An interesting view of Atheism

[viole]

Au contraire, mon frère:

Atheists break at least 7 of 10 commands in the Decalogue alone. Scoring 30% on a test is a fail in most places.

With the possible exception of the commandment to not covet, I do not see what others I might have been breaking.

Can you make an example of which one of the other 9 ones I might have broken?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All,

Do you really require an enunciation of the wickedness of atheism? Aren't some of you diehard, scoffing atheists?

Aren't some Christians diehard, scoffing Christians? Aren't some Muslims diehard, scoffing Muslims? Aren't some Buddhists diehard, scoffing Buddhists?

Perhaps it would be better if I pointed out that everyone, including me, is a sinner. After all, each of us have done things we knew we shouldn't have done; things we knew before we did them were wrong. Do you deny this fact?

So your argument has changed from "atheists are less moral" to "everyone is immoral". Bit of a moving of the goalposts, there. But I think you'll find that what one person considers immoral another person can think differently about. I do not consider it immortal to worship engraven images, have sex out of wedlock or with members of the same gender, or to listen to rock and roll music. Many religious people would consider one or more of those to be deeply immoral and sinful. Have I done things that I, personally, find immoral? Sure I have, but that's only due to hindsight. The problem only exists if you view morality as a dictate, rather than as developing philosophical ideology that is open to change and reflection. I now realize that things I have done reflect negatively upon me as a person, but I only see it now in light of my increased experience and understanding. This is why, in my opinion, personal secular morality is superior to a moral dictates or mandates - personal morality is subject to change to incorporate our greater understanding of the world and better reflect the responsibility we develop for each other and our environment.

 

[ThirtyThree]

I think that the attitude in this is fascinating, and not in a bad way, but I wonder if it strikes anyone as problematic.

It does not strike me as problematic. It is wise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not strike me as problematic. It is wise.

Really? As an atheist, I find the idea that the reason for my existence is merely to provide benefit to theists very problematic.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Really? As an atheist, I find the idea that the reason for my existence is merely to provide benefit to theists very problematic.

You do not celebrate that you make the faith of others stronger through your lack of Theism?

 

[atpollard]

I find it very interesting that non-believers and those who form their own beliefs tend to house some of the most moral souls.

Unlikely.

 

[LuisDantas]

All,

Do you really require an enunciation of the wickedness of atheism? Aren't some of you diehard, scoffing atheists? Perhaps it would be better if I pointed out that everyone, including me, is a sinner. After all, each of us have done things we knew we shouldn't have done; things we knew before we did them were wrong. Do you deny this fact?

I don't believe in sin. And I most definitely do not believe that atheism has any tendency to cause or encourage imorality.

Truth be told, I believe theism has such a tendency.

 

[Milton Platt]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I hope it fits here. I haven't investigated the source of this but someone I know has (his research is appended after the story). I also don't know if this has appeared in any other threads.

I think that the attitude in this is fascinating, and not in a bad way, but I wonder if it strikes anyone as problematic.
---------------

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all – the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs and act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you.’”
-----------------

Source: Chassidic stories are typically transmitted orally, and at times you'll find the same story attributed to different sources. The classic collection Tales of the Hasidim Volume 2 by Martin Buber (Schocken Press, 1958) has a condensed version of this story (titled "When is it good to deny the existence of God") attributed to Rabbi Moshe Leib of Sasov, the late 18th century student of Rabbi Shmelke of Nikolsburg and teacher of Rabbi Mendel of Kosov. The version above is based on my memory hearing this story many times in my youth.

Since you are already acknowledging that actual help is preferable to prayer, why not just not imagine a god in the first place and always be helpful?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but do you consider your atheism to be an insignificant part of who you are, or is it one of the defining aspects of your character? That is, is it more than just "I don't believe in any gods and don't care if there are any"?

My atheism is an insignificant part of who I am. As in, literally insignificant. As I have said a few days ago, it is not good even for giving me the time of the day. You might even say that I am bothered at having to have a name for it.

