Why Did God Create Atheists?

[Mock Turtle]

" Of course the parents have a role, and usually the larger role in the upbringing of any child of theirs, but it is a general fact that most people do get their religions from their parents (having such) and/or the culture and/or any education likely in the country in which they live."

There is nothing wrong in telling and training the children according to one's religion. When the children are grown up, like other things they are to decide for themselves they same way they can search and research for the truth of religion. Right?

Regards

Perhaps, but also perhaps you are disregarding the effects of indoctrination on small children so as to bias (or warp) what they tend to believe, and continue to believe - as to religious beliefs and such.

So, why not try the experiment of NOT teaching children as to the religious beliefs of the parents, and let them decide?

Not going to be likely is it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well they're right but not for that reason. Of course you can do some good things as an atheist as well as anyone. But can you really be good without God? No, it's just human pride to think you can be good; especially without God. And even many religious people think they can be good without God.

But, yes you can do some good as an atheist.

Well, sorry to say, but I think that's nonsense. I had a good friend, now deceased, whose book you might read: "Can We Be Good Without God?" by Dr. Robert Buckman.

And it seems to me you don't really mean "good" in your post, but in fact mean "perfect." And that, naturally, humans can never be. And whether there is a God or not, it is simply just another matter of definition (by humans) to even suppose that he might be "perfect."

But since we can't be perfect, I believe that we can look internally to understand, in almost all cases, what is good to do and what is not. And genuinely good (not perfect) people will do what is right whenever they can -- whether they believe in God or not. And I'm sorry to have to say it, but genuinely religious people can do very great evil in spite of their belief in God. All they have to do is twist their understanding of what they think God wants a little. See the Inquisition, 911and the violence to abortion clinics for examples.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh, religionists do have the capacity to make moral judgements without god's promise of reward or threat of punishment.
They just think they don't.

As it happens, I believe most people are pretty good, and some people are very good. And they include both religious and non-religious. It would seem to me, for example, that the genuinely good Christian, on having helped someone in need, would be more likely than not to say, "Thank God I was there to help." And I would not begrudge him that sentiment for an instant.

 

[KWED]

Depends if He has a sense of irony or not.

A mischievous sense of irony would certainly explain some of his behaviour.

 

[Revoltingest]

We’re a practical joke.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps, but also perhaps you are disregarding the effects of indoctrination on small children so as to bias (or warp) what they tend to believe, and continue to believe - as to religious beliefs and such.

Why should it be only religious beliefs? Why can't it be such extreme atheistic anti religious rhetoric like yours as well? That also could be indoctrination. Thus, why that level of fanatical bias?

 

[F1fan]

Why should it be only religious beliefs? Why can't it be such extreme atheistic anti religious rhetoric like yours as well?

Where are the anti-religious clubs and books and dogmas? Typically the anti-religious person is exposing the hypocrisy and flaws of religious belief as social phenomenas. Many children grow up being told they NEED religion to be good, or saved, or moral, etc., and these are not true things to tell children. To my mind there should be a counter narrative to religious influence in communities and societies so children have the opportunity to think for themselves, and avoid the inner struggle when religion doesn't make sense to them. My mom and dad accepted the basic ideas of Christianity but neither went to church, and so I had the freedom to assess Christian ideas with pretty low pressure to adopt them. It was actually the hypocrisy and poor moral behavior of my more religious family members that persuaded me to reject these ideas.

That also could be indoctrination. Thus, why that level of fanatical bias?

So do you think being introduced to counter narratives is indoctrination? Do you think children being taught science and history is indoctrination? If so, then you surely acknowledge that being taught one of many forms of religion is indoctrination and you oppose this, yes?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We’re a practical joke.

And practical jokes are even, occasionally, funny -- at least to the joke player.

 

[paarsurrey]

Perhaps, but also perhaps you are disregarding the effects of indoctrination on small children so as to bias (or warp) what they tend to believe, and continue to believe - as to religious beliefs and such.

So, why not try the experiment of NOT teaching children as to the religious beliefs of the parents, and let them decide?

Not going to be likely is it?

I don't agree with one.
We must have confidence in the children that when they grow up they will find truth themselves. Right?

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't agree with one.
We must have confidence in the children that when they grow up they will find truth themselves. Right?

