RSS 2.0
Stephen’s Choice
I have asked regular contributor Stephen to select the topic of our next conversation. Here it is:
Would I be correct in assuming you [Allen] do not believe in the existence of life after death?
If so, would I be correct in assuming that you do not, therefore, believe in any sort of eternal judgement? (Let’s say - if there is no God, there is no Judge.)
If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged?
I appreciate the element of a tormented conscience in this debate, and the benefits of a clear conscience, but if Judgement does not exist (because there exists no Judge), haven’t the unrepentant evildoers got off, as free as can be?
on September 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Yes.
Assuming this is the Christian God, yes.
Yes, indeed–good things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. I think, however, that personality and attitude can be contributing factors, at least some of the time.
Regretably, yes. The justice of this world is all there is. No amount of wishing or hoping or praying can alter this unfortunate fact.
on September 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Ok, Allen, many thanks for your honesty and clarity. Both are most helpful. I am deeply flattered, though more than a little embarrassed, to see the heading ‘Stephen’s Choice’ at the top of the page!
I mean no offence at all, but isn’t your own admission that unrepentant evildoers escape any kind of judgement for their actions (in the absence of a Judge) a poor advertisement for the virtues of atheism and its credibility as a satisfactory philosophy?
Why would I wish to choose atheism when it patently, by default, endorses a policy whereby not even the worst evils in the world are called to account?
If, in the worldview that is coloured by atheism, “the justice of this world is all there is” then is it not, clearly, a defective belief system in that it allows evil to prevail without any hope of eventual justice?
Would not the traditional, mainstream Christian theology of eternal justice (punishment, consequence and reward) appeal, instinctively, to the spark of fair play that is part and parcel of our DNA?
on September 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
First, one minor point—I never said that evildoers escape any kind of justice, just the supernatural kind. This is not to say, of course, that human justice is perfect—I think we can agree that plenty of nastiness goes unpunished.
On a more significant note, I am truly astonished that you believe atheism endorses a “policy” which “allows” evil and injustice! Atheism doesn’t endorse any such thing—it merely recognizes the fact that the universe is insensible and indifferent to human suffering. But while the universe is amoral, humanity certainly is not. Our sense of fair play, as you say, is embedded in our DNA. As moral beings, we strive to define and encourage what it is to be good and fight against evil and injustice.
Atheists assert that we are ultimately responsible for ourselves and to those affected by our actions, and that our wrongs can’t be magically erased with potions or prayers or sacrificial offerings. We strive to make this life and this world the best it can be without any hope of heaven or threat of hell.
You may call it a “defective belief system,” but I can’t imagine anything more courageous, honest, and empowering.
But even more remarkable is your apparent rejection of atheism, and an amoral universe in particular, because you find them personally or emotionally unsatisfying. Can we agree, however, that reality exists independently from how we feel about it, and that no amount of indignation can change the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, for example, or that light travels 186,000 miles per second, or that we share nearly 99% of our DNA with chimps?
If we do indeed live in an amoral universe, and what is true or real is more important than our preferences for how the world should be, then atheism is a perfectly reasonable and compelling position.
on September 27th, 2008 at 10:21 am
There is no such thing as ’satisfactory philosophy’. Not in my dictionary anyway. Philosophy seeks truth and understanding, it isn’t a deliberate construal for the mere purpose of revenging evildoers or for softening feelings of emotional incompleteness. Imho the term ’satisfactory philosophy’ is a misuse of the word philosophy where instead religion seems to be meant.
Evenso, atheism isn’t fabricated to appease humans or to alleviate particular human suffering. It’s just a rational statement in a case where the evidence does not meet up to the claim. It’s the choice to base one’s view on reality on sufficient evidence and balanced reasoning rather than to fabulate it to soothe a pain. It entails the choice to live in a world with eyes wide open rather then under a warm blanket of a drug called religion. The idea to adhere to a certain view on life in order to ease feelings of revenge, grudge or a felt unfairness really baffles me. It’s the same primitive reasoning that drives millions to hollywood movies in the good-guy-bad-guy genre. That is not to say that I can’t recognize primitive feelings myself, I am a mere human after all, but it can hardly be a solution to the pain in a world where kid cancer, tsunami’s, AIDS, earth quakes and the like ‘embellish’ our lives on a day by day basis. In this world full of suffering an almighty entity that chooses not to intervene looses innocence, if he ever had any. In the same way that human law recognizes that it is a crime not to aid fellow humans in distress, in that same way a mighty judge standing by on all human suffering is to be called morally abject.
