Why Did God Create Atheists?

[paarsurrey]

What is one's "none"? Can you speak English please.

Those who are shy of Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism etc:
"Religion: None"
Right?

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know who this guy is, but I would find that slightly offensive if I were a religious person. I don't know if his intention were/is to bridge the gap between atheists and religious people? but that would not work on me, that's for sure

If he's a theist, then that would be an attempt to bridge the gap between the theists who are taught and believe that atheists are immoral for being atheists. I make the same argument, but not to bridge any gap.

I agree that some theists might find the comment offensive, but if so, why? All we see there is the statement that atheists can be good without a god belief or a religion. That might be offensive because the theist hears that his religion is unnecessary for moral behavior. He also might be offended that somebody suggested that atheists can be good, which is contradicts scripture.

Either way, what concern should that be of anybody making that argument, theist or atheist?

I mentioned that I make that argument as well, but almost exclusively when dealing with theists assuming the higher moral ground for themselves because they have THE correct moral code from on high. We've got a guy on another thread presently telling one of the theists there that he is a sinner for being lustful, by which the theist means not in compliance with biblical commands.

But also as part of a general tendency to promote the virtues of humanism in a world where that has been difficult prior to the advent of the Internet. Who would I be making that argument to then? A theist who was not accustomed to any blowback from atheists and who considers himself morally superior and will judge me as demon possessed and in pursuit of a dissolute life without accountability? That would be pointless and unpleasant. And that's how it's been for centuries.

But no longer. And my purpose is not to try to get any empathy from theists, but as I said, to promote the virtues of humanism, my contribution to the transition of Western society to secularism that has been going on for centuries. Europe and Canada have done well there, but America lags far behind. This doesn't happen through conversion, but by convincing the next generation to think differently from their parents. As Planck noted regarding shifting scientific paradigms, they happen one funeral at a time. People don't change, but populations do. So, the target is younger minds, not older theists.

What I would understand from this, is that religious people don't have the capacity to think and no clue how to be kind or make moral judgements unless their religion or God told them to, that makes them far inferior to atheists.

The comment doesn't say that, though, does it? However, there is some merit to the idea that religious morality is not really morality at all if one is behaving according to rules for a reward. I recall stopping on rural roads to help turtles cross the road before some yahoo deliberately ran it over. The roads were largely empty, and nobody was witness. It was exhilarating BECAUSE there was no god watching and keeping score. It was just me and the turtle, and the turtle couldn't know what was done for it. It was a godlike experience. I know how many theists bristle at thoughts like that, but no matter. Their god wasn't there. If I didn't act, who would?

So at least atheism is not associated with this nonsense

As I just noted, this is an argument that atheists can, should, and often do make.

the quote makes it sound like this is something only atheists can do, but not religious people, because they require their religion to tell them how to do it.

How is it moral behavior if you believe that your every move is being watched and recorded, and that you will be judged accordingly?

How many theists tell us that they don't understand what prevents atheists from killing? Aren't they saying that their religion tells them how to behave and that they have no other source for moral guidance and are aware of no other?

Getting back to this matter of theists being offended here, what legitimate reason would they have for that? I can give you illegitimate and unflattering reasons. I believe its mostly theists seeing unbelievers getting a voice and expressing themselves as a threat to their millennia-long narrative that they are the superior strain of humanity. They're not used to being challenged on it. They call the reaction militant atheism, which indicates how inappropriate and unprovoked the reaction to Christianity is to them, as if atheists are attacking rather than defending. They don't realize that atheists don't care about their religion except when it encroaches into their lives, and that if that ends, atheists will have little reason to express any opinions to believers or unbelievers about religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes and no.
Yes, if there is an suggestion that a real god exists. Then we'd ask for scientific evidence.
No, if the suggestion is a philosophical god. Science doesn't deal with that question.

#61

Regards

 

[Sheldon]

I don't but some people do. And they have a right to create one.

I agree ostensibly, sadly religions never stop there, and having imagined a deity, they start to tell everyone else what this deity wants. If a deity wants anything surely it can do the heavy lifting itself and ask me directly. I will never accept someone else making the claim on its behalf, especially since there are a bewildering amount of religions, deities, and opinions on what all those deities and versions of them want.

 

[Sheldon]

Those who are shy of Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism etc:
"Religion: None"
Right?

