What Does Atheism Offer That Belief In God Can’t?
It seems that atheism is puzzling to believers. Demian Farnworth recently interviewed Hemant Mehta and in the following comments asked him,
What does atheism offer that belief in God can’t?
I certainly admire the approach of asking non-believers what they think, rather than guessing. Many of us lose track of the number of times we’ve been accused of only being atheists so we can act immorally or “do what we like“.
So what is so great about atheism?
Certainly there are genuine benefits to being an atheist. They’re not just obvious things like being able to cut your hair when you want, or getting a lie in on Sundays. Plenty of writers have already listed some more important advantages. Here’s a selection that I particularly liked.
From Adam Lee:
Being an atheist means you’re free to form your own opinions, rather than having your outlook colored by a belief system that tells you what you should think.
Being an atheist means you don’t have to think of yourself as a sinful wretch who can never do anything right.
From Dave Hitt:
Atheism, by itself, frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be wasted in worship… It provides great freedom and at the same time great responsibility – while I can now do things without worrying if they’ll annoy some nasty sky-daddy, I also know that the results of my actions are my responsibility – I can’t blame it on “sin.”
The wrong kind of question
The benefits of atheism – what it offers – seem rather irrelevant. Likewise if it causes inconveniences to non-believers, that shouldn’t affect a person’s willingness to call themselves an atheist. The important thing is whether or not it is correct. Again, other people have already said some great things about the advantages of atheism.
On atheism.about.com Austin Cline says,
This is rather an odd question — shouldn’t the primary concern be with whether or not any gods really do exist? Shouldn’t the truth of this question be the focus of our attention, and not any personal advantage or disadvantage which we might get by taking one position or the other?
On asktheatheists.com, logicel asks,
Christians are atheistic towards all gods except theirs; atheists just go one god further. Why not also pose the question of what are the advantages of Christians not believing in other god(s)?
While Erik_PK’s answer I could not have put better myself.
I think this is a strange question, as it implies that religious belief is a bit like buying a new car – you look at the available accessories, compare gas mileage, and then figure out which one works best for you. Each person has their own idea of what’s important to them, so there are lots of opinions on what’s best.
But matters of existence are questions of fact rather than questions of opinion. They are not decided by what we would like to be true, but rather by what is true…
Demian’s question makes me wonder how he and other believers think. Did they choose their belief based on what it offers? Did they “shop around” for a belief-system with the most benefits – a nice bunch of people, a reasonable moral code, plenty of religious holidays and a pleasant-sounding afterlife?
None of those things should matter. To be honest if I found a religion that provided sufficient evidence that it was true, I’d believe it. I wouldn’t care if it required me to wear wooden shoes, eat only vegetables and walk on all fours every Tuesday. Conversely, if a set of beliefs are false, then it doesn’t matter how many virgins believers could spend eternity with.
I’ve generally given believers the benefit of the doubt and assumed that they genuinely think their belief-system is correct. Certain questions from believers however, make me wonder if I’ve been right about that. For example, when a believer tried to convince me to join their religion by seriously suggesting Pascal’s Wager, I do wonder if it was the evidence or the fear of going to hell that convinced them. When asked for their reasons for believing, several believers have told me, “I find it comforting”. I’ve no doubt many believers genuinely think they’ve got it right, but suggesting “comfort” as a reason to believe suggests that veracity is a secondary concern.
Apart from the quotes above I’m speaking for myself here. Simply put, all atheism “offers” me is that it’s true. No doubt many believers feel the same about their beliefs. Atheism seems to me to be the only reasonable position. I don’t need it to offer me anything else, I have the rest of my life for that – my family, friends, sports, nature, humanism, sometimes even my job – offer me things to make life interesting. I see atheism more as a simple fact of life, like the sky being blue or the Earth being round.
I’d love to hear what others think about this, believers and non-believers. How important are the benefits your beliefs bring or claim to bring? How much does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?
Possibly similar posts:
- Truth vs Comfort - 26 November, 2008
- Atheism, Agnosticism, Definitions and Misunderstandings - 5 January, 2010
- Us and them - 29 August, 2008
Comment by atimetorend on 10 April, 2009 01:33
I think you are exactly right, and I have experienced the same kinds of conversations. I’ll start with the point that what matters is whether it is true or not, while the Christian shifts the focus to be about the benefits of Christianity. I think in that case it is that the Christian honestly cannot think of giving up what they see as the benefits of the religion to honestly consider what evidence they have of its veracity. And maybe in looking for evidences they can use to make a case for belief, those are the best they have, because they are to them actually experienced.
Comment by Demian Farnworth on 10 April, 2009 01:35
Eshu, that’s a very thoughtful, persuasive answer. I especially like Cline’s statement. That’s what it boils down to. And I asked the question as a side thought…so it’s not something that dominates the agenda. Just curious. And to answer the question from my side of the debate, I didn’t choose to become a Christian. [I'm sure you could say the same thing.] So it’s not comfort, convenience or the consolation prize. Naturally I have my doubts–as I’m sure you do to [if you tell me you don't, then you're lying ;-)]…but the truth is too powerful, too persuasive in the end, and really is it worth it? No. Realize atheism and theism both can’t be true. One of us is wrong. Wanna make a bet who? ;-)
Comment by Opethian_days on 10 April, 2009 07:05
“but the truth is too powerful, too persuasive in the end, and really is it worth it? No. Realize atheism and theism both can’t be true. One of us is wrong. Wanna make a bet who? ;-)”
$50,000 on Eshu :)
Comment by Temaskian on 10 April, 2009 07:29
I am atheist, not by choice. Atheism has its pros and cons. The pro that outshines all the cons being that it’s true. I don’t adopt atheism because it’s convenient, but because it’s true. Since I have ascribed to it, I try to make it more convenient, in the sense of adjusting to it.