But not all is lost by acknowledging that no mighty judge will undo all wrong (and certainly you’ll agree that punishing is not the same as undoing). People themself can bring evildoers to justice by devising and upholding laws. People themself can find cures to diseases (where is god helping out in the medical lab? Is he taking a nap or throwing a high tea in heaven for the elite?), research the forces of nature to maybe one day harnass its raw power and prevent calamities. Sure, we have a long way to go, but thinking some santa will some day enter the scene and hoho his way out of human misery, is a bit naive and certainly will not speed up the process of humans getting a grip on things.
on September 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Well said, Mr Niceguy, and welcome!
Are you also a resident of the UK, llike my friend Stephen?
on September 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thanks Allen.
And, well no, I’m not living in the UK, but you’re not far off. I’m living on the continent in a cute little country with flowers and windmills and everybody over here (and I mean everybody) is walking on wooden shoes. Hope you get the picture.
on September 27th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yes, I think I get the picture, If you don’t mind me asking, are you originally from somewhere in the UK?
on September 28th, 2008 at 2:55 am
No, I am of genuine dutch creed. But we can be very original over here too. Why do you ask?
on September 28th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I was just curious–it seems like there are quite a few English visitors on the American atheist websites I frequent, but they come from all over the world, of course, including Holland.
I myself am an American living in Southern California, in case you or anyone else were curious.
Welcome, one and all!
on October 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Quote:
“Why would I wish to choose atheism when it patently, by default, endorses a policy whereby not even the worst evils in the world are called to account?
If, in the worldview that is coloured by atheism, “the justice of this world is all there is” then is it not, clearly, a defective belief system in that it allows evil to prevail without any hope of eventual justice?”
In all do respect, this sounds more like wishful thinking than solid reasoning. Therefore, appealing to wishful thinking, which suggests irrationality, to support a belief system and deride another is manifestly childish.
on October 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
I had another thought. This question brings me to David Hume’s argument: Even if we are convinced of Divine purpose, there can only be one source of evidence of what it is. This must be what we find in the world around us. So if life here is unjust, evil, etc., then the only defensible inference is that Divinity intends for things to be as such.
This raises a further question: If Divinity intends for a fair dose of injustice, how can we defend the premise that punishment by this same Divinity ought to remedy evil, here or in the afterlife, and therefore, atheism is found intuitively wanting? How can we defend the argument that punishing the individual who fulfilled her Divine purpose is defensible?
on October 6th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Hello everyone,
A brief note of apology for my absence recently.
I would love to be able to write, but please bear with me, if you will.
I’ll get there as soon as possible. I had my car stolen at the weekend, so am trying hard to work things out.
Will be back soon.
Stephen
on October 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Very sorry to hear that, Stephen. Take your time. You have much more pressing issues than writing to me!
on October 30th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Greetings Cassasndra!
I have read some of the comments here. I happen to be a big believer in God, and the Devil, and life after death. I also believe that your site doesn’t like my computer. My computer keeps freezing when I come here.
Give the boys a kiss from grandma! I still love everyone!
on October 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Sorry, Sue, Cassandra don’t post ’round here no more, no how, so she’s not likely to see your message. You’d probably have better luck calling her on the phone.
Cheers,
Allen
on October 30th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“Why would I wish to choose atheism when it patently, by default, endorses a policy whereby not even the worst evils in the world are called to account?”
I would assert that “choosing” atheism is kind of like choosing to accept, finally, that the world really IS flat. It’s just the way it is.
on November 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Hello Folks,
I owe you all a large apology for my absence of late. I am truly sorry not to have taken part in any discussions lately, and even sorrier to have absented myself when you have all been so patient, and kind enough not to harass me.
Many apologies.