Regards

What does "shy of atheism/agnosticism/scepticism" mean?

You do know that agnostics can also be religious and theists don't you?

Are you saying you meant none to mean people without any religious beliefs, specifically theism? If so I don't understand why you don't just say that, or why you would think science would validate unbelief in a supernatural and often unfalsifiable claim. Science involves methods for examining and understanding the natural physical world and universe, and a basic requirement of its methods is that all ideas must be falsifiable.

 

[firedragon]

Why do we need an imaginary philosophical God?

Maybe because people like you could use these phrases to make your life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God must truly love atheists, because they never stop talking about Him.

Actually, atheists rarely refer to gods except when answering theists claims about them such as occurs on this site, such as every comment I'm replying to in this thread. Gods never comes up in daily life for most of us. Most of my friends are atheists, and we never discuss gods. Why would we?

And even here, few atheist actually discuss gods, but rather, the incoherent depiction of them such as gods being moral authorities while depicted committing moral atrocities, or existing outside of time, or being able to affect the world yet not be detectable by it even in principle, or gods granting free will while being omniscient. These are the kinds of comments that elicit god discussions from unbelievers, but once again, their interest is not in gods, but in sound thinking and revealing these incoherencies as an exercise in reasoning.

Is it so hard to understand that the Christian god, the one Christians call "God," is no more interesting to unbelievers than any other gods?

Or atheists are obsessed with God.

As I said above, atheists have no interest in any gods, much less an obsession.

Their interest is in stemming religious incursion into their lives as is occurring in the US now with abortion rights and transgender studies. I assure you that when Christianity becomes as irrelevant in the lives of unbelievers as all of the other religions are, atheists won't give it a second thought. How often do you think about or discuss Wiccans or Sikhs? When Christianity has that status, it will also fall of the atheists' radar as those have already. Atheists have no other interest in religions

Atheists choose to reject the love and purpose they were created for.

Atheists don't reject either love or purpose. I'd say that they help define it. What atheists reject is religion and god beliefs, as well as the Christian vision of love and purpose.

 

[Nimos]

If he's a theist, then that would be an attempt to bridge the gap between the theists who are taught and believe that atheists are immoral for being atheists. I make the same argument, but not to bridge any gap.

I probably should have formulated it better. I agree with you and was what I meant. Its to close the gap between the theists in regards to atheism. And not to please the atheists.

I agree that some theists might find the comment offensive, but if so, why? All we see there is the statement that atheists can be good without a god belief or a religion. That might be offensive because the theist hears that his religion is unnecessary for moral behavior. He also might be offended that somebody suggested that atheists can be good, which is contradicts scripture.

Either way, what concern should that be of anybody making that argument, theist or atheist?

For atheists, there are none.

What could be considered of concern from a theists position as I see it, is that this statement can mean one of several things.

1. Morality doesn't necessarily come from God or at least it is not a requirement, which doesn't really explain how atheists are able to be moral in the first place.
2. That atheists get morality from God, despite not believing in him. However to me, the text seem to suggest that God is not involved, which again lead to where do they get it from then?
3. Theists doesn't really have a grasp of morality etc. as they need it from God or their religion. This might not be a problem for them obviously given they do believe God is the creator of everything, yet it still doesn't explain how atheists can do it then.

I think that is a bit concerning, as you also point out, that doesn't really seem to fit with the scriptures.

But also as part of a general tendency to promote the virtues of humanism in a world where that has been difficult prior to the advent of the Internet. Who would I be making that argument to then? A theist who was not accustomed to any blowback from atheists and who considers himself morally superior and will judge me as demon possessed and in pursuit of a dissolute life without accountability? That would be pointless and unpleasant. And that's how it's been for centuries.

Not a 100% sure I understand you point here. But if the theist is telling someone else they are sinners, they could just seek advice from atheists, because according to this guy, we have manage to do this just fine and God seems to be happy with it and uses us as lessons for the theists, so that would be perfectly valid I would think.

People don't change, but populations do. So, the target is younger minds, not older theists.

Sure, but should age matter in this case if its wrong and doesn't make sense?

The comment doesn't say that, though, does it? However, there is some merit to the idea that religious morality is not really morality at all if one is behaving according to rules for a reward.