I suppose my insistence in not hiding it or lying about it is far more significant, though.

You might say instead that my insistence on pursuing ethics and being outspoken about it is one of the defining aspects of my character, as is my refusal of pretending to believe in some deity for social benefits.

But this last trait is itself less a choice than a direct consequence of my disgust with the heights of destructive pretense and self-delusion that the communities around me have attained. Far too many people choose to throw some form of belief in God where the need for actual attention and effort are needed instead.

 

[Milton Platt]

Unlikely.

I agree. If you want to generalize, there is no discernible difference between those who believe and those who do not, except perhaps non believers do good things for altruistic reasons and believers do good things hoping to gain a reward or avoid punishment from their god.

 

[McBell]

Unlikely.

Why is that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Unlikely.

On the contrary, it seems both intuitively likely and hard to objectively deny.

It is only natural that those who third-party their sense of morality to a mysterious God will often fall short when compared to those who do not.

 

[atpollard]

Why is that?

Why is it UNLIKELY that "non-believers" (those who do not believe in a supernatural realm) have a "soul" (spiritual or immaterial being) that is the MOST "moral" (concerned with principles of right and wrong)?
Are you really asking that?

Just a hunch, I guess.

 

[McBell]

Why is it UNLIKELY that "non-believers" (those who do not believe in a supernatural realm) have a "soul" (spiritual or immaterial being) that is the MOST "moral" (concerned with principles of right and wrong)?
Are you really asking that?

Yes, I am asking.
Why?
Because your claim sounds most likely to be nothing more than wishful thinking based upon a preconceived pile of bull.. Nonsense.

Just a hunch, I guess.

Thank you for furthering my point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is it UNLIKELY that "non-believers" (those who do not believe in a supernatural realm) have a "soul" (spiritual or immaterial being) that is the MOST "moral" (concerned with principles of right and wrong)?
Are you really asking that?

Just a hunch, I guess.

But it is a very unsupported hunch that goes against the grain of intuitive perception and of discernible data.

So the question remains: why would you think so?

 

[atpollard]

Yes, I am asking.
Why?
Because your claim sounds most likely to be nothing more than wishful thinking based upon a preconceived pile of bull.. Nonsense.


Thank you for furthering my point.

The original statement was self-contradictory.
That made it unlikely to be true.

I am claiming nothing more.

 

[McBell]

The original statement was self-contradictory

That made it unlikely to be true.

I am claiming nothing more.

.I fail to see any contradiction in it.
Please be so kind as to point out the alleged contradiction.

I find it very interesting that non-believers and those who form their own beliefs tend to house some of the most moral souls.​

 

[atpollard]

.I fail to see any contradiction in it.
Please be so kind as to point out the alleged contradiction.

I find it very interesting that non-believers and those who form their own beliefs tend to house some of the most moral souls.​

Then you would have no trouble accepting the following statement as a self supporting truth requiring no further proof either?

"I find it very interesting that believers and those who accept orthodox doctrines tend to house some of the most moral souls."

It is 'logically' equivalent.
Beyond this, I have wasted more time than I have actual interest in the topic.
Merry Christmas.

 

[LuisDantas]

The original statement was self-contradictory.
That made it unlikely to be true.

I am claiming nothing more.

You just reinforced Mestemia's point. It was a fine illustration of it. Thanks!

 

[LuisDantas]

Then you would have no trouble accepting the following statement as a self supporting truth requiring no further proof either?

"I find it very interesting that believers and those who accept orthodox doctrines tend to house some of the most moral souls."

It is 'logically' equivalent.
Beyond this, I have wasted more time than I have actual interest in the topic.
Merry Christmas.

That, however, is a counter-intuitive and counter-evidenced claim. In that respect it is anything but logical or equivalent to its opposite claim.

Are you truly expecting people to claim complete ignorance of moral patterns as they relate to beliefs? That is quite a lot to ask for!