It is, I’m afraid, a long, arduous and tedious story of a stolen car, illness, and time spent away from home. I shan’t bore you with the details, but suffice to say, I am back to normal now (!) and would love to partake of the cut and thrust of honest debate once again.
Sorry for the delay. No offence intended. I would be more than happy to pick up the pieces again, if anyone is still out there (Allen?). Happy to hear from you all on the subjects we knock around.
Good and kind wishes from Scotland, as ever.
Stephen
on November 20th, 2008 at 4:45 am
I hope I’m not being presumptuous in posting this so soon after my lengthy absence, but please may I refer you (all) to the following;
Here in the United Kingdom, The Salvation Army publishes a weekly newspaper, The War Cry.
The War Cry is currently running a series of debates involving Professor Richard Dawkins and Professor John Lennox. Both are professors at Oxford University. Professor Dawkins is an atheist, and Professor Lennox is a Christian.
The debates are fascinating, and feature in a DVD called The God Delusion Debate, produced by Fixed Point Foundation.
The UK edition of The War Cry is produced in London: warcry@salvationarmy.org.uk
Greetings to one and all.
Stephen
on November 25th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Friends,
May I gently refer you to, and invite comment upon, an article by Melanie Phillips in the Spectator dated Tuesday 23rd October 2008.
The article is entitled ‘Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving’ and can (probably) be located somewhere in the region of spectator.co.uk A bit of time spent Googling will probably reward.
I hope you can find it.
Greetings,
Stephen
on December 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Stephen,
thank you for your interesting questions. I’m new to this site and indeed to the atheist blogs in general. I’m a mom raising a three year old and have been recently challenged to look at my own religious upbringing and beliefs as they affect my daughter, and how I plan to raise her. So, here is a chance for me to think it through and maybe get some feedback from other interested persons. Hope I’m not arriving too late to the table for a good discussion.
Let me first say that I was not raised to believe in a god, several gods, the Christian god, nor any god in particular. I was raised to believe in respecting everyone and that I have an obligation to think things through for myself to figure out what is true and right for me. Simply accepting something because someone tells you “this is how it is” was about the only taboo I was taught (that I can identify). So it’s as difficult for me to intuitively understand your biases as it apparently is for you to understand mine. But I’ll give it a try.
You ask, Would I be correct in assuming you do not believe in the existence of life after death?
I am familiar with some of the general ideas proposed by various schools of thought: reincarnation, heaven/hell. But my own feelings on the issue are that we are all interconnected. We are like cells in one great big organism. If one of us dies, we are not fully dead because we are part of a greater whole that still reflects the fact of our existence. But the density and particularity of our existence (the personality and its dynamic impact) do fade with time. Another way of saying this: we live on in each other. We all make our mark and that does not “die” in the sense that time is not reversible.
There are some other ideas to be mentioned here about sexual reproduction and the necessity of the death of individuals for the biological scheme we’ve evolved into, but I’ll leave those for another time.
Okay, your next three questions which I will answer together: If so, would I be correct in assuming that you do not, therefore, believe in any sort of eternal judgement? (Let’s say - if there is no God, there is no Judge.) and, If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged? I appreciate the element of a tormented conscience in this debate, and the benefits of a clear conscience, but if Judgement does not exist (because there exists no Judge), haven’t the unrepentant evildoers got off, as free as can be?
The best most immediate way I have currently for getting an insider’s perspective on these concerns you raise about judgment, punishment, fairness and by implication right behavior, is by comparison with my experience as a parent to a young child. I can tell you that there exists a strong urge sometimes to punish and harshly correct or squash a lively child which feels justified in the moment. But when I step back to gain my perspective I invariably realize that the hostile urge is mostly strongly linked to my own stressed-out state either from lack of sleep, being hungry and harried, or emotional dynamics I may be struggling with in other parts of my life, in short, that my anger and wish to punish have more to do with ME in that moment than with my daughter, no matter what she’s doing. And as a parenting device I find that punishment has serious limitations, that is, in general it is less effective than cultivating a strong positive affective bond with my daughter which inspires her to remain in harmony with me, and using patient, upbeat, firm guidance (and role modeling) that takes into account her developmental needs and sacred personhood. I.e. respect, love, fun and understanding.
