Are atheists too complacent?

[Foster Zygote]

I try to talk about spiritual ideas, and it gets reduced to my having to try and justify Hitler and child murders.

But you're already justifying those things by assuring us that it all works out for the good in the end.

When I talk about everything working out for the ultimate good, I am talking about humanity raising itself to a higher state of spiritual evolution by actions, and the consequences. That may take hundreds, or even thousands of incarnations. This may take a million years, but ultimately humanity will rise above suffering. We will then proceed into a higher realm of existence as immortals. One family of enlightened souls.

So, ultimately, why even be so squeamish about a little girl being gang-raped and decapitated? If it's all for the greater good, why aren't you happy about it?

I do not dwell upon horrible things. They will pass.

Again, it seems more like you are distressed by the consequences of your personal belief, and that this is the source of your discomfiture.

Going back to your earlier statement, I don't think it's so much an intellectual failure on your part as it is a matter of cognitive dissonance. You're clearly uncomfortable embracing the transparently obvious consequences of your philosophy. You want to believe in a god that has its hands on all the marionette strings, but there's this pesky matter of appalling evil to be addressed.

 

[HansMustermann]

I always found the idea of rules lawyering God stupid, but I heard a Rabbi once explain that their point of view is that by studying the rules that closely in order to find ways around them they are showing their devotion to them. I suppose that is a reasonable point of view although it suggests the rules are arbitrary.

Now I'm not a particular fan of religion or theology, but IMHO the idea is not completely stupid. Well, not a priori anyway. In human law we often do just that: try to judge the INTENT of a law, how that applies to the situation at hand, and whether an exception is warranted. And set precedents for the future.

So as a general idea it's not particularly far fetched that one would apply equal thought to the religious rules, without it meaning that you don't take it seriously. Indeed secular courts at least in the west take the law very seriously when they do just that.

Where it goes into gaga land is pretty much just HOW theology tends to go about it.

 

[psionl0]

I have a thread called 'scorpion's spiritualism' and I found out on that thread I cannot win a debate about my beliefs here, so I gave up. I do not need to repeat the experience on this thread. I realize I am not as intellectual or as educated as some of the people who post here. But I still think I am basically right about most of what I believe.

I attempted to get to the heart of what you truly believe in posts #33 and #81 but your eminence couldn't bother to even acknowledge that I had posted.

If you aren't prepared to have your views examined on a skeptics forum then you are probably posting in the wrong place.

 

[Myriad]

When I talk about everything working out for the ultimate good, I am talking about humanity raising itself to a higher state of spiritual evolution by actions, and the consequences. That may take hundreds, or even thousands of incarnations. This may take a million years, but ultimately humanity will rise above suffering. We will then proceed into a higher realm of existence as immortals. One family of enlightened souls.

Here's something about this narrative that you might not have considered. If it's going to take a million years and thousands of incarnations per capita for humanity to learn the right lessons, then we clearly have no idea yet what the right lessons are. If we did, it wouldn't take a million more years to learn them.

So, who's to say who's farther advanced in progress toward a higher realm of existence? It might be Mormon Elders. It might be OT-8 Scientologists. It might be enlightened Shaolin monks. It might be Golden Dawn mages. It might be Wiccan priestesses. It might be Green Berets. It might be ISIS insurgents. It might be six-sigma process consultants.

It might be rationalist atheists.

It might be no one. You can try to find which first grader in the class is best at counting to a hundred but is he or she really ahead of the others in learning the nature of the transfinite ordinals?

Ultimately, your basis for criticizing or challenging atheists is a claim that you know what your yourself say humanity doesn't and cannot know. Which is a contradiction, plain and simple.

 

[The Atheist]

Dunno about you or anyone else in this thread, but that is flat out evil.

I definitely agree with you.

...It might be six-sigma process consultants...

Nah, definitely not them. When I see a CV with Six Sigma on it, it goes into the furnace set on the hottest temperature.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

And I know that you can't read minds so this piece of nonsense is something you made to feel better yourself.

Definition of theist:- a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

Definition of supernatural:- above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

Theists insist that their gods are supernatural, and they know exactly what that means - that their gods don't exist. They don't hide it either. When you point out that there is no scientific evidence that their god could even theoretically exist, they simply state that being supernatural means it doesn't have to (and they are right). Furthermore they proudly believe on faith alone, often considering this to be an essential element of their religion - for the obvious reason that it's illogical to require evidence for something you know doesn't exist.

 

[HansMustermann]

He has told us that if some random woman is raped and murdered, then that is because she did something in a past life that REQUIRES that she suffer from it in the cause of learning....something for her next life.

That is why Scorpion does not care about suffering. Of anyone. He has told us that he regards it as necessary to reach the "ultimate good" which he also fails to specify.

Dunno about you or anyone else in this thread, but that is flat out evil.