To answer Demian’s question/challenge, I have do doubts at all that there is no god. Ok, only about 0.000001% of doubt. The doubts I had to entertain when I was a christian was about a billion times more than the little doubt I have about atheism. Your comment hints to me that you have more doubt than you’re comfortable with. Tolerate it if you want to, but as an emancipated ex-christian, I’m letting you know that you don’t have to.
Comment by yunshui on 10 April, 2009 10:00
If you’re a betting man, Demian, perhaps you’d like to take up that wager not just with Eshu, but with a Muslim, a Sikh, a Mormon, a Catholic, a Jain, a Rastafarian, a Hindu, a Taoist, a Seventh-Day Adventist, a Jew, a Wiccan, a Zoroastrian…
Personally, though, I’m very much up for betting on sure things, so shall we say a thousand quid each way? Of course, given that neither of us will know with absolute certainty who’s right until we die, financial reward will be somewhat unsatifying, but I’ll settle for watching you sucking Shiva’s ballsack in the Hindu afterlife…
Comment by Eshu on 10 April, 2009 10:31
Hi Demian,
Indeed. I’m a big fan of a particular Bertrand Russell quote:
I guess we’re both already betting our lives (or afterlives) on it. But as yunshui points out, it isn’t 50-50…
Comment by Eshu on 10 April, 2009 10:37
yunshui,
Yes, thanks for that nauseating image… thankfully I wasn’t eating at the time!
I guess a god could show up and decide the matter, so you’d be taking a bit of a risk…
Comment by Postman on 10 April, 2009 14:32
Oh, Yunshui, if you’d ever seen Shiva walking around in those biking short-shorts He’s so partial to, you’d think twice about bringing up the Holy Ballsack.
And, Demian, as temaskian pointed out, there’s doubt and then there’s doubt. Alright, none of us know whether or not there is a big wampum sky-daddy counting the hairs on our heads, but then none of us know the earth won’t fly off into deep space tomorrow. However, evidence and experience point pretty strongly toward no gods and no cosmic billiards.
Comment by Demian Farnworth on 11 April, 2009 00:46
@Temaskian: make no mistake: My confidence grossly outweighs my doubt. And atheism offers nothing compelling enough to return to that old lifestyle.
Comment by yunshui on 12 April, 2009 17:58
Except that, as we’ve already established, this isn’t a pissing contest. The issue is not whether or not atheism is all fun and games, it’s whether or not the claims of a religion are true. Atheism doesn’t offer discount entry to Disneyland, free screensavers or a special badge for members – it’s simply a position with regards to the existence or non-existence of a god, period. As for returning to your old lifestyle – atheism is also not a lifestyle choice. You can be a Conservative, clean-living, teetotal, monogamous atheist or a liberal, debauched, drunken, polyamorous atheist (or any combination of the two) with equal ease – the difference is, we don’t have to make our behaviour conform to the ideals of a patriarchal, heirarchical, control-freak Church.
Comment by Demian Farnworth on 14 April, 2009 13:13
Yunshui: I never said this was a pissing match. Two words you seemed to overlook in my statement: “Confidence” and “compelling.” I have confidence in the truth claims of Christianity. AND I’m compelled by it. More so than the non-existence of God. And I apologize if “old lifestyle” came off derogatory. Wasn’t my intention.
Comment by Leif on 15 April, 2009 12:13
@Demian: I find the idea that I might discover my hidden superpower compelling, but unfortunately that doesn’t mean it will happen. :(
As lots of you have pointed out, many Christians look to the “benefits” of Christianity and therefore decide to stick with it, however another factor is to do with time investment. People don’t like to think that they are stupid, and after investing years into Christianity, it would seem like that time was “wasted” if they were to become an atheist.
If you find it difficult to understand this, research victims of the Nigerian (419) Scam, they have a very similar mentality. Many of the victims begin by only sending small amounts of money, but as time goes by even when they’ve become aware it’s almost certainly a scam they can’t bring themselves to admit it since that would mean they would have lost so much money, purely due to their own gullibility.
Comment by Demian Farnworth on 15 April, 2009 15:31
@Leif, great argument about the Nigerian scam, but remember, it applies to everyone…including you. Atheists are just as prone to sticking to decisions because of investments of time and effort. Unless, of course, that’s some latent superpower you have. ;-) You’ve pointed out something about humans in general, not Christians in particular. Try again sir.
Comment by Lorena on 15 April, 2009 16:44
Eshu
Like with everything else in life, we all get out of it what we need most. Leaving religion behind is helping me become a less immature adult (outsiders wouldn’t know I’m improving, I know).
As a Christian, my opinions, my decisions, and even my social circle were fabricated for me. I just had to follow the herd wherever it took me. I might as well have been brain dead.
Now as an ex-Christian, I have taken control of my life. Since my failures and my successes depend on how I manage my life, I have become a more thoughtful, deliberate person. Before, my life was a random mess of events without rhyme or reason. Now, there is someone in charge, ME.