So it’s not about whether it’s “unfair” that my daughter got away with jumping on the bed instead of putting on her pajamas when I asked her to. The point is, how can we continue to develop healthy routines that ensure we all get enough sleep and also preserve a sense of fun and pleasure in life, as well as mommy and daddy’s authority, as well as appreciation and respect for the little one and her many needs, and her ability to communicate those needs in a multitude of ways? All of that together. Punishment has its place, but it’s a slippery slope that easily takes you where you don’t want to go. Punishment misses the boat in many ways.
Now, I can hear you saying “but your daughter jumping on the bed is NOTHING LIKE all the REALLY evil things I was referring to when I talked about unrepentant evildoers getting off scot free, what about those?” Okay, so let me start to broaden the picture here.
My work often takes me into the courtroom and so I’ve seen my share of what society considers bad: murder, larceny, lying to cops, not paying off your traffic tickets. I can also see how just about all of it: physical assaults, the taking of things, deceptiveness, is clearly reflected in the behavior of my three-year-old and her playmates. It’s just a matter of degree, but believe me, I’ve been assaulted by my three-year-old. And yes, she routinely lies even when she and I both know that she certainly is the one tickling my back or who took a stick of bubble gum off daddy’s desk. It’s a game for her, she doesn’t understood adult ethics yet about telling the truth all the time. But it’s all there and though she can make me frustrated at times I don’t think she’s evil. I respectfully challenge your notion of evil. At what magical moment do childish, unschooled impulses become something hideous you would call “evil”? Aren’t we really talking about a continuum here? And aren’t you just giving up in some sense by trying to put it off to some “afterlife” instead of dealing in the here and now?
Sociology texts indicate that our society has mechanisms by which it actively creates the definitions of deviancy and whole classes of deviant individuals. Someone isn’t born a prostitute, a spouse beater, drug dealer, or an embezzler. These behaviors are created, and their identities (different from mere behaviors) are created, too. There seems to be some strong need for communities to define their boundaries by examining who’s in and who’s out through often dramatic displays and rituals. Some people are pushed out and labeled as deviant evildoers. Are they inherently evildoers? I don’t think so. I am a relativist in that I know that what is sinful or illegal in one society is often not thought so in another, and just about everything that is illegal under some circumstances is legal under others. You steal a CD from Walmart, you’re a thief. You steal wealth from the world system by abusive trading practices, you’re just one of the big guys doing business as usual. You kill a relative in a fit of rage, you’re a murderer. You kill a man who is totally helpless and strapped to a gurney with a tube in his arm, you’re just doing your job (if you’re an executioner in a state that practices the death penalty). Yes, of course individuals are responsible too, but when I see individuals behaving badly, I tend to see systems at work.
And yes I know the arguments, i.e.: well, maybe societies do define some bad and good actions differently, but there ARE some things everyone agrees upon. Every society thinks murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and lying is wrong. Actually, even that breaks down under examination. As I mentioned, the death penalty is practiced in many societies, and also human sacrifice which may or not may come with the presumption the victim did anything wrong (Indian funereal pyres, the Aztecs’ sun god sacrifices). In Bora Bora if you take something and the owner is watching you and doesn’t say anything, it isn’t considered stealing. In the !Kung culture of Africa as I understand it, sin is not sharing. Another example: taking land as your property and depriving others of its use was alien to the native Americans, yet Europeans turned around and labeled the Indians as cheaters for wanting the land back after signing some piece of paper that had little significance or power in their own Indian societies. So from the standpoint of social order and cohesiveness I understand the push to define right and wrong and enforce certain codes of behavior. But I haven’t bought into it to the extent that I am willing to demonize an entire individual wholesale by calling her or him “evil.” I would rather transform society than scapegoat individuals who are acting out society’s disease. And even if I did buy into the concept, the definitions of “evil” seem so strongly culturally bound that I couldn’t possibly accept the existence of a universal judge.
