines. Atheists form their own and feel guilty if they transgress.

Besides this, most theists do the same with the occassional "I did this because the bible says..." added in to back their action.

Sorry for the double post. This answers the second question (Do you feel guilty?), but not the first : How do you deal with the apparent disparity in standard of living between peoples around the world?

[Harry Baldman]

But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?

You have to admit it's very easy not to think about due to there being absolutely nothing one can do about their initial conditions in life, and lives tend to be very sensitive to initial conditions.

However, consider that for an atheist the afterlife (to address that part of the worldview) might be found in some way in what they leave behind. An atheist may admit that their own mind will cease to exist, but this hardly matters if one can identify with something broader than themselves - their family, their work, their community, civilization as a whole or something similar. A grounded afterlife of sorts. You can still feel like you are a part of a greater functioning whole even if you do not believe in the supernatural, and you can also believe this greater whole will endure past your death. So if an atheist is on the shitty side of observing disparity among the people of the world, they can make themselves part of something greater that alleviates this.

[TD1]

The same as anybody else. Charity, ignoring, or personal interaction. Both the theist and atheist have compassion, you realise.

[TempAcc]

Religion gives moral guidelines. Atheists form their own and feel guilty if they transgress.

Besides this, most theists do the same with the occassional "I did this because the bible says..." added in to back their action.

This is also true for religious people, though, with the questionable exception of fundamentalist religious people, which I actively avoid. Religion is ultimately a choice, even if people attempt to force theirs on you, since nobody is capable of mind control. Religion is just one of the sources of moral guidelines, along with society, culture and family. These often overlap, but never actualy completely absorb one another.

In this sense, one could even argue that an atheist person might be actualy more limited in their choices, since they choose to actively ignore any guidelines related to religion, similar to a fundamentalist religious person, that ignores guidelines outside of religion :v

Edit: Alas, I confirm the existence of ninjas yet again. I will go on to start ninjanity.

[wierd]

Correct! we KNOW very little about gravity. That's why we are running tests at the LHC.

Unlike a question about a supernatural agency, we interact with gravity daily. We stand to profit immeasurably through a better understanding of it.

It is therefor worth the expense to try to find out.

That is not true of supernatural agencies, which by definition, are supernatural, and thus outside the scope of what natural science can investigate.

Is this to suggest that efforts should only be made toward those things in which "we stand to profit immeasurably" or is "worth the expense"? If so I agree with you on the last statement (outside the scope of natural science) but not the former.

Not only because it is impossible to determine whether a particular discovery will be profitable (in the sense of useful) in the future, but also because it seems to denounce doing activities for their own sake (art for instance). Although I get the feeling that's not what you meant and you were only speaking about gravity vs God ( and not everything)

"Useful" in that there actually IS an application for the knowledge.

again, a supernatural agency presupposes a condition of being outside physical reality, through its definition. This means that while we might conjecturally come to "know" about supernatural events, if they are relayed to us by a supernatural actor, there is no actual utility to that "knowledge."

I used quote above for a very important reason-- that (above) is basically what is claimed by every book on witchcraft, magic, and religious tome out there. That isn't true knowledge, because you cannot test it yourself to verify it. It has to be taken on "good faith", and is thus wholly in the realm of belief.

supernatural things are supernatural, and we cannot test them. Physical things are physical  and we CAN test them.

debating about knowledge of a supernatural thing is a pointless exercise.

[Sheb]

Well, this thread of discussion starting with a question of semantics, about why I didn't like to call my atheism a belief. I readily admit that I do not KNOW that God doesn't exist, just as I do not KNOW that my garden is still there or that a teapot doesn't orbit Mars (An example, which I find much less loaded than your ant one). But I wouldn't walk to my sister and say "I belief the garden hasn't been replaced by a void".

Part of the issue there is that we do not have words to distinguish between stuff we know with absolute certainty, and stuff which we just know with a really, really high degree of certainty. Anyway, I don't think we should really be discussing atheism again, I was just answering a semantic question.

Bahihs, for your other question, I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "deal"? Maybe it would help me if you told us how you see religious folks "dealing" with inequality.

[Rolan7]

This is a straight question, please don't take it in a sarcastic sense.

Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?

It really sucks.  And as you point out, we don't believe that it's going to be rectified after death.  If the problems are going to be fixed, we have to do it ourselves, here and now.  Fortunately, almost all humans have compassion, so we feel the urge to help to some extent.

It's actually stranger that religions encourage charity, while at the same time saying that the downtrodden will be rewarded in the next life.  It's a bit inconsistent, but it makes sense in the context of seeking converts.  Religious charity almost always involves evangelism, a very effective combination.  The unfortunate person is offered food now, and a palace in heaven later.  The missionary feels like a good person because they're being charitable.  Everybody wins, especially the religion's population number.

The thing is, charity isn't a religious thing.  Everybody has an impulse for charity, that's the reason charitable missionaries feel good.  The reason religious groups are able to spend so much money on charity, besides being massive, ancient organizations, is that it's also their recruitment budget.

But atheists don't have this, so how do they manage the dissonance? Or do they not just think about it?

This is not to say there aren't charitable atheists (obviously there are) or uncharitable theists (unfortunately), but in the latter case it would be considered a sin and some sort of guilt associated with it, whereas in uncharitable atheists, my question is whether a similar guilt is felt, and if so how is it resolved?

Definitely.  And my opinion is that that "guilt" is behind all charity, but religions piggyback on it to gain converts.

And to be fair, all sorts of other groups attach their agendas to charity also.  Particularly governments or political groups.  But my point is that compassion is human, and certain groups just take credit for it.  Resulting in people wondering why nonbelievers would ever be compassionate...  As if we're all sociopaths.  Which is silly because we're not the ones being coerced to do good by religious doctrines.