Demiam Farnworth
With all due respect, Demian, I don’t know what your “old lifestyle” was like. Perhaps if I had ever had your former life, I wouldn’t want it either.
As for me, if my past had been horrible, overcoming my mistakes out of fear of a hell-threatening God would be less than optimal. I prefer to be a responsible person out of love and respect for me and others. I prefer to be motivated by a desire to be a law-abiding, positive contributor of society at large.
Comment by Leif on 15 April, 2009 16:57
@Demian: It absolutely does apply to everyone, yes.. we’re all “only human” after all! Nevertheless I believe it’s still a valid point for why people might feel inclined to stick with some long-existing religious views, particularly if they’ve been instilled since childhood.
p.s. Here’s hoping with the superpower – I’ll keep you updated! ;o)
Comment by jason on 15 April, 2009 17:01
the problem with atheism – if we are to be completely honest – is that it ultimately points to nihilism. our lives are a cosmic accident, no more meaningful or valuable than the lives of cockroaches. the entire history (and future) of human civilization is absolutely and completely without point or purpose and will one day come to an end, remembered by none because there will be no one left to do the remembering. the only logical thing to do in that case would be to derive whatever physical pleasure we can in the short amount of time that we have because after that – oblivion. as paul said – if there is no christ, let us eat and make merriment for tomorrow we die.
Comment by Eshu on 15 April, 2009 18:18
Hi Jason,
I was going to write a response to you, before I realised that plenty of atheists have had to answer this question and some have done so rather well in my opinion. For example, Adam Lee examines your concerns in his essay Life of Wonder from which the following is a quote:
I think, if we are to be completely honest, that theists and atheists find meaning and purpose in the same things. Family, friends, nature, humour, music, challenge, learning…
Comment by Eshu on 15 April, 2009 18:30
Leif, Demian,
We might claim that there’s less emotional investment on the part of an atheist, but I think it’s arguable either way. It probably depends on the individual.
If this psychological issue interests you then the book you need to read is Mistakes Were Made (review by Greta Christina). It does cover things like police detectives being convinced of a hunch, “We don’t interrogate innocent people”, and the authors even own up to their own misplaced confidences. It’s an eye-opener for sure, and no it doesn’t mention religion as far as I can remember.
Comment by Eshu on 15 April, 2009 18:50
Lorena,
Thanks for your comment, although having read your blog I can’t help feeling like I’ve had an easy ride compared with you! Glad to hear that you feel happier and more in control as an atheist. Feeling out of control for any reason is always unnerving.
Comment by Demian Farnworth on 15 April, 2009 19:58
Okay, let me end with this [I'm sure you're getting sick of me hogging the floor here]: I’m really intrigued by all these stories of people escaping abusive, controlling Christian homes…
Because I grew up in a godless home with an authoritarian, emotionally absent father and spent a decade self-medicating myself with drugs, alcohol and sex to escape the damage of neglect, abuse and vicious criticism.
It wasn’t until I became a Christian that I took “control of my life.” In fact, every thing Lorena said about her new life can be said about mine.
My point is this: An abusive godless home doesn’t prove atheism is false anymore than an abusive Christian home proves Christianity is false. It just simply demonstrates misguided people manhandling beliefs for their own purposes.
In the end, I think were all after the same thing: truth. And I agree we all have misplaced confidence. That’s why I never want to come across with a rigid, air-tight mindset, but more as a curious, confident Christian challenging everyone’s beliefs, including his own, so that we all walk away having grown intellectually, spiritually or emotionally…I say all that to point out that I appreciate the respectful and productive discussion, Eshu, Leif and Lorena. I think this is blogging at its best. Thank you.
Comment by Eshu on 15 April, 2009 22:21
Demian,
Thanks for the compliments. Hog all you like, this post was inspired partly by you, so it’s quite right that you comment. At the same time, I appreciate we all have lives in the real world to get on with, so don’t feel obliged!
Yes, regardless of which god does or doesn’t exist that situation and those things aren’t going to make for a healthy happy person.
I’m not so sure. After all, you came to very different conclusions. I wonder if you weren’t both searching for yourselves. Please excuse how new-age that sounds! What I mean is finding your place in the world, your understanding, what you want from life and what you think is important. Similarly I know people who’ve been made dramatically happier by changing jobs to something in tune with their nature.
Sorry Demian and Lorena if it’s presumptuous of me to suggest this and please correct me if I’m mistaken in your cases.
Comment by Lorena on 15 April, 2009 23:47
Demian
What it does prove, Demian, is that believing in gods does not necessarily help a person control one’s “demons.” In other words, if this were a study, the god variable would be irrelevant, and we would have to look for other reasons why a person turns around and finds a better life.
You say that being a Christian helped you out of your personal “hell.” But I know people who have overcome their vices and disgraces without a God. So, I find, those folks are better off, since they found within themselves the strength to move on.
Another thing that is proven here is that not only is a god belief irrelevant in improving ourselves, but it can also make our lives worse. I, and many ex-Christians–particularly women, felt oppressed, looked down upon, ignored, and overseen by so-called godly people. Our self-esteems were trashed around in such a way that our dependence in god deepened as our lives deteriorated.