Looking from another angle, No, I don’t see actions as going “unjudged” even without some great arbiter in the sky. In some sense we live our heaven and hell within us all the time. The person who is so carried away with rage that he injures another has experienced his or her punishment in the very same moment, though it may take time and many layers stripped away to appreciate its full impact. That is, if you now know you are the kind of person who will do XY and Z, and your society condemns those things, how do you live with yourself? Aren’t you diminished or damaged in some way? Isn’t that punishment? What about the effects on your human relationships of your actions, the curtailing of what might have been? Isn’t that punishment too? And instead of “punishment”, how about we talk about “suffering” like the Buddhists? Aren’t we really just suffering the consequences of our choices and our circumstances, even if the outsider thinks we’re perfectly happy with our millions and our platinum blonde spouse? Or our gangbanger attitude and slouchy pants?
You say Judgement does not exist because there is no Judge. Hm..I guess I am an animist. I would appreciate the animation and spirit in many things: animals, the wind. Let me ask you this: if a Judge in your local district court were to pass away, or more happily, switch careers and become I don’t know—a massage therapist—then what would happen in court? Don’t you think someone else would come along and be made the judge? And if that person left, once again someone else would step forward to fulfill the function, right? How can it be that judgment doesn’t exist without a judge? the attitude, impulse, concept, energy…aren’t the judges CREATED out of that spirit? I propose that the spirit comes first, then the agent, not the other way around.
Finally I really would like to understand the belief that people can only be persuaded to “do the right thing” out of fear that someone is watching all the time and planning to hurt them? Or that such a system would indeed be the best option, if we can choose our belief systems as I believe we can? Again, based on my parenting experience I think there are better methods of achieving a healthy happy society.
I realize I have not taken pains to be particularly succinct here and I apologize for the length of my post. Looking forward to hearing anybody’s thoughts about all or any part of my ramble who may take the time to answer.
on December 26th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Meg,
Yes, it was long. But, thank you. Very insightful. I am a mother of two, comfortable in my atheism, but searching for a way to explain my beliefs to my children without doing what my parents did: tell me what to believe (Christianity). I guess I am trying to do what your parents did for you. I want to teach them to be respectful of other beliefs, but to come to their own conclusion. And as you said, the only taboo being believing something simply because someone tells you it is so.
Hope you keep posting here.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
It is interesting that Stephen’s questions so clearly show why Atheists have such a strong sense of morality.
“If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged?”
YES!!! That is the whole point, right on target.
on July 20th, 2009 at 3:09 am
nike dunk shoes
Air Max shoes
on August 12th, 2009 at 4:05 am
在动漫产业博览会wow gold的现场，经常看到“资深”动漫迷对国产动漫形象表现出某种不屑，而国内原创动漫产品遭到如此境遇的原因恰恰是设计者能力的缺乏。一项调查显示，国内的动漫企业80%以上的业务是为海外生产制作后期，而最为buy wow gold核心的前端设计型人才几乎没有。 “国内的商家宁可cheap wow gold花4000万元做电视广告，也不愿花40万元与企业合作创造动漫品牌。” 燕清创意企业形象策划（北京）有限责任公司总经理李泊泽介绍说，这就是国内动漫面临的实际现状。“圣仔”是以《西游记》主人公孙悟WoW Account空为原型，原创的具有知识产权的卡通形象。但是，民营设计sell wow gold机构独立创作卡通动漫形象却是很多人不敢想的事情，既充满挑战，也有着很多成本风险。 不少大学毕业生面对生wow power leveling计、生存需要时，不得不选择放弃动漫行业。北京电影学院动画学院院长孙立军道出了这样的苦衷：“很多一流的人才并没有投身动画行业，而是选择了游戏、广告等工作。现在做原创的可能是三流人才，因为他们找不到那种高薪的加工业，只好选择所谓的原创。” 09.08.12T
on September 18th, 2009 at 2:14 am
A year after the post, but oh well, why not! Here are my answers to your questions to Allen:
“Would I be correct in assuming you [Allen] do not believe in the existence of life after death?”
While your decorum is noted and appreciated, to cut to the chase, it would be the rare atheist that also believed in some type of supernatural afterlife. What kind of godless mechanism could produce such a situation and still be plausible to believe in?
“If so, would I be correct in assuming that you do not, therefore, believe in any sort of eternal judgement? (Let’s say - if there is no God, there is no Judge.)
