Are Atheists Happy?

[themadhair]

Does atheism lead to happiness and inner peace?

No. Why would you think it does?


On a related note, something that does lead me to happiness and inner peace (not really sure what ‘inner peace’ means but I’ll let that slide) is that I can entertain doubt. I can question what I believe and I have no qualms regarding putting what I believe (or more accurately what I think I believe) and putting it to the test. How can you really be sure of what you do, and do not, believe if you never put it to the test? And I find this to be immensely fulfilling – because it means that if I do hold false beliefs I am more likely to rectify/improve those false beliefs. I was raised a catholic, and from a very young age I was never happy being told something is so without the reasons why that something is so. This led me to abandon christianity due to a lack of any reason why god should be so. I was an atheist before I knew the concept even had a word to describe it, as well as being the first atheist I knew. Becoming atheist didn’t bring me happiness or inner peace – but the knowledge that I had questioned, and continue to question, my beliefs and ideas certainly did.


Possibly off-topic, but when I see certain assertions like those on http://www.quranmiracles.com/ for example, it serves to illustrate the importance of being willing to question my beliefs. The poor chap who has posted this link (several times in fact) cannot entertain doubts or questioning. I am not mocking or intending to insult this person when I say this, but if I held his view while not knowing HOW those very scientific discoveries were made it would gnaw away at me. I don’t really care if the universe came from a big-bang or if the koran predicted it – I WANT TO KNOW HOW WE DISCOVERED THAT AND WHAT EVIDENCE WE USE TO CONCLUDE THAT.
It comes down to this simple fact (and yes, I do believe this to be a fact) – we know a lot about the universe and a lot about how it operates not because it was in the koran, but because people did research, study and contemplation to make those discoveries and provided sufficient evidence for them.
I find myself asking two questions here. Firstly, did the koran ever help increase the sum of mankind’s knowledge? Secondly, is the koran helping to further increase the sum of mankind’s knowledge? Given that the answer to both of those questions is a resounding no I find the koran to be a waste of time if your goal is to seek knowledge.

 

[darkmage121]

Ignorance is bliss I guess. I can't go through life without having a glue as to the meaning of life. I hope, for my sake, that all my good deeds don't go unrewarded. I like life and I hope nonexistence doesn't come after I die. That would really suck.

 

[EverChanging]

I like life and I hope nonexistence doesn't come after I die. That would really suck.

Not if you didn't know it, and if you didn't exist, then you wouldn't know it.

 

[linwood]

Ignorance is bliss I guess. I can't go through life without having a glue as to the meaning of life.

I have more than a clue to the meaning of life.
I have absolute empirical knowledge of what my lifes meaning is.

I couldn`t have that as a theist.

I hope, for my sake, that all my good deeds don't go unrewarded. I like life and I hope nonexistence doesn't come after I die. That would really suck.

This is the part most atheists don`t like.

The theist who does good only for his/her own benefit in some way.
We tend to wonder if you`d bother doing good if you weren`t promised the extra goodies and that kinda scares us.

Myself I don`t have to wait for the rewards of my good deeds.
I get the reward in this life.

I don`t think non-existence would suck at all.
Did it suck for you in 1734?

 

[Cordoba]

I find myself asking two questions here. Firstly, did the koran ever help increase the sum of mankind’s knowledge? Secondly, is the koran helping to further increase the sum of mankind’s knowledge?

The answer to both questions is yes,

As far as history is concerned, you may be interested to know that the Laws of Inheritance mentioned by God in The Qur'an was one of the main factors which lead Muslim mathematicians to excel in the field of Algebra, and the Qur'an was an inspiration for Muslim scientists to excel in all fields of knowledge:

Here is some background to 1,000 years of Muslim contributions to science:

MuslimHeritage.com - Discover 1000 Years of Missing History

As for today, in the field of economics, the Qur'an has clear guidance against the prohbition of all types of usury and interest rates, which are behind the collapse of the world's financial and banking system

Some suggestions based on Qur'anic guidance are included on this thread, if of interest:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/79236-solutions-global-crisis.html

But as these questions are not the topic of this thread, if you wish to start a new thread related to your 2 questions, you are most welcomed

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don`t think non-existence would suck at all.
Did it suck for you in 1734?