Furthermore, I am not claiming that atheism liberated me of anything. It was leaving Christianity behind that helped. I know a few atheists that leave the faith and continue being the jerks they used to be (Christians don’t necessarily change either). So, as Eshu well puts it, it is NOT belief or lack thereof which helps a person. It is our immense desire to move on that does the trick. Support groups and detox programs do help. You found Christianity. I must say I am almost happy you did, if it helped that much.
Are we? I don’t know that I am looking for the truth. I only aspire to avoid deception. The Christian faith proved, to me, false at all levels: the doctrine doesn’t stand scrutiny, and the followers often prove its ineffectiveness.
Comment by Eshu on 16 April, 2009 06:44
Once again, perfectly put.
Well you have a correlation. I don’t think it is necessarily a causation, though.
The old “treat ‘em mean to keep ‘em keen” trick. So many Christians express their own lack of self-worth. I find this sad and it is probably psychologically unhealthy, but perhaps Christianity as a religion does well out of this approach. The theology may or may not have been intentionally constructed this way. Either way, a religion which has multiple methods of gaining and keeping members faithful to it is going to survive better than one which does not.
Comment by jason on 16 April, 2009 14:21
hello eshu,
first, its a pleasure.
i don’t dispute the idea that joy and a sense of purpose can be found in your daily life or of anyone’s life whether they be in christ or not. this purpose – this meaning that mr. lee is speaking about, however, is self ascribed. “i have friends and family, therefore i have meaning. I can enjoy and appreciate, beauty, art, literature, comedy, conversation, and so my life has value beyond just a sense of self preservation. i matter because i say i matter.”
lets imagine the distant future from an atheistic perspective for a moment. billions of years in the future, the earth has become completely barren and lifeless. the sun can no longer produce enough energy to sustain even microbial life. the last life form on earth died out about a hundred million years ago and the human race became extinct about a billion years before that. every last vestige of human life has been eroded by time and the elements to the point of imperceptibility and now not even a faint trace of evidence exists that would suggest that this planet at one time supported life. so what was your life compared to the billions of years that have come and gone since? what is it compared to the hunreds of billions to come? you were a great doctor and saved millions of lives? so what? all those lives and their progeny are now gone and will never return. you built the greatest, largest, and most magnificent cities on earth ? and? even the dust of the mortar of their foundations is gone. you acheived perfect inner peace and taught billions to do the same which ended all crime and poverty on the planet? and when you died oblivion swallowed your consciousness without judement, predjudice, or bias the same as it did with eric harris, mother theresa, dylan klebold, ghandi, adolph hitler, jesus christ, and saddam hussein. even the most noble purposes in life don’t amount to anything in this type of universe. whether you lived a good and decent life or lived a vile, depraved life – it really doesn’t matter. its not like you have to answer to anybody after your life is over. so – this frozen, lifeless planet orbiting its dying sun is all that is left and even that, too, will one day come to an end.
so the meaning and purpose you find in life is just fleeting and, compared to the utter vastness of this incredibly ancient universe, insignificant. your life, in that future, is of the exact and equal value as every other life and the only comfort you can really take from the idea of that invetible future is that you won’t be there to see it. no one will. live for the now while you can – like paul said.
Comment by Temaskian on 17 April, 2009 06:05
I didn’t realise that there was such an interesting conversation going on here. Must’ve forgotten to tick the “Notify me” box. Looks like I missed the train.
Demian said:
“…make no mistake: My confidence grossly outweighs my doubt. And atheism offers nothing compelling enough to return to that old lifestyle.”
I’m sure your confidence exceeds your doubt at the moment, else you wouldn’t be continuing as a Christian. It’s just that I’m pretty sure you would have much less doubts to tangle with if you just surrender to being an atheist. Just a conjecture on my part. And I wonder what gives you the confidence. Or is it a false bravado? I’m not deriding you here, just recalling that was close to what I felt when I was a christian arguing with atheists.
The fact that you’re avoiding atheism because it offers nothing compelling tells me that you’re not so much interested in the truth, as in what christianity can benefit you or has already benefitted you. And that is not an altogether irrational choice. In fact, in a sense, it might even be more rational in this case to continue being a christian than to revert back to being an atheist.
I wonder: how many years have you been a christian? My theory is that if you’ve been at it long enough, you’ll gradually find that it’s not able to deliver on all that it promises.
Comment by Temaskian on 17 April, 2009 06:19
Jason said:
Indeed, life is meaningless. Didn’t the book of Ecclesiastes mention that everything is meaningless? It also mentioned that meaning is to be found in eating drinking and being merry, and to enjoy life while you have it, the additional point being to fear God and to obey Him. The only contribution religion makes is to add on an additional activity to make life more meaningful. Like a meaningful make-belief. Like a computer game. It can be fun and meaning-full, but it’s not real.
There’s meaning and significance even in this short life. The significance is of importance to me, and those around me, and the significance is for the here and now. It’s not important to me what it signifies to people in a thousand years to come, for I shall not know them and will never get to know them. That sounds sad but it’s just the plain cold truth. Some of the things Paul said were actually correct. Just because I’m an atheist now doesn’t mean that I reject everything that he said.
Paul also said that if the resurrection never happened, then christians are the most pathetic lot. More to be pitied than any other group on this earth. That’s also something to think about.
