Slashdot Mirror

See this link on a prominent atheism website under the question 'Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?'. (sorry, no direct link, you'll have to do a little keyword searching)

Here are some quotes:

'It is a natural human tendency to look for 'meaning or 'purpose' in random events.

'[Some atheists] ...believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.'

Ok, I could be wrong but these statements appear to be very similar to the one's I made above. These are atheist's statements on an atheist's website. The only inconsistency is probably that I should've have said that only some atheists believe that evil simply is and is a result of the randomness of life.

An atheist does this by saying, "all the evil (and all the good) in the world is completely random and I shouldn't bother with trying to understand why it is happening". A theist on the other hand believes a supernatural explanation for the evil in the world. In the case of the Christian, he or she believes the Bible's explanation for evil, that the sin of man is at the root of all evil, and only by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross can we be saved.

I think it unwise to speak for all atheists and christians in such a broad way (especially without reading some history). However, I think atheists are more likely to seek an answer and solution to "evil" in human causes and actions because they don't already have the prepackaged answer. To say atheists wouldn't bother is an insult to the many that do.

An honest atheist would have to agree that their approach to dealing with life is as much about what they believe (ie, have faith in) about the world than about what can actually be proven about it.

I have faith that modern liberal democracies tend to be happier places to live than despotisms. But what has this got to do with "god"? As an agnostic, I refuse to categorically refute there is a god without evidence either way, but on the balance of evidence, believe (have faith) that a god (epecially one from human imagination) is unlikely.

cool, and here I was seriously wondering if all atheists were nothing but slavering hate-mongers who had no higher calling than to force everyone to give up their 'silly, stupid' beliefs and become atheists.

nice to see there are some rationals still around.

I highly recommend Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" for a 3rd approach. He states that with both theism and atheism there is a point at which you make a leap and state something. "There is a god" or "There is no god" and from that assumption there falls a series of logical conclusions. His approach is not to make that leap. It's a stance akin to zen buddhism. Essentially, I don't know, and have no means of knowing. This is where the absurd portion comes in. He compares existence as being like a man wielding a knife running in to a room full of men with machine guns. We are so obviously ill equiped to understand much of anything. So why not focus on the things that we can know. And that is (according to Camus) only what you believe (Sartre disagreed fairly strongly, another good read and essentially Camus busting on Sartre is The Rebel).

The universe is neutral - it isn't good or bad. People can choose to be good or evil. Only beings capable of understaning the impact of their actions can be good or evil.

For myself, there is no evidence that God exists, and much evidence (say the question of evil) that God does not exist.

An atheist does this by saying, "all the evil (and all the good) in the world is completely random and I shouldn't bother with trying to understand why it is happening".

Whaaaat?

As an atheist, this is news to me. As a matter of fact, no atheist that I know thinks this way. Could you name me even one atheist who has stated that all of the good and evil in the world is "completely random?" I realize that it is much easier to pick apart your opponent's argument when you manufacture it to suit your needs, but this is just outrageous (not to mention dishonest, a quality that you disparage later in your post.)

As a Christian, I have to agree with you that part of what drives my faith is a desire to make sense of the insansity of this world, but I believe everyone does this, not just 'theists'.

An atheist does this by saying, "all the evil (and all the good) in the world is completely random and I shouldn't bother with trying to understand why it is happening". A theist on the other hand believes a supernatural explanation for the evil in the world. In the case of the Christian, he or she believes the Bible's explanation for evil, that the sin of man is at the root of all evil, and only by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross can we be saved.

An honest atheist would have to agree that their approach to dealing with life is as much about what they believe (ie, have faith in) about the world than about what can actually be proven about it.

If you are still not buying this, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Lewis was a staunch atheist who became probably the best Christian writer of the 20th century. He presents the case for Christianity in a number of reasoned and very logical arguments.

As an atheist, I wouldn't say I value life more than a theist, I just don't expect that there will be anything good or bad at the end.

It seems to me that many people believe in a god because they want to know that someone is in control, that things happen for a reason, even if they don't or can't comprehend that reason.

Basicly, I think that religion is their way of dealing with uncertanty. I just deal with it differently.