Again, by what godless mechanism would “eternal judgment” be effected? Karma? The karmic atheist is pretty rare, too.
“If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged …haven’t the unrepentant evildoers got off, as free as can be?” “Why would I wish to choose atheism when it patently, by default, endorses a policy whereby not even the worst evils in the world are called to account? If, in the worldview that is coloured by atheism, “the justice of this world is all there is” then is it not, clearly, a defective belief system in that it allows evil to prevail without any hope of eventual justice?”
The major misunderstanding that I see at the heart of this issue is that you seem to think that belief or non-belief is a choice, and one based on what is best for us personally and societally. In fact, my atheism, and most others’, if I may be so bold, is an admission to myself that, in all likelihood no God actually exists, even if I wanted Him to. We believe things because, despite being unable to prove them, we nevertheless REALLY THINK THEY ARE TRUE, do we not? I would hope, Stephen, that you don’t believe in God just because you think it’s a useful worldview or because it makes you happy and fulfills your sense of justice. I would very much hope that you aren’t just striking a deal with yourself to live your life AS IF God exists because you prefer it. Rather, I should think that you believe in God first because you think He is real based on your experiences and judgment, and it just so happens to be a bonus that the Christian worldview is a useful one.
Similarly, I am not an atheist out of convenience, and regardless of whether eternal judgment would be preferable, I do not think it or God exists, a conclusion reached via the application of my intellect to what I know about the universe.
On a related note, my journey away from belief originally started with the epiphany that a system of eternal judgment was wholly unfair to apply to finite beings. To send people to ETERNAL torment because they were born into the wrong religion or culture and were not swayed by the message of Christianity at some point in their finite existence, against everything they’ve ever been taught? How is that justice? What of all the millions born before Jesus, on the other side of the world from the Israeli tribes, who could not and did not follow the Commandments and lacked even the knowledge of their sins? Eternal hell is justice for them?
More to the point of your concerns: even the worst human beings in history, the Hitlers and Stalins, do they deserve torture for ETERNITY for inflicting a few decades of suffering on humanity? Many might say yes. More nuanced thinkers might have misgivings. After all, as wrong and horrible and corrupted as they and their methods were, many of their decisions were made with a greater good in mind, as they saw it. Forgiveness might be out of the question, but eternal suffering and torture in hell still gives me pause, even for them.
on October 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
At long, long last, I find myself once again able to enter this website! Thank God! I have had no end of rebuttals whenever I have tried to post anything: all sorts of rejections denying me access.
However, I am here again, after what seemed like endless frustration, and I would be delighted to participate once more.
I do not, though, assume for one second that I may still be welcome. If I am, that would be great. If I’m not, having not appeared here for eons, I would fully understand, and would depart with good grace.
I am sweating on this posting being accepted. So so many have wandered away into cyberspace, leaving me utterly unable to communicate. Here’s hoping the glitch in the system has finally given up.
Kindest regards, as always, to one and all. Stephen (Scotland, UK).
on October 5th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Hi, Latecomer,
I’m hoping you are still out there. Are you? I would like to discuss the points you make.
Please just let me know.
Many thanks.
on November 25th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Would I be correct in assuming you do not believe in the existence of life after death?
You are correct in assuming that I do NOT believe in the existence of life after death.
If so, would I be correct in assuming that you do not, therefore, believe in any sort of eternal judgement? (Let’s say - if there is no God, there is no Judge.)
You are also correct in assuming that I do NOT believe in any sort of eternal judgment.
If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged?
Your assumptions assert that Atheists have no sense of fairness because we do not believe in a deity or God; nothing can be further from the truth. A matter of fact, it’s just the opposite. Atheists have such a high degree of fairness that we believe it’s unfair and untruthful to continually give a God/Deity credit for claims of being all loving and all merciful in the absence of supporting evidence. Atheists DO believe in fairness, but have embraced the cold reality that there is NO God acting as referee in this thing called life. As a result, the Atheists I know have adopted a rational approach to dealing with the inequities in life because the God’s have consistently failed at fulfilling this duty. Hoping there will be judgment for evil doers DOES NOT make it so, just because you’ve adopted a philosophy that says there will be judgment. Atheists believe that it is up to man to be fair to his brethren (and sisteren ); any sense of supernatural judgment in an afterlife is just an illusion for the deluded.