Comment by yunshui on 17 April, 2009 09:51
To reiterate Temaskian’s point; jason, why are you so concerned about what happens after the eventual extinction of the human race? Are you so self-absorbed that you have to believe your ego will somehow survive your death, or that your actions will be forever recorded in the mind of God? What, exactly, is wrong with the idea that you will one day cease to be?
Comment by Lorena on 17 April, 2009 15:59
That is so true, Tesmaskian. Christianity offers people stuff that has nothing to do with truth. That’s why they’re compelled to close their eyes to any evidence that disproves their faith. Let’s face it. We left because we were TOO real. We were unable to enjoy the benefits knowing that there was no truth to it. Or perhaps for some of us, the benefits weren’t there, because we were un-herdable (pardon my “English”).
Comment by jason on 17 April, 2009 16:09
hello temaskian
i think perhaps you’ve missed my point. in an earlier post i stated that atheism, when drawn out to its logical conclusion, leads to nihilism. my illustration of mankind’s future was to support that idea. bottom line is this: if there is no creator then our lives are ultimately unintended and therefore without intrinsic meaning. the only value to them is only what we artificially assign. the author of ecclesiastes knew this and at the end of that book came to this determination in 12:13 –
Comment by Temaskian on 17 April, 2009 16:55
Lorena,
Agree with you there. I’m pretty un-herdable myself, to say the least.
Comment by jason on 17 April, 2009 16:58
hello yunshui,
well, one, it would mean our lives are without intrinsic meaning, and two, there ultimately would be nothing to look forward to. as the author of ecclisiastes so eloquently states:
nothing that can be achieved in life is of any real value because the grave awaits us all, and if nothingness is what awaits after death – what’s the point? there is no purpose. a watch’s purpose is tell an observer what time of day it is. this purpose wasn’t artificially ascribed to it after its creation but rather it was made with intention and with this specific purpose in mind. if every watch is destroyed and no more watches made, they cease to serve their purpose and so both the watches and their purpose becomes meaningless.
Comment by Lorena on 17 April, 2009 17:23
Even Christian apologists agree that the writer of Ecclesiastes was depressed and despondent towards life, after having screwed it up with foolish decisions. Why do Christians cite Ecclesiastes? I, for one, wouldn’t take what that guy said at face value. He was a grumpy old man regretting how he lived his life. Not even as a fundamentalist Christian I took him seriously.
Comment by jason on 17 April, 2009 18:38
hello lorena,
the author was a sinner as we all are. now, whether he died in his sins or was a repentant sinner justified in christ (which, from the way he ended the book, i believe he was) doesn’t matter. he served god’s purpose. you’re right, though – he certainly does sound grumpy.
Comment by Eshu on 17 April, 2009 18:47
jason,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I’ve been somewhat tied up.
I appreciate the difference between self-created purpose and that applied from outside, or as you say “intrinsic meaning”. What I do not follow is why you feel intrinsic meaning is necessary.
My feeling is that the purpose and meaning I find in my own life is enough. Does making something last forever in some form necessarily make it intrinsically better? Others say that life is so precious partly because it is so short. I’m not sure how much better I’d feel if my sole purpose was to spend eternity doing nothing but telling someone how wonderful they are. I imagine any deity could quite easily glorify themselves better than I ever could. What could I add to that?
It’s not as if Christians go cheerfully to their graves, either. It doesn’t appear that they are particularly comforted by the thought of eternal life. I don’t expect that the average Christian looking down the barrel of a gun says, “Bring it on, I can’t wait to be with Jesus!”. I’m glad that they don’t. People who do go cheerfully to their graves worry me!
But to sum up, I don’t feel that life being finite invalidates any of the purpose and fulfilment I experience now. I’m sorry to hear that you do.
Comment by Lorena on 17 April, 2009 18:56
Excuse me? Just because he MIGHT HAVE repented at the end of his life, his writings which he did at the worst of times are now acceptable? Maybe I should follow around a drug addict, write down everything he says, and if he becomes a Christian, I can publish the stuff. Every body will follow the crazy stuff he did when he was a drug addict because, well, the Lord has sanctified his life. How crazy is that?
Comment by jason on 17 April, 2009 21:12
lorena,
the subject of the author’s salvation (was he?, wasn’t he?, maybe, maybe not) is really a non-issue – it really doesn’t impact the message of the book. also its pure speculation to say that he was depressed, despondent, and at the worst times of his life. he very well could have used that tone to underscore his message. then again maybe not. i can only infer from the things that he said that we was in christ at the time of his writing.
i’m not quite sure what you’re trying say here. there have been many people lost in the sin of drug addiction that have come to christ. i’m sure some of those people have shared that testimony – and of the ones who have i’m also sure some have had their testimonies published in one form or another. it isn’t the inspired word of god but it may have been the one account that inspired another to make a change in their life for the better. god can use anyone to fulfill his will – i’m sure you know that paul was a tax collector (today’s version of a mafia kneecapper) before he was converted.
Comment by Lorena on 17 April, 2009 21:35
Jason,
Well, said. It is irrelevant whether he was saved or not. I am sure you realize that I don’t believe the Bible is inspired at all and that it is a book about people by people.
What I am trying to say is that the writer of Ecc., was a jerk who lived an unwise life and that I don’t believe his writings are worth reading or following. The drug addict I talk about said all those things when HE WAS HIGH. So whatever he wrote or said, regardless of how his life ended should be taken with a grain of salt. Ecc. should be taken with a huge grain of salt and not be cited when speaking of a “GOOD LIFE.” How on earth it made it into the Bible just speaks of bad taste by the choosers. I know much better books on wisdom than that one–or than the whole Bible for that matter.
