ible

In my worldview, it makes an immense difference, whether someone kills themself or not. Therefore I am by no means advocating that people should kill themselves.

But in the atheist worldview, I can't see how it makes a difference.


I don't think you root for the underdog. I think you tend to root for what's right, and that happens to be the underdog most of the time. The fact that there is hope is evidence, in my opinion, of a permanent home outside of this universe. If you do not believe this, you must say that everyone is delusional as they go about their day to day living in ignorance of their impending doom. This is the logical conclusion, no?

Toto

Did you miss out on Existentialism? People can go about their day to day living in full knowledge of impending doom, because that's what we humans do as a species. There's no delusion, just an appreciation for living in the moment. This life is all we have, so make the most of it.

ible

You don't have to convince me. I already know I'm supposed to live and do good things.

How do you convince school shooters? How do you know that they aren't being more reasonable than yourself?

Amaleq13

This says more about your imagination than it does "the atheist worldview".

Toto

The school shooters are immature kids, most of whom seem to have been on drugs, legal or not. They are an argument for gun control and better psychological management of disturbed teenagers, not a model of rational behavior by anyone's standard (except yours when you try to make an argument that doesn't hold water.)

Johnny Skeptic

But if you were an atheist, an agnostic, or a deist, you would still do some good things.

ible

But not necessarily for the reason of doing good things. It would only be coincidental if I did good things. After all, then it wouldn't matter whether I did good things or bad things.

It seems like you're awful close to saying, "You ought to enjoy life," as if there is a moral imperative. I thought that fundies had the monopoly on moral obligation...

juergen

Why should only a Christian person see good reason in loving his or her parents, siblings, kids, grandkids, friends, acting in beneficial ways to the community, and striving for honesty?

These are not things that suddenly become bad for a person that stops believing, or has never believed?

How could it not make a difference in the atheist worldview? If I ever have children, and they are better than me at what they and I do, I wouldn't get jealous and try to kill them, even if I feel slightly embarrased that what I did isn't as awesome as what they do. I'd be proud.

Christians aren't the only ones contributing to good causes and seeing worth in a person's life. Must a person necessarily believe that 'good' and 'bad' have to be objectively definde, in a morallu absolute way in order to be good or bad?

It's much more subjective that one thinks, and very much so in different Christian communities. By that I am not saying that Christians lead double lifes or anything of that sort, I'm just saying, even Christians differ pretty wildly in what is good and bad. I understand that it's like this across the globe, the problem I've found is that each group that claims it has received special and correct knowledge on what is ultimately good and bad are in disagreement, in the name of God, who each community says has given them clarity.

I wouldn't see it as 'atheists are still clinging some sort of moral code but we got the right one.'

I'd say it's more like 'Each person, Christian or atheist, is a projection of her own culture, identifying herself with the values of her community. This community is either located in the country of its origin, or harkens back to another country it used to live in, which it would love to get back to. You reflect your culture according to how you've been raised.'

You know, atheists are also people. We all live in the same world.

juergen

If a person does good things consciously, doing good things would be precisely the reason for doing them.

Would that mean that after a person stops believing/if that person has never believed, there is absolutely no difference in picking up a gun and killing your mom, or giving her flowers? There would be no pain to feel, it would not be an outrageous thing, the person would also not go to jail, there would be no consequences whatsoever, the person that purported the crime would not feel guilty at any point? "It's a smooth glide into apathy?"

Also, there would be no difference in helping a kid on the street and beating the poor guy up and sending him to the hospital when all he needed is food?

And God forbid, leading a double life, cheating on your wife, stealing money from work, and bribing police officers is in no way different than looking out for a friend who is in trouble, forgiving someone who hurt you but is apologizing for it, and you care about the friendship, oh wait, no, there is no care for friendships, only what is convenient to me. Fuck everyone else.

Riiiight.

So, in the (very improbable) event that you lost faith, even for just a week, would you say you wouldn't draw a line between good and bad and just go with whatever? Would you start beating up people because you feel like it? You would look with disdain on someone that needs help? You would stop caring about everyone else? You would do whatever the devil pleases you?

Johnny Skeptic

No, you do not "know" that you are supposed to live and good things, you "believe" that you are supposed to live and do good things.

If the universe is naturalistic (I am not saying that it is), the reason why everyone does at least some good things is because genetics has given humans a conscience. If the God of the Bible exists, atheists have a conscience because he gave them a conscience. If some other God exists, atheists have a conscience because he gave them a conscience.

If the universe is naturalistic, nothing would be a coincidence. In such a case, everything that happened would be determined by the laws of physics.

Well, Hitler and Stalin thought that it mattered to love their families. If the universe is naturalistic, that explains that. If a God exists, that would explain that.

Since jails are full of theists, obviously, theism is not the solution to preventing crime. If the God of the Bible exists, he could prevent crime, but he does not want to, although for some strange reasons he wants policemen to try to prevent crime.

Simply stated, since we are but mere imperfect, fallible humans, no one can be certain why they do what they do. If a God exists, he might not be able to demonstrate certainty regarding all issues, but he could easily eliminate lots of doubt and confusion if he wanted to. Unfortunately, he does not want to do that. For instance, the Bible contains 100% disputable prophecies. That has created doubt and confusion. If Pat Robertson used the world media to accurately predict when and where a natural disaster would occur, that would be an indisputable prophecy. If that happened, surely some skeptics would become Christians as a result. If the God of the Bible exists, it is a question of to what extent he is willing to go to keep people from going to hell. It is doubtful that a God would be willing to sacrifice his ownly begotten Son for the sake of humans and be unwilling to inspire Pat Robertson to accurately predict when and where a natural disaster would occur.