Well, he missed the Louisiana Purchase and the Civil War, but other than that ...

 

[Cordoba]

Madhair:

This thread will answer your first question:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...slim-scientists-1-000-years-contribution.html

All the best

 

[maro]

i never said anything about violating the laws of nature..We use the laws of nature...We master them...including those of our bodies...The fact we have observed is that there is coincidence between the human behaviour and certain neurological events..and that it's to some extent determined by the genetic factor...My problem is that you have jumped from those two observation to make the conclusion that our bodies are the masters and "WE" are the slaves..which i believe to be less than a fact...You said you don't need a divine permission to love someone...but you do need a permission from your serotonin or dopamine releasing neurons ?...You don't ...but it happens that when you love someone ,they are released
My point is that "I" am neither my genes nor my neyrotransmitters...my free will comes first...my soul , my eternal intentions (good or evil) are the masters..and it's my body that's being manipulated...not vice versa...And thus it makes perfect sense why it's deeply rooted in the human conciousness that people should be held responsible for their actions.. and thus the true statment you assumed (that our actions are determined by our genes and neurotransmitters) was not that true...there is no logic reason to jump from observing the state of coincidence between two things (love and the release of some neuro transmitters for example)into the conclusion of who is mastering who ? ,That is my point

for more clarification ,

i would like to say that although the "human body" can be a subject for science ,the "human being" is only a subject for religion ,philosophy and Art . Degrading the human being to his anatomy ,physiology and genetics is Dehumanization and denial to the essence of humanity as a whole which is "Freedom" and accordingly "Moral responsibility "
Science should know its limits and play only on its playground which is the material world..Humans are more than the material composing them..they are not their bodies..nor slaves to their bodies..they are the masters of their bodies. My emotions ,dreams ,thoughts and choices can never be summed up in a scietific equation and can never be predicted by a neurologist even 10 million years ahead

The outcome of evolution is not supposed to be a free moral human being who is capable of sacrificing his life for a moral purpose..but a jungle animal whose only purpose is to survive on the expense of any abstract value and who is programmed to act in a certain manner that doesn't differ much from the rest of the species

The problem with "Materialism " ,IMO , is not only denying Allah..but denying "humanity" as well

BAck to the topic of the thread which is "Happiness "..i believe we can never achieve the real happiness and serenity unless we get to know ourselves first...we are "Souls" trapped into "bodies"...and thus we need to satisfy the soul as much as we need to satisfy the body...just like the body needs food ,shelter ,sex...etc. , Our souls need Allah

 

[maro]

i would like to add that the problem with those who believe in both " materialism " and " humanism " is contradiction...and this is because they are still holding to the religious view of the human being which assume "Freedom" and accordingly "Moral reponsibility " of humans ,probably because of their religious backgrounds or the fact that no school of thought is isolated in an island away from the world religions

however , i have also seen Atheist who are very sincere to their materialism in the way they view " humans" and accordingly " morality "..Those are the words of one of them :
"The human animal".."I am not big in morals " (it doesn't seem to be something significant or meaningful to him )..."I don't believe in evil"
It's to be mentioned that the man has a problem with religion in general , and with Islam in particular..he predicts the vanishing of all religions in 75 years !!..he can't tolerate seeing a woman with hijab around him becuase the female human animal should not be covered "according to him " !!!

Eating and sleeping ensure our survival..so it's very understandable (within the theory of evolution) why our bodies make sure we get them

when i re-read that i hated that expression "our bodies make sure.."and i it reminded me with a fellow who once told me "THe DNA molecule has learned..." and i couldn't help making fun of him !

Attributing a sane wise action to a non-sane structure is not something done by a muslim..only by evolutionsists !!

My point was ,that Eating and Sleeping are a bilogical necessity ,unlike Morlaity !

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i would like to add that the problem with those who believe in both " materialism " and " humanism " is contradiction...and this is because they are still holding to the religious view of the human being which assume "Freedom" and accordingly "Moral reponsibility " of humans ,probably because of their religious backgrounds or the fact that no school of thought is isolated in an island away from the world religions

I disagree. Materialism deals with the question of what exists. Humanism deals with the question of what we should value. The only way any set of answers to these two questions might conflict is if our determination of what we should value led to the answer being something that we had concluded did not exist.