Comment by Temaskian on 18 April, 2009 01:26
Jason,
You’re admitting that the author of Ecclesiastes sounds grumpy. That would have sounded blasphemous to me, were I still the sort of Christian that I was. Isn’t the bible the words of God, if not the Word of God? That being the case, you seem to be implying that God is a grumpy sort of person Himself.
Actually if the author of Ecclesiastes sounds depressing to you, wait till you hear the author of Jesus’ teachings.
Comment by Temaskian on 18 April, 2009 01:32
So you’re saying that there is a difference between natural meanings versus artificial ones. In that case, I would assert that the author of Ecclesiastes over here is the one creating an artificial meaning. Life already has its natural meanings: loving your family, your friends, your work, enjoying what life has to offer. It’s compelling people to obey an imaginary and made-up God that is artificial.
Comment by Eshu on 18 April, 2009 07:53
Well said sir. That kind of meaning is indeed natural as it applies to all people, everywhere, regardless of their religion.
Comment by jason on 18 April, 2009 16:09
eshu,
no apology necessary – at times, my window of time is narrow too.
excellent question. i believe we all have this “built in” purpose (if you like that phrasing better) namely because i see it exhibited everywhere in the natural world. green plants absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen which we in turn convert back into carbon dioxide. rain falls on mountains which feeds into streams, which feed into rivers, which feed into oceans, which create the thunderclouds that start the process again. there are estimated to be two hundred million insects for every person on the planet. they are found everywhere in the world and are all for the most part small, edible, high in protein and low in fat. they reproduce at a very fast, very high rate but are extremely short-lived. voila – you now have the perfect base food source for almost every other animal on the planet. i can’t, of course, list every example (there are literally millions) nor are the ones i listed limited to only one purpose.
it is obvious, though, these systems, although not self-aware and many cases completely inanimate, have innate purpose. i have to conclude that we also have this built in purpose which then leads to the questions – what is it and who built it in?
i’ll address the second part of your post a little later and i promise to get to all the others as well – my window just unexpectedly closed. :)
Comment by jason on 18 April, 2009 22:45
temaskian,
i was actually just trying for a bit of humor – so hard to convey without tone.
no, i’m saying that without a creator, there can be no meaning. purpose and meaning can be self-assigned to be sure – adolph hitler thought that there was a very grand and noble meaning to his life. if life started accidently, by definition, it is without purpose.
indeed, all these things can be enjoyed through the five senses – but a dog also can find pleasure in all of these things. do you consider your life more valuable than an animal’s?
Comment by jason on 18 April, 2009 22:56
lorena,
ah, but i wasn’t using scripture from ecclesiastes as an example of how to live a good life – i only referenced it because it was speaking on the topic of purpose. actually, a nod to temaskian for citing the book first – it cut to the heart of the matter perfectly.
Comment by Temaskian on 19 April, 2009 04:33
Not true, life has meaning even if there is no creator.
Surely you can see that religion is also a form of self-assigning meaning to life? Many christians may think that there is a “very grand and noble meaning to their lives” exactly because they assigned that purpose to themselves through the artificial means of religion.
Better to acknowlede that to be true than to create and artificial purpose.
I hardly think it necessary to subscribe to something called religion just to prove that my life is more valuable than that of another animal’s.
Comment by Temaskian on 19 April, 2009 04:38
You ascribe purpose to inanimate objects even though they have no religion, and yet you begrudge purpose to humans unless they have religion?
Comment by Temaskian on 19 April, 2009 04:42
Isn’t a life of purpose supposed to be a good life, according to you? And I brought up Ecclesiates because you mentioned that life is meaningless without religion, yet even Ecc admits that life is without meaning. Other than perhaps self-imposed religion.
Comment by jason on 20 April, 2009 15:37
eshu,
very late post, i know – apologies
indeed, i too wouldn’t be doing cartwheels if i thought that this was the only thing that eternity held in store – you’d be surprised at how many christians as well hold this idea as the only activity in the hereafter. worship and glorification of the father will be taking place at that time but it will not be anyone’s sole purpose as you say. we don’t spend twetny four hours a day doing here it on earth – there’s no reason to beleive that it will happen around the clock on the new earth.
no, you’re right, we as christians should not seek death, but most christians realize that death has no power over them. even so, i’m sure the few moments before death can be truly terrifying even for one in christ, but i think that is only a fear of the unkown. that’s not to say that we don’t have securtiy in our eternal fate but rather we don’t know the details of that intimate process of transition. scripture does not exactly say step by step what happens at the moment of death.
Comment by jason on 20 April, 2009 16:02
temaskian,
don’t your two responses contradict each other. you say that life has meaning even without a creator and then at the same time concede that if life began accidently it has no purpose.
ok, then what does make your life more valuable than an animal’s? after all, aren’t you also an animal? aren’t both of your lives the products of chance, evolution, and natural selection? aren’t both of you just finite biological lifeforms without spirit or soul?
actually, i don’t believe that at all. i do believe that purpose can only be assigned by the creator in which case even people whose lives aren’t good can have purpose – as i stated in an earlier post – god can use absolutely anyone to fulfil his will.
actually i said that it is meaningless without a creator. religion is something man has created.