Regards

Well we might not know the answer to that unless we all decided to not indoctrinate/educate children as to religious beliefs will we? Trouble is, the religions know that without this 'education' their membership might drop quicker than it already has being doing in the more progressive countries - where freedoms tend to be a higher priority.

 

[Quagmire]

I would say that any atheist not taking you seriously is an act of compassion.

That's just common sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why should it be only religious beliefs? Why can't it be such extreme atheistic anti religious rhetoric like yours as well? That also could be indoctrination. Thus, why that level of fanatical bias?

No problem with that. If you want a level playing field, let children have access to all the relevant beliefs that are available in the world - or the major ones at least - but don't try to indoctrinate them into one particular belief. Given this is what happens all too often. One can't do much about what happens within the home but we can do so in schools.

 

[MikeF]

That story would be great if it weren't for the fact that, in the entire history of humankind, there isn't one single recorded act of charity or compassion haven been performed by any atheist, anywhere, at any time.

And I defy anyone to prove me wrong.
( )

There is the slight problem that for much of history, for one to even admit to being an atheist there were often dire consequences. Accusations of heresy, simply saying the wrong thing about the accepted entity, could get one killed. At the very least, an admitted atheist could expect to be socially ostracized. All good reasons for Atheists of yore to exercise there charity and compassion without touting their anti-theistic philosophies.

 

[Quagmire]

There is the slight problem that for much of history, for one to even admit to being an atheist there were often dire consequences. Accusations of heresy, simply saying the wrong thing about the accepted entity, could get one killed. At the very least, an admitted atheist could expect to be socially ostracized. All good reasons for Atheists of yore to exercise there charity and compassion without touting their anti-theistic philosophies.

True, but still we have a few hundred years to work with at this point.

 

[MikeF]

True, but still we have a few hundred years to work with at this point.

I would disagree. I would suggest easing of social stigmatization of atheism only occurred in the 20th century.

 

[Quagmire]

I would disagree. I would suggest easing of social stigmatization of atheism only occurred in the 20th century.

I would say it began to ease up around the time of the enlightenment, begining In the 16th century.

And that's just in the western world. We can add another millennium if we look eastward.

 

[Eli G]

This entire topic is based on a falsehood: the premise that God created atheists. How is it that an atheist can prove that God has something to do with someone deciding to be an atheist?

Were Adam and Eve responsible for Cain becoming a murderer?

 

[MikeF]

IMO

I would say it began to ease up around the time of the enlightenment, begining In the 16th century.

And that's just in the western world. We can add another millennium if we look eastward.

Well, you are certainly going to believe whatever you want. The whole premise was absurd. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were restricting your challenge to well-known historical figures.

If I, as a non-believer in what I consider the imagined abstract constructs of supernatural entities, donates to charities, volunteers my time for charitable causes, stops to help folks on the side of the road, etc, and I know other non-believers who also demonstrate charity and compassion, I am quite confident that we are not rare or unusual. I would contend that non-believers are just as charitable or non-charitable as the population is on the whole.

 

[Eli G]

Modern atheists often call themselves "animals", because they consider that to be what they are due to their supposed origin.

According to them, animals do not need morality and the law of the jungle is what prevails among animals. Imagine the results of such an "advanced" philosophy.

And... what does God have to do with those who decided to live life following their own advice of themselves and not that of their heavenly Father?

Is this "animal" thinking superior to the high biblical principles that Jehovah God teaches in his written Word, and that produces such excellent results in, for example, an international community like the Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[Quagmire]

IMO

Well, you are certainly going to believe whatever you want.

Yes I certainly am.

The whole premise was absurd.

I wonder if you even understand the point I was trying to make there.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were restricting your challenge to well-known historical figures.

And there aren't any of those outside of the history of the western world or from before the 20th century?

If I, as a non-believer in what I consider the imagined abstract constructs of supernatural entities, donates to charities, volunteers my time for charitable causes, stops to help folks on the side of the road, etc, and I know other non-believers who also demonstrate charity and compassion, . . .

The operative word here being "if".

I am quite confident that we are not rare or unusual.

Which isnt the same as having proven anything.
(actually just sounds like a belief).

I would contend that non-believers are just as charitable or non-charitable as the population is on the whole.

And believers would content that there is a God. If we were going to leave it at that, we'd all be in here talking about cats.