Autonemesis

If god exists but is the watchmaker of deism, then there is no judgment, no reward, no need to pay it any heed unless you just want to fit in with the others. God set the laws of physics, and maybe it's even possible for humans to become gods one day when we learn enough of how god made the universe we live in. But it doesn't say anything about how we should treat each other, there's no revelation, no scripture, no interaction after the act of creation. Your rituals and doctrines are all just creations of people, with no real basis in divine authority. But I don't think that's the god most people are urging me to accept as real.

If the god held in esteem by any of the religions of today actually exists, I find that I must resist the tyrant. So what if he created me, I didn't ask to be created with all these strings attached. Where was my free will then? This is just like the elections, which choice is least nauseating! What right has he to create a race of sentient playthings for his "glorification"? I won't comply, I won't play the game. If my soul is the one thing I can withhold from this god, the one thing that he wants from me, then that is the weapon I will use.

Now before you go getting all apopleptic, when I used the word "exists", I meant "exists" in the naturalist sense, since that is the only way in which the word exists makes any sense in the context of your questions about atheist attitudes towards the idea of god. I don't think thesists are trying to convince me that god exists as an idea, or "in each person's heart", or any homilies like that. No, I am sure that I am being urged to accept that god is as real as anything you can name - ideas, personalities, potentialities, a supernova or a strand of DNA, any person that I have known: god is as real as any of these things, and god is the ultimate reality, so it is said.

So if I'm ever convinced that god exists, it's because there was sufficient credible evidence to overcome the serious burden of proof on those who claim that he exists. This proof would have to rest upon some naturalistic evidence, naturally. But if there is sufficient evidence of this kind, then this god is not divine. It is a mundane though fantastically advanced alien being of some sort that is perpetrating a cruel hoax on sentient, intelligent life (as we had known it previous to the discovery of convincing evidence that another kind existed).

So you tell me, if it was discovered that an unimaginably advanced alien had bred humans for its own pleasure and ego gratification and purposefully impressed upon our ancestor's minds ridiculous ideas about how to be piously cruel to one another, interfered with all our pitiful attempts to establish a society of justice and reason, turned us against ourselves throughout history by pretending to favor this group or that one so as to instigate holy wars; if this "god" were discovered to exist, shouldn't we resist its machinations with whatever means we can?

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

MadMordigan

"The dangers of accepting bullshit as fact are more onerous than almost any good that could come from such an acceptance."

Care to slap some meat on that assertion, my good friend?

The world is a large and dangerous place. There are many more actions that lead to our death that lead to our survival. There are many more ways to be hurt than ways to be pleasured. The only thing that keeps us safe, sound and happy is our ability to distinguish between them.

Furthermore, there are far more ways to be wrong that to be right. In the spectrum of all possible statements about reality, the number of true statements are a tiny minority. It is only by a disciplined and concentrated effort that we can determine what is true, what will make us safe, what will make us happy, from those things that only appear to do so.

Adopting a false belief, simply because it is expedient, is at best poor mental housekeeping. At worst it leaves us open to all sorts of misinformation, masquerading as wishful thinking.

One is free to believe hot is cold and cold is hot. It might even make life better for us to do so. But one who believes such a thing WILL be burned uneccessarily.

Typhon

Most theists that I come into contact, living in the U.S., are Christian theists. Most worship a fairly canonical Christian god, based on the selected scriptures that form the core of their sect. I have yet to see a god figure thus based on these agreed upon attributes, that is anything but an illogical, evil, impossible, sadist, and humanistic god. I therefore feel, that IF I did believe in the validity of such a being's existence (which I do not, but that's not material to our discussion here), I would be morally required to view that being as both evil and repugnant, and utterly unworthy of my worship based on the human characteristics of justice, mercy, kindness, logic, and love.

This is one of the reasons that while I feel I can not prove that god-like beings of any sort definitely do not exist (past/present/or future), I can prove very well and with a high level of certainty, that the canonical Christian god of the Bible, does not. AND if I where to be wrong about the dubious probability of his existence, he is not a creator I would worship or obey out of anything but fear and dread. He is morally laughable by my personal and cultural standards of behavior.

However, this has absolutely no bearing on my ultimate atheist beliefs, nor do I use this to justify anything other than the fact that the Christian myth in particular, is a pernicious, dangerous, and in many ways, harmful delusion.