Comment by jason on 20 April, 2009 16:35
temaskian,
sorry, i missed this one
again, i think you’ve missed the points of my argument. i believe all things have purpose as all things were created by the father for his pleasure. that includes you, me, pine trees, water, squirrels, cantelopes, magnesium, neutrons, the laws of thermonuclear physics, dung beetles, etc… even those who are without christ have purpose although they may not know it or know what it is – and may never know for that matter. i also believe that without a creator it is all without meaning. without a creator its just an anomaly – a collection of random things, some animate and some not – that will one day be forever destroyed in one form or fashion.
Comment by Temaskian on 21 April, 2009 02:59
Meaning has a different meaning from purpose. LOL. In any case, life can have meaning and purpose apart from the concept of a creator-god. Having the concept of a creator-god does give extra meaning and purpose to life, but I would argue that it is imaginary since the whole conept of a creator-god is not based on reality.
You mean the ONLY thing that makes your life more valuable than that of a dog’s is that you have the concept of a creator-god whereas a dog doesn’t?
The concept that there is a creator is man-made. The book of genesis was written by a man. It was not a product of nature.
I get it now. The only purpose YOU allow things to have is the one that is described by the bible, presumably to glorify God or something. So the problem here is not that objects or humans have no purpose, it’s just that according to YOU they have no purpose unless the concept of a creator-god is true.
Exactly, that’s what you believe, or were taught to believe, by the bible.
Yes, in a certain sense life is an anomaly, as life does not occur on all planets. Yes, one day we will all die. All of us here that have commented or will comment on this blog. I suspect that the idea of death and annihilation of self is the thing that makes you the most uncomfortable and drives you to subscribe to the concept of a creator-god. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that one day they will completely cease to exist. It doesn’t make sense to them, because life is so full now, for them, at the moment, that the idea of nullity just makes no sense.
Comment by Temaskian on 21 April, 2009 03:02
Hmm…I’m curious… so what else do you think christians will be doing on the ‘new earth’?
Comment by 7thDirection on 21 April, 2009 10:30
Although I agree with you in the sense of your position, I’d also like to contend that belief in a ‘higher power’ structuring reality (which is more accurately what the God concept represents, regardless of how different religions put their personal spin on it) isn’t always as ignorant as the dogmopiate religion fed to the masses. Kierkegaard’s Christianity, Ibn Al-Arabi’s Islam or Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai’s Judaism had an element of depth and piercing, reasonable insight into the process of nature as much as today’s Dawkins, Dennett or Harris. Just as a believer falls back onto their subjective experience of this higher power with experiential objective proof an atheist falls back onto the subjective experience of ‘objective reality’ and its experimental ‘physical’ proof which we’ve found to be made up of energy, mostly empty space and quantum mechanical physical absurdities anyways.
Terence McKenna has a humorous spiel on one of the major assumptions behind mainstream science:
Every model of the universe has a hard swallow, a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that something is slightly fishy about it… the hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing, in a single instant. Before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely, or less likely to be believed. It is the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe springs from nothing in a single instant for no reason. It makes no sense. It is no different from saying,”God said let there be light.” The philosophizers of science are saying give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward from the birth of time to the crack of doom!
I think intelligent design is attempting to justify itself by the very obvious fact that coordinated complexity seems to be the name of nature’s game and natural selection is attempting to justify itself by the very obvious fact that it took longer than 6,000 years for us to get where we are (which we notice seems to get faster and faster built upon previously attained levels of complexity). There has to be some sort of middle-ground where the discussion can move into more exciting territory like holographic theory, the fractal nature of reality and the evolution of consciousness that science and religion can probably both agree on and have insight into.
I don’t know why I strayed there, but the good ‘ole unquestionably reasonable atheist VS unquestioning believer babble is a little old hat.
Comment by Dashing Leech on 21 April, 2009 11:33
I could go on for hours about what atheism can give you, but it would never live up to the standard set by Richard Feynman in “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out” from BBC’s Horizons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/feynman/index.shtml
That being said, I’ll at this. Among many, many other things, atheism provides much greater comfort and sanity when a loved one dies. Imagine your child has died. Can you imagine a worse tragedy? You hold within you a part of that child. He (or she) has only had a few experiences of the world and most of them were with you. If anybody ever wants to know much about his life, they can only find out through you. There is no other being anywhere that knows what you know about him or has experienced what you experienced of him. Nobody can bypass that by experiencing him in an afterlife. You, and you alone, hold that part of his existence. When you die, you will take that part of him with you to the grave, as if he was buried with you for eternity. That is precious. This is something only an atheist can experience. Religion cannot give this to you. It can only take it away.
Comment by Kevin on 21 April, 2009 12:17
I am an atheist but that doesn’t define me. Atheism isn’t a belief system. I am a secular humanist, a rationalist, a parent, a husband, a son, a brother, a friend, and an educated professional. Those are the things that define me. I don’t give my lack of belief in the Christian god any more thought than i give my lack of belief in Thor or Zeus or Ra.
Comment by bdsmith on 21 April, 2009 13:51
Concerning which religion a person chooses, most just go with the one that they were taught when they were kids. And then they defend it as if they made a choice. But there are some that have changed their religion later in life. These people, although they might not have gone all the way to rejecting religion, have at least made a thoughtful choice. I have more respect for these people than for the ones with unchanged, and unexamined, religious beliefs.