I think it does and will go in stupid details here

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.

Using the word "true" relate to what the atheists can do and at the same time indicate that theists doesn't do that, because otherwise they wouldn't have to learn it from us.

You see, when an atheist performs an 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.

So again, pointing out that its the atheist that does this, not the theist, and he doesn't even have to be told, taught or read it anywhere. Again, we are talking about "true" compassion.

He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act.

The atheist have so much confident or compassion that he doesn't believe or require God to do these things. Again, this is referring to what atheists does, automatically contrasting this to theists, which doesn't do it.

In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
Atheists have an inner sense of morality, which apparently must be good, because its "true" and God apparently approve of it. Theist doesn't have this, because they do believe and follow God or said in another way, they need the guidance from religion and God to do what atheists can, because of this true inner sense. Have no clue what "inner sense" means here, but nonetheless its apparently what God and religion has to teach or give theists, so they are also able to achieve this.

And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."
The kindness that atheists can show others is amazing, given we are "blessed" with this inner sense of morality and ability for "true" compassion. Again, theists doesn't have this without God and religion. This is what this most important lesson of them all is trying to teach them.

"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.'"
So you shouldn't rely on God, but simply do or try the best you can to copy what the "divine" and blessed atheists have to suffer through on a daily basis. You have to become an atheist for a short time, before you return to the cradle of God and religion again.

Why would a theist ever truly imagine that God weren't there? Its in direct conflict with what they believe. Its like a theist telling an atheist to pray to God instead of going to the doctor. And atheists are very aware of this, because it happens constantly. One just have to listen to Ray Comfort for 5 minutes and you get something like this thrown in your face.

And most atheists wouldn't buy into this at all.

As I just noted, this is an argument that atheists can, should, and often do make.

Then they are not to bright.

If I told a theist that I as an atheist believe we have morality as a result of evolution or whatever, but I think they got it from their God, that would make no sense as an argument. I can't be an atheist and acknowledge the existence of any gods, then I would be a theist.

How is it moral behavior if you believe that your every move is being watched and recorded, and that you will be judged accordingly?

It can still be, obviously you will just be judged as a consequence of what you do. But if this morality is claimed to come from God, then it wouldn't make much sense for God to judge you as having done anything wrong, because you didn't come up with it yourself, God told you what was right and wrong. And again, atheists doesn't follow these rules because we have an inner sense of morality.

How many theists tell us that they don't understand what prevents atheists from killing? Aren't they saying that their religion tells them how to behave and that they have no other source for moral guidance and are aware of no other?

Agree and that is an issue for the theists to explain, not the atheists. And maybe that is what this guy tries to explain, that atheists have an inner sense of morality, because we were chosen by God to help teach the theists a lesson, and therefore we were born with it or something. Which would make it slightly awkward for any theist to try to "convert" an atheist then, as they would be screwing up God's lesson, but anyway .
I don't know and so far I haven't seen any good explanations from theists. Which is probably also why some of them believe that atheists got it from God and just wont admit that they are believers or whatever excuse they might have for why people are atheists.

Getting back to this matter of theists being offended here, what legitimate reason would they have for that?

As I hopefully shown in the above, there is a clear distinction made between what atheists can do and what theists can do. If there weren't a difference between them, then there is no reason to write it like that.

It would be like me writing something like: "Men are humans and women are humans, humans like to eat food. ". Unless its a children's book for learning how to read, no one would write something like this, because the term humans covers both genders. So one would simply write, "Humans like to eat food" and everyone knows that it refer to both genders.

"Humans can give birth to children." this is an incorrect, "Women can give birth to children.", because their is a clear distinction between what each gender can do in regards to this, obviously we are sometimes slobby with how we write things and it depends on context. But should we be precise, its women that give birth and not men.

So in my opinion, a clear distinction between theists and atheists and what they can do are being made in what he writes.

 

[idea]

I had an athiest student who was concerned about discrimination when getting jobs (we're in Bible belt). I helped them update resume with all the volunteer work they did to try and get around others who were being hired from church connections. It is sad, for some it doesn't matter how many hours you've put in at food bank / mentorship / park cleanup - people judge based on race/religion not on grades or who anyone actually is. Very frustrating.