I am an atheist not because the Christian god is an evil tyrant (which he would be IMO, if he existed at all, and possessed the character attributed to him in the canonical Bible), but because I do not believe in any god or gods AT ALL, other than the product of pure human fiction. I have no reason to, as there exists neither necessity for them, nor evidence of them, or in my case, any personal, misplaced psychological need for their comfort. I understand clearly and confidently, that gods are the product of man, just like art, classical music, cheeseburgers, and traffic lights, and not the other way around. I seek to understand and appreciate the universe, and live within it, none of which has necessitated or required belief in superstitious myths. I would not even touch on the subject, if I did not constantly need to protect myself and the world around me from the violence, illogical acts, and negative results of whose who do believe in such rank superstition and dangerous fairy tales.

First, define "morally perfect." Mores differ from culture to culture and even person to person. I do not believe in the existence of any morals apart from those agreed upon in a culture, group, or society, and apart from the biological reality that behavior plays in natural selection and personal survival. I also do not believe that humans or any other organism on the planet is either perfect, or in need/want of such perfection.

I also view religion:

re·li·gion
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As a negative force for the most part. At the least, it is a philosophical system based on error, i.e. "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers." I have no wish to follow any system based on a fundamental falsehood. Regardless of that religion's "morals," society and myself will not benefit from its rule, especially as religions are notorious for their intolerance of dissent.

For example, I do not view pre-marital sex between consenting parties as amoral. I do not view gay or lesbian lifestyles as sinful. I do not feel that obedience is more important in children than kindness and creativity. I do not hold that a woman (or a man) is inherently sinful. I do not think that eating pork is morally wrong. I do not hold that nakedness and sex is shameful. I could easily go on and on with such examples. All of these however, are held by various and many so called "moral" religions to be sinful or proscribed. Are these theoretically speaking, things for example, that a "morally perfect" religion in YOUR eyes, would or would not allow?

Atheism says nothing about interactions between humans, or for that matter, between humans and other species and even the "inorganic" world on which they reside. Morality, like theism, and ethics, is purely a creation of humans. It is behavior and custom, based upon understandable human biological needs and somewhat abstract human philosophies of thought, which over the course of human development, have become intertwined.

I therefore reject ANY system that attempts to enforce some artificial "moral perfection" on me or anyone else.

In other words, would we take more bliss, even if based on ignorance or falsehood, over less bliss, based on knowledge or truth? I wouldn't, but I feel that ignorance and faith lead only to less happiness, not more. Knowledge is the power which drives the mill wheel. It also drives the tank wheel, but would I give up one to spare myself the other? Knowledge, not faith, is what has created antibiotics. It is also what has given us biological warfare. But these are just tools, and it is what we do with such knowledge, and how we treat other living things and the world we all share, that matters.

Religion is most commonly based on fear and ignorance. It is all about what we do not know, what we fear the most, and what we wish, against all logic, fairness, and even personal responsibility, to be true. Belief in an illogical and potentially false creator, thus seems unlikely to better our collective lives.

Historically speaking, religion and the worship of gods has not clearly led to any universal benefit for mankind. It has not stopped us from displaying the full range of human behavior. It is a tool, and a byproduct of humans just like the mill wheel and microscope are, and has sometimes helped, and other times hindered our spread and development as a culture and a species.

A length of metal can be turned into a plowshare by which we cultivate food to feed our family/tribe/group/self and hence produce more resources and perhaps a better chance of passing on our particular genes, or it can be turned into a sword with which we kill the other family/tribe/group/person who either possess this resource, or seeks to, and hence, to pass on their own, competing genes. Religion is much the same. It is a product/tool of society which has been used to promote unity, wage war, destroy threats, control masses, and a hundred other uses. I personally think, like arrows and iron swords, wooden ships and bodily humors, a flat earth and crystalline spheres, it has passed its time as the best tool for the job, and is outdated and poorly fitted to our better understanding of the world and our place in it.

I don't believe that you are qualified to say what is or is not, capable of producing "the greatest good" in the world. I also do not believe you can necessarily even do so, for any group of people, without lessening the good received by some other group, at least in a finite, resource limited world. You can work towards providing the best good for the most people that you can, but I do hold that you will not easily or perhaps ever, reach a "perfect" situation.

In the end I hold that belief in a falsehood (for example, god), will never bring about the most good for the most people, in any lasting matter, and so, would never be worth "being for" even in your hypothetical situation.