I appreciate the element of a tormented conscience in this debate, and the benefits of a clear conscience, but if Judgement does not exist (because there exists no Judge), haven’t the unrepentant evildoers got off, as free as can be?
Judgment? The source of your questions becomes clearer…; as this is a continuation of the previous question.
Again, Atheists don’t dictate to reality what it should be; we simply observe it (the natural world)for what it is and label ourselves accordingly. Most of us have observed that life’s events (Universe, natural world) do not conform or bend to teachings, claims, prophesies, or promises found in the scriptures of any God, so we label ourselves as non-believers. Consequently, if there are no Gods, there is no eternal judgment. The only MEASURABLE judgment is that in which we inflict upon ourselves. Adopting a philosophy that makes unsubstantiated CLAIMS of there being judgment for evil doers in the afterlife is NOT evidence that said evil doer was ACTUALLY punished (received judgment) thereafter; again, any perceived judgment is imaginary.
on November 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I mean no offence at all, but isn’t your own admission that unrepentant evildoers escape any kind of judgement for their actions (in the absence of a Judge) a poor advertisement for the virtues of atheism and its credibility as a satisfactory philosophy?
As stated in the context of my previous posts, if there is NO God, there is NO judgment in the AFTERLIFE. However, Atheists DO believe that man\woman should do his\her best to offer some remedy for injustices in this life through the use of fair laws and due process of law. Any evildoer who escapes mans judgment through law simply benefits from an imperfect system, designed by a being with LIMITED power. Likewise, simply CLAIMING that a higher power will exact judgment upon those who escape man’s judicial system is not sufficient evidence to compel me to belief that the claim in itself is somehow an effective remedy.
Poor advertisement for the virtues of Atheism and its credibility as a satisfactory philosophy? I can tell that you don’t know a thing about Atheism, credibility, or virtues. Atheists are credible as a consequence of their virtuous tendencies to not advertise as being more than human. Unlike Theists, who claim to know and speak with an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God who consistently fail to live up to its own standards, rules, and laws. Atheists don’t make such claims, because doing so would be untruthful; NOT CREDIBLE.
Atheists’ virtues are based on truth, evidence, and reason. As a result, Atheists are credible as a course of our approach to life because we: allow evidence to dictate the outcome of an event rather than having a predetermined outcome dictate the evidence, are truthful and honest in all aspects of life (even when it’s painful or unpopular), fight disagreements with facts NOT faith, and we don’t sugar coat life with fairy tales just to make ourselves feel good.
Why would I wish to choose atheism when it patently, by default, endorses a policy whereby not even the worst evils in the world are called to account?
Ask yourself the following questions:
• Is it better to endorse a policy that CLAIMS the worst of evils WILL be punished without proof of an actual punishment being carried out?
Or
• Is it worse to accept a position that admits WE DO NOT BELIEVE there will be any punishments carried out on evildoers in the afterlife, due to lack of evidence of a judge or afterlife?
And
• Is it better to tell a lie or mislead people about what you know or don’t know just to make them feel good?
Or
• Is it better to tell the truth about what you know or don’t know regardless of how painful it is?
For the record, I’m all for evildoers being called to account. The subsequent questions should be, who or what will do the accounting?
Does simply CLAIMING it make it so?
Either you believe in God completely or you don’t. If you see the Universe as being manipulated by invisible Gods, Unicorns, Leprechauns, and demons then you’re a Theists. If you see the Universe as natural forces (living & non-living) acting and reacting upon one another, maybe you’re an Agnostic or Atheists.
In other words, if you become an Atheists it should be because you are compelled by the lack of evidence in support of the alternative; not because someone has said something so emotionally satisfying that you felt compelled to choose it.
If, in the worldview that is coloured by atheism, “the justice of this world is all there is” then is it not, clearly, a defective belief system in that it allows evil to prevail without any hope of eventual justice?