I would argue -- and have indeed argued in the past, about for example Buddhism -- that the problem goes even beyond not caring. The consequences of that kind of a setup are IMHO two-fold

1. There is indeed no reason to show any compassion if whatever bad stuff is happening to someone is either (A) deserved, or (B) needed for some reason, or indeed both.

But also

2. You actually SHOULDN'T interfere even if you felt an urge to, e.g., to save that woman, because you're just preventing them from learning whatever lesson they needing to learn. In fact, the compassionate thing to do is to just ignore it, because if you do, you're causing more harm long term. Not giving a crap really becomes the new caring.

Now problem #1 is the more generic problem of ALL 'just world' beliefs. It's the belief that Job's friends show in the OT, and illustrate its logical conclusion: if God dumped all that crap on you, you obviously deserved it, you bloody sinner. Really, I don't see any way to avoid it in any belief system where the universe is a just place (as opposed to a random collection of particles that doesn't give a crap about you), whether inherently or by being micro-managed by some deity, so ultimately it's hard to single any particular such system out based on just that.

But IMHO you really need to throw reincarnation into the mix to end up with the abomination that is #2.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I try to talk about spiritual ideas, and it gets reduced to my having to try and justify Hitler and child murders.

That's because you don't think your ideas through.

When I talk about everything working out for the ultimate good, I am talking about humanity raising itself to a higher state of spiritual evolution by actions, and the consequences. That may take hundreds, or even thousands of incarnations. This may take a million years, but ultimately humanity will rise above suffering. We will then proceed into a higher realm of existence as immortals. One family of enlightened souls.

A beautiful idea. But just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's true.

I do not dwell upon horrible things. They will pass.

Eventually you will die, and then you won't have anything to be concerned about. Both those of us who are still living will. So we don't appreciate you ignoring the flaws in your ideas just because they make you uncomfortable.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I try to talk about spiritual ideas, and it gets reduced to my having to try and justify Hitler and child murders.

So your "spiritualism" is totally different to German WWII "spiritualism"

"God is with us" / German Army belt buckle.

 

[GDon]

Atheists seem to assume that people who believe in God and an afterlife are mentally weak and gullible. Thereby assuming intellectual superiority over them.

I'm a theist, former atheist. Some atheists believe that they are intellectually superior because they are atheists, and some theists believe they are morally superior because they are theists. Since there are good atheists and smart theists, both viewpoints don't appear correct.

But have they considered what it means to really believe you are answerable to a higher power in everything you do?

But isn't this problem more on the theist side? Many -- maybe most -- theists believe in God but try not to let it interfere with their day. Those theists just try to muddle through their day, with no more interest in God than they are in any other philosophical ideas.

Is it not easier and more comfortable to believe death brings oblivion, than to believe you are held accountable in an eternal afterlife?

Both oblivion and eternal afterlife can be either comfortable ideas or disquieting ideas. If there is a commonality in the good parts of atheism and theism, it is to focus more on this life, whatever happens afterwards.

 

[psionl0]

Definition of theist:- a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

Definition of supernatural:- above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
Theists insist that their gods are supernatural, and they know exactly what that means - that their gods don't exist. They don't hide it either. When you point out that there is no scientific evidence that their god could even theoretically exist, they simply state that being supernatural means it doesn't have to (and they are right). Furthermore they proudly believe on faith alone, often considering this to be an essential element of their religion - for the obvious reason that it's illogical to require evidence for something you know doesn't exist.

Even when you try to resort to a dictionary to change what somebody is saying you do a bad job of it.

Nothing in your dictionary says that supernatural means "doesn't exist". By your definition, theists insist that their gods are "attributed to God or a deity" (which is at best a circular definition).

 

[ynot]

“Are atheists too complacent? “

Well, some atheist are perhaps too complacent. These atheists just don’t seem to care that most people have deluded god beliefs that can (and do) have negative effects on themselves and others. It would be better if these complacent atheists spent more time and effort educating theists in the errors, harms and insanity of their god beliefs.

Perhaps these atheists are just being too nice to theists.

 

[GDon]

What about a 3 year old being kidnapped, gang raped and beheaded?

If you think this is a logical problem for theists, isn't the logical problem from suffering generally considered to be resolved? "God must allow suffering if from that suffering there results a greater good."

The following argument is valid AFAICS. Not sound of course, but valid:

A. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
B. God must allow suffering if from that suffering there results a greater good.
1. An atrocity happens.
2. Therefore a greater good must result from that atrocity.

What that greater good is, I have no idea. But it's logically valid. And the logical problem of evil is generally considered answered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense

According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most philosophers accept Plantinga's free-will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted.[17] Robert Adams says that "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of God and evil."[18] William Alston has said that "Plantinga ... has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing."[19] William L. Rowe has written "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God", referring to Plantinga's argument.[20]​

There are objections and implications for such a solution, but assuming it holds up, it does mean that any atrocity doesn't mean that there can be no omni-God.