Materialism does say that humans exist, therefore they're available to be valued by humanism. There's no conflict between these positions at all.

I think you may be confusing materialism with determinism, but the one doesn't imply the other.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

maro,

It's difficult to respond because you seem to be answering several questions at once. But to be precise, we have to consider all these questions separately.

For example, "Do human characteristics such as ethics, art, meaningfulness, etc. violate the laws of Nature?" That is one question. The truth about this question cannot be determined based on what you personally find agreeable or disagreeable, degrading or uplifting.

And on what basis do you declare that Nature cannot produce ethics, art, etc.? Birds, primates, dolphins, and many other animals have their own forms of ethics and art which are primitive, but still remarkable. Animals sing, dance, collect beautiful objects, play...often, apparently just for the joy of it. They can also hate, and be very cruel, and engage in self-destructive behavior, just as humans can, especially when resources are scarce and people are trying to feed their children. And not all humans are equally good at art, or ethics. It takes good genes, a good environment, practice, and the right tools. And judging by cave paintings, our ancestors were not as good at art as we are.

Which of these facts tells you human art and ethics can only come from a disruption of natural laws?

Another question: "What do we value?" I would value things like happiness, children, peace, human solidarity, and freedom whether they came from Nature, from God, or even if they came from Satan. Who are you to say that material, or natural things cannot have value? Do your feelings about children really depend on where they came from? I would value children whether they came from evil parents, or a supernatural miracle, or a natural process; and I think you would, too. If Allah said peace is evil, I would reject Allah, not peace. I value peace because of what it is, and because of what I am, not because of where it comes from, or where I came from.

Even if I discovered I was a robot, and I was merely programmed to want happiness and freedom, I would not--could not--reject those impulses, even if the fact about their origins is "degrading".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

maro,

The other thing is, I think you are unintentionally denying, or rather mis-characterizing, human nature. You say we are souls trapped in a body, that we are masters of our emotions, thoughts, behaviors, etc. This is partly true, but not completely true. We are not always masters of our emotions, thoughts, behaviors, etc. Any psychologist or neurologist will tell you this. If people are starving, or if they were abused as children, or if they had a traumatic experience, they may behave violently, for example. If people only interact with people exactly like themselves, they may develop attitudes that are tribalistic, or racist. This is human nature. If we want people to not be racist, for example, we can't just tell their "souls" in the immaterial world to stop being racist; we have to get their brains and bodies to interact with people of all races, in the material world. And same thing for people who are starving, oppressed, etc. Don't just tell their "souls" not to steal; it's just not realistic to ask a starving person not to steal food to feed his family, if he can. Give his material body food, so he isn't forced out of desperation to steal. Don't humiliate and oppress people, so they are not compelled by their inherent sense of dignity to lash out violently. Experiments have shown that even chimpanzees get angry if they perceive they are being treated unfairly. And most of all, we should structure society so that people are rewarded for doing good. Educate children, so they learn to enjoy doing good. Without doing these things, we will never make any progress just by commanding people's immaterial souls, "be good". Because we are not immaterial souls, we are a special kind of living thing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Bird art:

Male Bowerbirds build structures which though often involving great effort are not actually nests. These bowers, built by 14 of the 18 known species of Bowerbird are stages or advertisements. They are built to attract females which presumably are attracted to larger more ornate structures and which judge a male on his collection of treasures. The real nest is built by the female after she has been mated by her chosen male and she incubates the eggs and raises the young on her own while the male stays with his bower to try and attract more females. Bowerbirds build different sorts of bowers even within one species. Different populations build different designs and collect different 'treasures'. Some simple bowers consist of an avenue of twigs which the male bird walks up and down to display himself to the female. Some of these may have the sticks painted with yellow, brown or purple plant juices.


More complicated bowers involve towers of sticks and display arenas on which the male arranges his collection of treasures and around which he displays himself. Treasures include feathers, particularly blue ones, snail shells, beetle wings and heads, bones, flowers and anything else which takes the bird's fancy which may include man-made objects such as silver spoons, car keys, gun cartridges, tin mugs, buttons and other colourful scraps of material.