Theism exists for the sole purpose of exacting justice on souls in the afterlife, so if the souls aren’t being punished it’s not the Atheists fault. For that reason I reject your assertion that Atheists have something to do with ALLOWING evil to prevail without any hope of eventual justice. If we all had the ability to transcend in and out of the natural world and serve jury duty to make sure those evildoers receive justice in the afterlife, we’d all be doing it. Truth is… that is not an option for Theists or Atheists. Right?
Anyways, let’s flip the script and say that the worldview is coloured by Theism. What proof, other than just the CLAIM, does Theism offer as evidence to suggest that it is EFFECTIVE to any degree at exacting justice on evildoers in the afterlife? It DOES NOT!!!! In that case, isn’t YOUR belief system DEFECTIVE if lacks that ability to observe/confirm/measure as to whether its claims are carried out at the appropriate time and place? Shouldn’t you reject Theism on the same basis you claim to reject Atheism?
You’re looking for answers; that’s why you’re here on this blog. Your God doesn’t exact punishment fairly in THIS life, so all you have is the HOPE that some form of justice MUST take place in the afterlife so you will feel good about the commitment. I get it… You are trying to answer some tough questions, but I think you’re armed with the wrong set of tools to get the truth. Atheists don’t claim the things your are criticizing it for not doing because we KNOW that we have no control over what happens beyond this life. Pretending as though we do would make us Theists. Wouldn’t it? LOL!!! :)
Would not the traditional, mainstream Christian theology of eternal justice (punishment, consequence and reward) appeal, instinctively, to the spark of fair play that is part and parcel of our DNA?
Appeal… fair play…DNA? Maybe yes. But no matter how strong the appeal of sense of fair play; if it’s not founded in truth, what good is it? All humans live on either truth/fact or hope/faith? I prefer truth… I hope you do too!
If you want to respond directly, send me an email B4atheists@sbcglobal.net
on November 27th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Hi. Very many thanks for your courtesy in taking so much time to compose a most helpful response. That is deeply appreciated.
I would very much like to respond, so please bear with me until I can find the time do so so properly. Your points deserve at least that.
Thanks again - I’ll write at the first opportunity.
on December 16th, 2009 at 4:58 am
I am mammal too and I wanna fuck all the atheists females.
That s just normal, we are all animals.
Right, atheist Mom?
on January 8th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Some thesis services are presently looking for your perfect idea just about this topic for the dissertation thesis writing.
on January 28th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I don’t think one thing follows from another here. In fact, I think it would be just as far to say:
(1) Joseph Stalin ate bread while he was growing up.
(2) Stalin had 20 million people killed
(3) Bread is the most evil food on the planet.
Correlation isn’t the same as causation, and all that.
One obvious example of how this skirts around the rules of logical induction is the fact that people who murder other people are often sentenced to life in prison, which is probably indistinguishable from ‘eternal’ punishment. And the death penalty - well, detail is pretty eternal.
Of course, a person’s conscience can be a hanging judge as well, and that affects the people who get off in court, as well as the people who’ve done things which are morally reprehensible, but legally allowable.
But I’d like to turn the table around and ask Stephen a question:
If a person can simply repent and pray for forgiveness, and get it automatically, whether that person’s victim(s) forgive him/her or not, doesn’t that mean any evil person can just choose not to be punished? Aren’t we talking about the same thing?
And, really, according to the doctrine, people are never punished (by god) for evil deeds - only for lack of faith in Jesus.
on January 29th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Are you willing to get resume writing, that conform the area of research you wish?. You can count on our resume writers, as you count on yourself. Thanks because that’s the good way
on February 23rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Various spheres of people’s life take lots of time, hence why should we expend free time for essay papers writing? That’s better to use some custom classification essays service to purchase the expository essay at, I opine.
on March 4th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
hmmm. in the very beginning of 20 century it was so self-evident that science proves that there is no god, but now the theory of evolution looks pretty inconsistent and it contains lots of mistakes, and so on and so on… maybe there are judges, maybe not, anyway every religion is based on two relations- human being-human being and human being-god. so i am sure at least we have to be pretty honest with ourself and we have to try to be good person for others… even if we dont believe in existence of relation human being-god.
on March 5th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I think that to receive the credit loans from banks you must present a good motivation. Nevertheless, once I’ve received a short term loan, because I was willing to buy a house.