There is still the question then of the empirical problem of evil, e.g. explaining the greater good in a real atrocity. But if an atheist wants to claim that there can definitely be no greater good for a real atrocity, then it is their claim to prove.

 

[arthwollipot]

Nah, definitely not them. When I see a CV with Six Sigma on it, it goes into the furnace set on the hottest temperature.

I did a Six Sigma course once. I couldn't tell you what was in it.

 

[Loss Leader]

When I talk about everything working out for the ultimate good, I am talking about humanity raising itself to a higher state of spiritual evolution by actions, and the consequences. That may take hundreds, or even thousands of incarnations. This may take a million years, but ultimately humanity will rise above suffering. We will then proceed into a higher realm of existence as immortals. One family of enlightened souls.

I do not dwell upon horrible things. They will pass.

I'm going to disagree with a lot of my peers, but:

To me, this is a perfectly cromulent life philosophy.

It's what you believe. It brings you comfort. That's fine with me. I've never seen any indication of you doing anything evil or, for that matter, even jaywalking. I've never seen any indication that you, if confronted with a dangerous situation, wouldn't jump in a lake to save a drowning child. I doubt that if your house caught fire that you would sit in the flames happily thinking about how burning to death is for the greater good.

So, whatever your larger beliefs are, you appear to me to be a fine, upstanding citizen of whatever country you live in.

Now, I happen to think that your beliefs are self-contradictory. I think that your actions now contradict your stated spiritualism. I don't care, though. Best wishes to you.

Oh, there is just one bit of a problem, though. Why would you start this thread?

If humanity is on a million year journey to enlightenment that includes reincarnation, what possible difference does it make to you where anybody else is along that spiritual path? Atheists could be too complacent. They could be unconscious. It shouldn't matter to you. If I'm okay with your very silly beliefs, why can't you be okay with mine?

It smacks of an unbearable egotism for you to question the firmly held reasoning of others. So long as we're not commiting conversion by bailee (or whatever horrible crime you can think of), it's just plain arrogant of you to declaim that you have some better answer to life than we do.

Please stop doing that.

That is why Scorpion does not care about suffering. Of anyone. He has told us that he regards it as necessary to reach the "ultimate good" which he also fails to specify.

Dunno about you or anyone else in this thread, but that is flat out evil.

That's not evil. Doing something may be evil. Thinking something? If you had any idea what sort of sick insanity passes through other people's heads, you'd never leave the house.

Your point is well made without the need to hyperinflate it.


*Evil, in the sense I am using it, means something deeply at odds with commonly-accepted modern morality. Evil in the religious sense doesn't actually exist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I did a Six Sigma course once. I couldn't tell you what was in it.

"Six Sigma? That's a special kind of GI Joe." - Frank Rossitano

 

[HansMustermann]

That's not evil. Doing something may be evil. Thinking something? If you had any idea what sort of sick insanity passes through other people's heads, you'd never leave the house.

Your point is well made without the need to hyperinflate it.


*Evil, in the sense I am using it, means something deeply at odds with commonly-accepted modern morality. Evil in the religious sense doesn't actually exist.

Actually, even in the very modern western world,

1. we do have a concept of evil thoughts. It's even built into the very foundation of the justice system, in the concept of "mens rea", meaning literally "evil (state of) mind". It's basically where we try to establish intent.

The actual evil act ("actus reus") in, say, my running someone over with a car is the same: I hit him with a car, he's dead. But the intent can vary from none whatsoever to premeditated murder, with negligence and recklessness also being somewhere in between as degrees of "mens rea". With the main difference being that in most cases negligence isn't actually punishable, but recklessness is.

The main difference being that to count as recklessness you must have known, or it should have been obvious to an average person of average intelligence, that harm to others can result. So basically, yes, we do qualify indifference to endangering others as an evil frame of mind.

Now generally we do require a certain action or inaction (where there was an obligation to do something) to actually go to court, for practical reasons. But we do recognize that there is such a thing as evil evil intent, and that thoughts do have consequences. In fact that every time you end up judging an act, it is the consequence of a thought or frame of mind.

2. that inaction can also be an evil act, where there is an expectation to act.

E.g., if I fail to inspect my roof after I've been advised that it's in dangerous state of disrepair, or after already tiles have fallen off, I might qualify as reckless when a tile falls and actually kills someone on the sidewalk.

 

[dann]

It is a cold and lonely Universe.

Sometimes it's too hot to handle and so crowded that you have to wear a mask.

 

[Darat]

I don't even consider myself an atheist (risky thing to say here! jk ). I have zero clue what the true spiritual nature of the universe is, and I have zero interest in discussing it. I don't think theists are stupid and gullible, but I do think they can be very annoying. I just really don't want to hear about somebody's religion in detail, especially if they're worked up about the topic. It's like someone going on about your sex life, I just don't care. Shut up.

Which god or gods do you believe in?

 

[Darat]

If you think this is a logical problem for theists,

...snip....

I am discussing Scorpion's beliefs.