.T.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Automaton

You don't understand the points of the various arguments from evil, justice, etc. The point is finding contradictions between a certain god concept and reality. Almost all theists will claim their god is benevolent. Atheists may point out that if this concept were actual, then it would be mutually exclusive with our experienced reality of the physical world. By induction, we can say that a concept of a benevolent god therefore cannot be actual. An evil god cannot either, under the same line of reasoning.

BTW, nonexistent "entities" cannot have any properties (such as evil, good, etc.). They are, by definition, the lack of properties. Only concepts and existent entities may have such.

The Other Michael

Hi Typhon,

The perfect distribution of finite resources would be a state of Pareto Optimality (IIRC). It's probably easier to just make the trains run on time instead (which Pareto did in Italy).

cheers,
Michael

Ender

Given that the 2,300 year-old Epicurean argument has never been answered…

*reworded by the Great Infidel David Hume:
If God is able [to stop evil] but not willing, then he is malevolent. If God is willing, but not able, then he is impotent. If God is both willing and able, whence then evil?
What is the difference? An anti-theist is someone who is not a theist, who believes in a specific deity, and an atheist is a person who lacks a belief in whatsoever deity. Methinks you are splitting hairs with this apparently bifurcation between two synonyms.
You uncritically presuppose God is not evil like a good theist- hook line and sinker! That old epicurean syllogism holds water and is sufficient grounds for disbelief in a personal god... unless you'd like to analyze it? I've said this before and will quote myself: "A supreme being need not be good, nor wise, nor a creator separate from his creation."
Oh it is quite relevant to the question of good and evil in the universe. In fact, here are several arguments worth looking at:
Premise 1. If a deity is the cause of order in the universe, then they posses that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence that appears in their known effect, i.e. the universe and nothing else.
Premise 2. A deity is the cause of order in the universe.
Premise 3. The universe is not infinite nor is it paradise.
Conclusion: the gods are neither omnipotent nor are benevolent.

P1. if the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the universe is evidence against a deity possessing the moral characteristics the theistic religions claim.
P2. The design argument is valid.
P3. natural evil exists.
Conclusion. The deity is not the morally perfect theistic god.

p1. we infer causality after observing a particular “cause” and “effect” that are constantly conjoined.
P2. we experience a singular effect that never occurs again.
Conclusion: we cannot form any conjecture/inference at all about the cause.
Instead of assuming there is one, why don't you list your candidate of a "morally perfect" philosophy for inspection over at the philosophy or morality forum? And I wouldn't be concerned about a philosophy that led to "moral perfection" since it would cater only to the lowest common denominator.
I would be against anything that stressed faith over critical thinking, even though if it was beneficial for our early social progress. Today humankind has grown up and discarded its security blanket of religion and has decided to stand on its wobbly legs instead.
~WiGGiN~

excreationist

A god could exist that makes those who don't worship him suffer eternally. A god who is perfectly good - according to my standards of goodness, can't be perfectly good *and* punish the unsaved eternally. He could be good according to his own standards though - if good means doing God's will and evil means going against God's will.... so it depends on who's "good" you're talking about.

Jayhawker Soule

Leading questions don't get much sillier than this.

DMB

I am a great fan of Shakespeare's plays. Now when I contemplate Othello I tend to feel that Iago could be called evil, whereas I think that Othello, although he murders Desdemona, is weak rather than wholly evil. I am interested in the interplay of personalities in this great work.

But does the judgement I make about Iago imply that I think he is a real person? Of course not! I am quite capable of talking about fictional characters as though they were real, without believing them to have some independent real existence.

Of course, there are some weak-minded people who believe that the characters they see in TV soaps are real. I doubt, however, that many members of this forum make this kind of mistake.

In the same way as we discuss fictional characters, we can also talk about the characteristics of various gods as revealed by mythology. What do you think about the character of Zeus, luvluv?

The point I am trying to make here is simply that there is no necessary connection between being able to discuss named characters and belief in their objective existence.

Godless Dave

luvluv, I've never villified God. I have villified the god described in the Bible, but that's a judgement I'm passing on the authors of the Bible, not on any deity.

I have found a religion whose gods are much more positive role models - Wicca. But I don't follow or believe that religion. I think it's less harmful than Christianity because Wiccans don't proselytize or claim to have the whole truth. But they still believe in things without strong evidence to suggest they are there, and that's a dangerous way to think.