The sad thing is that a lot of religious people seem to think they would be evil, if religion wasn't forcing them to do good    I don't believe that.  It's a false teaching which keeps people in line.

[TD1]

I fail to see how it is pointless. You can compare it with beliefs which are the same barring the fact only a few believe them -Zeus, Santa, Thor, etc.- and then apply this evidence to the supernatural force being evaluated. If it is different in some drastic way, then it deserves a closer look. So far, I've yet to see a deity that doesn't seem man made.

As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.

[wierd]

I fail to see how it is pointless. You can compare it with beliefs which are the same barring the fact only a few believe them -Zeus, Santa, Thor, etc.- and then apply this evidence to the supernatural force being evaluated. If it is different in some drastic way, then it deserves a closer look. So far, I've yet to see a deity that doesn't seem man made.

As has been expressed before, it is a question of probability. We all presumably agree that the probability of Zeus existing is very far down there. Why, then, isn't God. As far as I can see, the only reason is because a lot of people currently hold that belief. Zeus doesn't exist if enough people think he does. Likewise, nor does God.

You are conflating "belief in judaeo christian god" with "Belief in A god".

an atheist says more than just "I dont believe in 'that' god."  he says "I dont believe gods arent all fiction."

This gets complicated by "hard" and "soft" atheism.

the hard atheist flatly says "There are NO gods."
the soft atheist says "I do not believe in any of the gods presented to me so far." --or there abouts.

Likewise, there are hard and soft agnostics.
The hard agnostic, like me, says "I have no knowledge that any god is real or unreal, and state from the basis of pure logic, that no such knowledge can ever be attained."
the soft agnostic says simply "I do not know if any god exists or not."

If you note, my argument was against hard atheism, not soft atheism-- I directly stated such in the opening paragraph.

You sound like a soft atheist. Sheb sounds like a hard atheist.

[Angle]

This is a straight question, please don't take it in a sarcastic sense.

Now, my premise might be wrong, but assuming an Atheist does not believe in an afterlife or even more basic, some sort of cosmic balance (a la Hinduism or Buddhism, among others), how do they reconcile (or even rationalize) the vast difference in standards of living between people in the world (especially in the western world, whose standard of living is vastly superior to rest)?

Well, it depends on the atheist - Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, for example. But for myself at least, I reconcile this by actively working to make the world a better place. You can check the Agora link in my sig for details.

[Harry Baldman]

I've got a question similar to bahihs' one, but from the other side.

Let's say you are religious, and that this religion is the type that has an afterlife with qualifications, and a less preferable afterlife for those who don't qualify. You are judged by a divine entity of some sort to gauge whether you are going to get in.

Do non-batshit-insane religious people genuinely believe that someone does go to some form of hell after they die?

If so, do they ever really consider that they themselves may go to hell after they die? That a divine entity beyond their comprehension will look upon their souls and find them wanting for sins they have rationalized away or perhaps for sins that nobody has managed to commit in any form of document?

Or does every person assume by default that they will experience the better afterlife if they continue their chosen course in life working from the information available to them, or perhaps not consider the afterlife at all (it being their chosen gods that have the only right to decide, after all)?

[TempAcc]

There are also atheistic interpretations of judaism, I think, but none that are too established, or that I know too well. Regardless, human beings need to try at least make the world a little better through their own efforts, out of compassion, and not necessarily religion, and some religions actualy enforce this. For example: there is a saying in Islam (I think) that says we should help eachother as if there was no God.

@Harry Baldman: That question only applies to religions that include a hell :v

[Harry Baldman]

@Harry Baldman: That question only applies to religions that include a hell :v

Well, I specified as much at the start (if only because working in the hell bit in every question would have been awkward). Fortunately, I know of a few very popular ones that do, at least in their supplemental material.

See, I know all the fundamentalist perspectives on these questions, but never somebody more moderate.

[Arx]

There are also atheistic interpretations of judaism, I think, but none that are too established, or that I know too well.

That doesn't make much sense, since literally all of Judaism that I'm aware of is based off serving God in order to reap benefits. There isn't even an afterlife clause.

Do non-batshit-insane religious people genuinely believe that someone does go to some form of hell after they die?

Well, I like to think I'm not insane, and, well, yes. I tend to favour the annihilation theory rather than the loleternalpain theory, but it's rather vague and doesn't make much difference anyway. There's a reason I still hang around in this thread other than self-hatred.

And I'm probably a moderate fundamentalist or something. I believe that if it's in the Bible, it's a thing, but I use the whole Bible, not whatever's convenient and supports my pre-existing agenda, which seems to be what the loudest American fundamentalists do. Edit: The short way to say that is "I'm a Methodist" but most people don't actually know what that means. :v

[TempAcc]

It would wildly depend on interpretation. For some Christians, hell is a place reserved only for people who have made themselves irredeemable, as in, they do not repent the sins they committed, and so made it impossible for God to save them, since man has free will. Those who repent their sins can go to heaven, and those that do not have the knowledge to properly acknowledge their sins and properly repent are sent to purgatory, where they face temporary trials that give them knowledge of their sins, allowing them to repent and then go to Heaven.

This is a pretty personal interpretation, though, so dont take it as representative of some major belief. I'm likely not even fully christian by now :v

There are also atheistic interpretations of judaism, I think, but none that are too established, or that I know too well.

That doesn't make much sense, since literally all of Judaism that I'm aware of is based off serving God in order to reap benefits. There isn't even an afterlife clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism#Jewish_theology

Again, not a very stablished thing, or something I know very well by any means.