Well put.

I've never understood theists who claim that their god and their religion (in most cases, Christianity) is the meaning of life and how it makes life more worth living. It seems to me that the exact opposite is true. Christianity teaches people that they are essentially horrible and that existence on Earth is something that they have to "go through" before their "real life" with God in Heaven starts. Almost makes our Earth-bound existence sounds like sort of a chore, doesn't it?

To atheists, on the other hand, what you have is what you get. You are not going to get an eternity in Heaven as part of some second existence. When you die, that's it. So it's up to you to make the most of each and every minute of each and every day, because you're not getting anything else, baby. Despite all of its problems, I tend to think that the world is still a very beautiful place, and one certainly does not need angels, devils, and Jesii to enjoy it and have meaningful experiences in it.

Religon is used to control people, and the universe was never created, it has always been around, or will be explained someday as always repeating itself.

Theism is just stupid.

Give money to church, so your priest can continue raping young boys and not need a real job. Thank You :)

I really hate that school.

I really don't want ethical education from a church that started the Crusades becuase their imaginary friend was "better" than another imaginary friend.

How about a church that is afraid to go into bankruptcy because "secret papers" may be exposed to a court appointed trustee? What the heck kind of "benevolent" church needs to keep SECRETS from its members and the public?

Theism and BAD ethics go hand in hand.

> As long as we still have the atheist influence in
> this state, people will never be required to become
> overly educated in ethics.

Surely you are not suggesting theism and ethics go hand-in-hand?

Furthermore, just because I believe in God, you start attacking me with "religious zealots stop trying to invade our homes with their tripe and force their lifestyles through legislation down our throats... when one of them feels compelled to troll for validation, sympathy, or 'respect'."

No. I made no claim that you were a zealot, I made the claim that the social convention of politeness which requires skeptics to remain silent and 'respectful' when the religious expound upon their beliefs, or merely insinuate their beliefs, into a converstation is inappropriate, and that I have no intention of abiding by such social conventions so long as there are zealots trying to cram their beliefs down my throat through the media, through government, through social engineering, and outright evangelism.

Unless you are one such zealot, that could hardly be interpreted as an attack on you. An attack on religious zealotry, perhaps. More to the point, it was a clear attack on an asinine social convention that requires reason remain silent when confronted with religious unreason, dogma, or expressions of 'faith.'

You assume that I am a 'religious zealot' who is trying to force you to believe something that you don't. I have respect for each persons beliefs.

I made no assumptions, nor claims, about you, personally. That you interpreted my statement as such says a lot more about your sensitivity to the issue than it does about my comments.

I am willing to discuss such beliefs rationally, I am willing to not force my beliefs on another. I respect the atheist, but it seems that you do not respect the theist.

I have little respect for evangelical theists who are, by the very definition of what they do, trying to do exactly what I described. Whether one would consider them 'zealots' or not is largely a matter of subjective perception ... I think you can probably guess where I come down on that.

I am delighted to read that you do not fall into that category. You would probably be surprised that I have friends who are Christian who are also very non-evangelical, and whom I respect despite their religious quirks.

Do I respect those quirks themselves, or the theistic mindset. In general, most of the time, for most such beliefs, no (there are rare exceptions). Do I respect theists? That depends on the theist in question, and what other attributes they have, good and bad, independent of their theism. Ghandi and Buddha come to mind as two theists for whome I have a great deal of respect, while (and here I lose by default I suppose, according to Godwin's law) Hitler[1], Chirac, and George Bush (either one) are some for whome I have absolutely no respect. In all those cases the respect, or contempt, I have, has absolutely nothing to do with their theism, and everything to do with their other human attributes.

[1]Hitler was a devout Catholic, a little slice of history many Christians try to rewrite because of their discomfort with it. The irony is that it isn't really necessary: Stalin was a legitimate 'athiest' regime which committed atrocity, while Hitler was a Christian regime that committed atrocity. As an aside, that is why I do not claim religion as the one evil of humankind, I view nationalism, ethnicsm (incl. racism), and religion as the three great evils of humankind, which, taken together, account for nearly all of the violence and mayhem people have committed against one another. Indeed, if you remove those, you are left with a tiny, tiny fraction of conflicts which are purely economic in nature ... a thought rather alien to Americans, who cling to the myth that all conflict is economic at its base, but a perception with which most of the rest of the world is quite familiar, and quite comfortable.