Now that AI programs are sorting resumes rather than people - so long as past biased data isn't used to train algorithms, some of that will get better. Actual work performance data will soon replace much of the biases of the past. Everything is getting much more transparent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What could be considered of concern from a theists position as I see it, is that this statement can mean one of several things.

1. Morality doesn't necessarily come from God or at least it is not a requirement, which doesn't really explain how atheists are able to be moral in the first place.
2. That atheists get morality from God, despite not believing in him. However to me, the text seem to suggest that God is not involved, which again lead to where do they get it from then?
3. Theists doesn't really have a grasp of morality etc. as they need it from God or their religion. This might not be a problem for them obviously given they do believe God is the creator of everything, yet it still doesn't explain how atheists can do it then.

Why should any of that be of concern to theists? You suggested that they might be offended, and I agreed, but also commented that there was no legitimate basis for that reaction. Yes, morality does not necessarily come from God, especially if there is no such thing. Is that grounds for offense? I consider the opposite statement, which I read often: morality only comes from God. I can't imagine being offended by that. Is the theist's feeling offended because the unbeliever considers a different set of values to comprise a better moral system that the one he's accepted? Again, I hear that in reverse often on this site, that my moral values are inferior. I'm presently involved in a discussion on another thread, where a Christian is lecturing a few of us on proper sexual behavior, and equating those who have been promiscuous with Trump. Am I offended? Why would I be? So, when I hear that a comment such as that in the OP may be offensive to some believers, I just see it as insecurity.

but should age matter in this case if its wrong and doesn't make sense?

I wrote, "People don't change, but populations do. So, the target is younger minds, not older theists." Age matters because people become less adaptable as they age. Directing arguments for humanism over Christianity to older Christians is no only useless, but it would be harmful to the older theist if his worldview could be upended. Populations evolve culturally, but individuals above middle age seldom do, so the effort should be directed to younger people before they commit to a life of religion. That's what I meant by populations evolving without most individual people evolving.

I think it does and will go in stupid details here

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.

Using the word "true" relate to what the atheists can do and at the same time indicate that theists doesn't do that, because otherwise they wouldn't have to learn it from us.

You see, when an atheist performs an 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.

So again, pointing out that its the atheist that does this, not the theist, and he doesn't even have to be told, taught or read it anywhere. Again, we are talking about "true" compassion.

He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act.

The atheist have so much confident or compassion that he doesn't believe or require God to do these things. Again, this is referring to what atheists does, automatically contrasting this to theists, which doesn't do it.

In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
Atheists have an inner sense of morality, which apparently must be good, because its "true" and God apparently approve of it. Theist doesn't have this, because they do believe and follow God or said in another way, they need the guidance from religion and God to do what atheists can, because of this true inner sense. Have no clue what "inner sense" means here, but nonetheless its apparently what God and religion has to teach or give theists, so they are also able to achieve this.

And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."
The kindness that atheists can show others is amazing, given we are "blessed" with this inner sense of morality and ability for "true" compassion. Again, theists doesn't have this without God and religion. This is what this most important lesson of them all is trying to teach them.

"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.'"
So you shouldn't rely on God, but simply do or try the best you can to copy what the "divine" and blessed atheists have to suffer through on a daily basis. You have to become an atheist for a short time, before you return to the cradle of God and religion again.

Good analysis. I still don't see any justification for taking offense at any of those opinions. None of those comments in reverse would be offensive to me. I already know that many believers believe that I am immoral for being an atheist. I consider that a problem that deserves rebuttal and correction, but I'm not offended.

If I told a theist that I as an atheist believe we have morality as a result of evolution or whatever, but I think they got it from their God, that would make no sense as an argument.

Agreed. But what atheist is doing that? If I tell them at all, I tell them that they got if from a book written by men.

 

[Nimos]

Good analysis. I still don't see any justification for taking offense at any of those opinions. None of those comments in reverse would be offensive to me. I already know that many believers believe that I am immoral for being an atheist. I consider that a problem that deserves rebuttal and correction, but I'm not offended.

Maybe offended is not the right word and them simply also calling bull**** on him would be better.

I wrote, "People don't change, but populations do. So, the target is younger minds, not older theists." Age matters because people become less adaptable as they age. Directing arguments for humanism over Christianity to older Christians is no only useless, but it would be harmful to the older theist if his worldview could be upended. Populations evolve culturally, but individuals above middle age seldom do, so the effort should be directed to younger people before they commit to a life of religion. That's what I meant by populations evolving without most individual people evolving.