Sense of fairness in chimps and humans:

When the pair came from a group that had known each other only a short time, the unfairly treated chimp responded negatively.

An animal rewarded with cucumbers - instead of highly prized grapes - "downed tools" and refused to do any more work.

But when the pair were from a close-knit social group that had bonded over a long period of time, unfairness was more likely to be tolerated.
...
The scientists found chimps demonstrated "inequity aversion" when they were treated unfairly, but not when they received the better reward.

They seemed willing to take advantage of good luck while their partner lost out. The same response was seen in capuchins.

But even this selfish response mirrored human behaviour, said the researchers.

"Whereas people may prefer equity to any sort of inequity, advantageous inequity is typically preferred to disadvantageous inequity," the researchers write in Proceedings B.

"Most people tend to respond by psychological rather than material compensation - that is, justifying why they deserved a superior reward - and most people will choose to ignore information that could lead to a more fair outcome at a cost to the self."

These are simply facts, whether we find them degrading, or humbling. The good news is that unlike chimps, as humans we have the intelligence to understand our own nature, and take it into account to improve our lives, in ways that other animals can't. We can't do this, however, if we deny the facts about our own nature.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One more thing: there is no law that I am aware of, that says our feelings towards material, or natural things must be that they are low, vulgar, ugly, without any worth or value. If that is how you feel about the natural world, very well. Not everyone shares your feeling. I find that I have not committed any logical contradiction by feeling the natural world is high, wonderful, beautiful, with plenty of worth and value. When I look at a beautiful rose, it does not turn into some hideous, horrible monstrosity when I consider that it is a material thing, and that its emergence in the world did not violate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. It remains a beautiful rose, to me, even if it is made of hideous, despicable, low, vulgar, meaningless carbon-based molecules.

 

[Cordoba]

there is no law that I am aware of, that says our feelings towards material, or natural things must be that they are low, vulgar, ugly, without any worth or value. ...

When I look at a beautiful rose, ... It remains a beautiful rose, to me

There is nothing wrong with appreciating beauty in nature , MS

To the contrary, for a believer a beautiful rose is a reminder of its Creator, and contemplating nature is a source of peace for all people ...

 

[Marquez]

...Does atheism lead to happiness and inner peace? What do you think?

Personally, atheism makes the most sense to me. At first, the prospect of there being no Heaven to go to after we die and there being no God who looks after us was destabilising to say the least.

Now, I have a better understanding of evolution and natural selection. Atheism fits everything we observe and experience. Much of the world, human behaviour and nature has become less complicated and less contradictory.

Am I happier now? Do I have inner peace? Yes. But it is not because of atheism. It is because I am freer to seek explanations that make sense without fearing damnation. After making myself aware of who we are and where we came from, I am even more thankful that I am here. Now, more than ever, I value the opportunity to communicate with other people knowing that we are all so lucky enough to be alive, and have a sense of awareness that allows us to appreciate life and the world around us. This is why I say, 'Heaven is Here. Eternity Is Now'. Relish your life while you are still here because there is no afterlife.

...Just my two cents.

 

[themadhair]

To the contrary, for a believer a beautiful rose is a reminder of its Creator, and contemplating nature is a source of peace for all people ...

I think Richard Attenborough said it best:

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

 

[Cordoba]

The answer to that is why look at the negative side of life?

Yes, illness and diseases exist and for each illness there is a cure

The right thing to do is investigate the problem and find a solution

Life has many bright sides to it, and one of the secrets of happiness is looking at the positive aspects of life

(that rule applies to all: believers in God and atheists)

 

[BucephalusBB]

Life has many bright sides to it, and one of the secrets of happiness is looking at the positive aspects of life

(that rule applies to all: believers in God and atheists)

Didn't you just answer your own OP?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The answer to that is why look at the negative side of life?

Yes, illness and diseases exist and for each illness there is a cure

The right thing to do is investigate the problem and find a solution

Life has many bright sides to it, and one of the secrets of happiness is looking at the positive aspects of life

(that rule applies to all: believers in God and atheists)

Speaking for myself, that's what I try to do. However, I don't have the difficulty in trying to reconcile that negative side of life with the idea that a good God set them in place, either by action or omission of action. I have no expectation that life must be good, just or fair, so I only try to make things as good as I can.