Simply, there is no "natural processes which explain it all rather well."

we can go back only so far, and then all of our theories and physical laws go out the window. Scientists believe that the universe, at one time, did not exist.

Now, it, and everything in it, does exist, despite the fact that this "coming into existance" defies one of the fundamental theories of thermodynamics.

There was once no matter, no energy. Now there is. Scientists have been trying to explain it for ages. Theologians explained it millenia ago.

Fair enough. I agree that the "fundamental values" in our physical laws are not enough to prove God exists; but it is one more piece of evidence that helps build my case.

It also ties in with the watchmaker example from a higher post.

I overgeneralized. I have known some people who were, by human standards, good people, and also happened to be atheists. Society as a whole, however, has become increasingly less moral as it has become increasingly less theistic.

And even if your contention about the relationship between theism and morality is true, whether or not believing in God makes you a nicer person has absolutely nothing to do with whether God exists! There have been people who believed in non-Christian Gods, and who were nice people as a result, but that doesn't mean their God therefore exists. In fact, this entire thread is spurious. Whether God exists is unaffected by what people believe, or how good they are as a result of what they believe.

For the sake of discussion, there are two main world-views: atheism and theism. Both are all encompassing (that is, they are pretty much able to swallow all observations and fit them into the system, although they each have their problems).

Well... WRT evolution, there are actually three basic world-views:

1. It was organised accidentally (evolution)
2. It organised itself (Gaia/pantheist)
3. It was externally organised (creation)

And your worldview, in large part, dictates how you evaluate evidence.

Very true, and amazingly opaque to most people.

On the contrary, it has a lot to do with believing -- on both sides. For the sake of discussion, there are two main world-views: atheism and theism. Both are all encompassing (that is, they are pretty much able to swallow all observations and fit them into the system, although they each have their problems). And your worldview, in large part, dictates how you evaluate evidence.
As a well known example, take the Christian claim of the resurrection of Jesus. To the theist, this doesn't pose a problem and fits in with the historical accounts when taken at face value. To the atheist, this can't possibly be true, and therefore the accounts must be legend, incorrect, etc. What is believed controls what is seen. The large number of gaps in evolutionary theory are filled in through the atheist world-view and admit to no other possible interpretation (why is skeleton A an ancestor of skeleton B and not a dead-end? Why, because there has to be ancestors, and this is the best fit! Common ancestry cannot give way to common design.
Scientific measurements are true regardless of one's worldview. Therefore, young earth 7-day creationism isn't scientific. But a lot of "science" falls into this category too (Dawkins, Hawking, and Sagan, to name but a few, love to parade atheistic conclusions as scientific truth!). When one looks at evolutionary biology through worldview filters, there's a lot less there than is claimed.

Let's break it down:

a - prefix meaning lack of.
theism - belief in a god or gods.

atheism - lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheists do not necessarily claim that there are no gods, only that they have no belief in them.

Yeah he was probably a troll, but he doesnt need proof to states how he feels.

If someone makes claims for supernatural phenomenon, I can call bullshit pretty much immediately. I dont have to disprove unicorns and elves do I? Same thing with [mono|poly]theism, deism, wicca, etc. Burden of proof is on the claimant.

That someone goes looking for evidence a skeptic and becomes a believer means nothing to me.
Someone else's personal dividing line between atheism and theism is their business.
Praying to someone who I don't believe exists is a little silly. I don't tal to imaginry friends for teh same reason as I don't believe they exist to listen to me.
I'm afraid the hidden codes are interesting but without the full original manuscripts exactly how did God place these there? Or was he workign through the translators in the various interpretations and reinterpretations of the Bible?
In which case explain inconsistencies betwen them?
I can honestly say I do have better things to look at in my attempts to work out the world right now but maybe some day I will read about those.