I understand that, but still, if his statement is wrong. Age shouldn't matter, because it would be wrong regardless of the message being more acceptable or less aggressive.

Agreed. But what atheist is doing that? If I tell them at all, I tell them that they got if from a book written by men.

I thought you said you ran into atheists using that argument? But maybe I misunderstood what you meant

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm not really, to see a story that isn't even saying anything bad against theists but a good thing about atheists and how they are moral entirely free of religious institution is getting challenged.
If this stupid idea that atheists are immoral never existed then this story would be entirely meaningless, worthless, confusing, and just impossible to understand because it hasn't been ingrained into us all that atheists are bad.

 

[InChrist]

And you evidence for this is?

I consider it the other way, humanity did not need gods but greed and group think devised a way to make the group feel better while slaughtering or even just giving nasty verbals to those not in their group. That something was a god.

That something what/is not God.

People have no problem slaughtering people all on their own. The Bible records the first such incident of Cain murdering his brother Abel. The scriptures call such behavior sin. Whether motivated by greed, hatred, jealousy, lust, whatever it is sin and against the will of God.

 

[InChrist]

For myself, I know what a purely conceptual / imaginary God is, but no one seems able to tell me what a real God is, such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not.

If you can provide such a description of a real God, I'm all ears.

The Bible describes God. It says God is Spirit, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. God is Holy, love, wise, just, kind, merciful, compassionate, and patient.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Bible describes God. It says God is Spirit, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. God is Holy, love, wise, just, kind, merciful, compassionate, and patient.

It says that, but actions speak louder than words. Abusive tyrants all tend to describe themselves with all manner of such positive adjectives. That is because they are not, and people will see it unless they are told how to see it.

 

[InChrist]

You were born atheist, you know. You had no choice in that.

I disagree, no one is born atheist. All children know there is a Creator God even if they do not fully understand everything about God. That is the reason Jesus said...
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)

As well, the scriptures indicate that everyone is aware of God’s existence, yet some choose to suppress this knowledge...
Romans 1:17-21

 

[blü 2]

The Bible describes God. It says God is Spirit, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. God is Holy, love, wise, just, kind, merciful, compassionate, and patient.

But 'spirit', 'eternal', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent' are all imaginary qualities, with no real equivalent. That's to say, they only exist as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

It's because I think the same is true of God that I'm looking for a description of a real God, one with objective existence, hence found in nature, such that (as I said) if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not.

 

[paarsurrey]

What does "shy of atheism/agnosticism/scepticism" mean?

You do know that agnostics can also be religious and theists don't you?

Are you saying you meant none to mean people without any religious beliefs, specifically theism? If so I don't understand why you don't just say that, or why you would think science would validate unbelief in a supernatural and often unfalsifiable claim. Science involves methods for examining and understanding the natural physical world and universe, and a basic requirement of its methods is that all ideas must be falsifiable.

" theism "

Theism is a philosophical term, I don't subscribe to such classification. Religious classification is believers and non-believers. Right?

Regards

 

[InChrist]

It says that, but actions speak louder than words. Abusive tyrants all tend to describe themselves with all manner of such positive adjectives. That is because they are not, and people will see it unless they are told how to see it.

I don’t think it’s even rational to compare the actions of an abusive sinful finite human to an infinite Being who created heaven and earth. God is Holy and Just. God is righteousness eternally embodied. When God does or doesn’t take certain actions He does so with full understanding, wisdom, and with valid reasons. So under those conditions and if God has valid reasons for His actions, it cannot legitimately be said that God is abusive. You simply fall short in your knowledge of the big picture, which God has, and are lacking all the information and wisdom that God has.

 

[InChrist]

But 'spirit', 'eternal', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent' are all imaginary qualities, with no real equivalent. That's to say, they only exist as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

It's because I think the same is true of God that I'm looking for a description of a real God, one with objective existence, hence found in nature, such that (as I said) if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not.

Yet, a god found in nature is not a real God. The God who created heaven and earth as revealed in the Bible is apart and beyond the material, natural world. According to the scriptures, all gods which are a part of nature are fake gods or idols made by humans.