Comment by atheistaftercatholic on 21 April, 2009 14:15
Who benefits from believing? Is it the person who is the believer? Is it the Church? Is it the religion? This question has always run threw my mind. While growing up i sat in church listening to the priest, wondering if what he was saying was from what God had told him to say. I asked him one day after church that question. His reply was that all of what he said every week was from what he had read in the Bible. His understanding from what the Bible has written in it. Most of the time when he was speaking from the Bible i had a different understanding of what was written. I then asked him why do you only speak of your understanding and make it rhetorical? Why not leave it an open question and let the congregation ask themselves? He replied that God did not want the people to believe what they wanted to believe but to believe what he said. That is a main reason i became an atheist. I believe that people should be free to believe what they want, and if they don’t, they will not be punished for that.
Comment by jason on 21 April, 2009 16:50
temaskian,
they do have different definitions, yes, but they are bound together in their meanings. you can’t define the ideas of far or close without first understanding the concept of distance and distance would be meaningless if values such as far and close can’t be assigned to it. purpose denotes meaning and meaning points to purpose. you cannot have one without the other. even if you believe (illogically) purpose exists apart from a creator – you haven’t stated why you believe that or what that purpose might be. i can insistently state that a dog’s tail is actually a leg but that doesn’t make it so.
i can’t help but notice that you didn’t give an answer to my question. to answer your question, though, without a creator i could only say that my life was more valuable which is very convenient since the dog can’t dispute me. if the scriptures hold true, however, then its obvious that god holds man’s life as the most loved and most valued of his creations – placing man’s seat of glory and honor even above the angelic host.
no, its according to the logic. if life was unintended, undirected, if it just happened – it is, as i (and many atheists) have stated before, an accident. it was not caused to happen – it was not purposeful. you can deny that logic if you like but i believe that you already earlier conceded it.
yes, belief in part by natural revelation and in part by faith.
actually, i would say that many more people would be uncomfortable with the idea of giving an account of their lives to a completely holy, just, and omniscient god that gave them their life to begin with. the idea of oblivion would be comforting in comparison.
that would be a pretty exhaustive and extensive list – i would, however, be pleased to discuss it with you – we just have to narrow it a bit. is there a specific topic pertaining to that subject you would like to talk about?
Comment by Pitch Black on 21 April, 2009 18:43
What does not believing in dancing unicorns offer that belief in dancing unicorns can’t?
Comment by Penguin Pete on 21 April, 2009 19:51
Here’s how I see it:
Atheism gives me the power to say: “Once there was no me, now there is a me, soon there will be no me again. The Universe doesn’t care. I’m comfortable with that.” Then I live in such a way that my morals are determined by what’s beneficial to the human race. In a way, this is actually humanism, but I’m agnostic anyway, so it doesn’t matter.
In fact, even it were objectively shown to me that there is a God and I’ll have to answer for myself postmortem, I’d still take this view. What God could blame me for using the brain I was given to logically conclude from all evidence that His existence is questionable, and then try to live in the best manner possible without thought of my own reward?
Comment by Temaskian on 22 April, 2009 04:07
Penguin Pete,
The Christian one. LOL.
Comment by Temaskian on 22 April, 2009 04:20
Jason,
All things ‘have a purpose’. The purpose of a penguin is to catch fish for itself and its family and that has nothing to do with God.
IF.
I agree. Problem is, most Christians only think of the bliss of heaven without thinking too much about the judgement part. Or rather, fortunately for them. It allows them to live more happily. What is your opinion regarding judgement before such a god? How do you think you will fare?
Regarding what you think you will be doing in heaven, what does the bible say? I only remember the parts where it said you will be singing praises to God eternally. Or something to that effect. And that’s only logical, since there will be no more problems to attend to. Are there some passages in the bible that says otherwise?
Comment by Leif on 2 May, 2009 09:35
Wow, very long (but interesting) thread! I know it died a while ago but just thought I should say that..
On Jason’s idea that if there is no God then we should all be nihilistic – why is that not the case? I’m an atheist, so is my partner, so are most of my friends, and yet we all seem to be very considerate and moral people. We don’t mug old ladies, we don’t cheat on our partners, we don’t maim small furry animals just for fun and we don’t indoctrinate our children into believing in ridiculous stories with the promise of eternal damnation if they don’t do what we say (oops, I mean what “He” says).
But I guess having morality without religion is a different topic so maybe I shouldn’t have brought that up here :oP
I think Penguin Pete has hit the nail on the head there. Since there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God it makes logical sense to live your life the best you can, assuming “He” doesn’t exist. If it turns out we were wrong and face his judgement after death? I’m sure any merciful God would be very accepting that his children were using their “god-given” big brains and living the best life they could. After all, if he was that bothered, wouldn’t he have provided more evidence for his existence? It wouldn’t take much, just a big booming voice announcement across the whole world, would take just seconds out of his busy schedule… (what exactly is he doing now anyway?)… Oops, I think I’ve strayed into the “diminshment of god” argument!
Comment by Greg on 20 June, 2009 00:46
It is interesting to see what is so interesting about being an Atheist. I agree with you that we should be interesting in what is true, and not just what we would like to do. Not every Christian wants to go to church every Sunday and many don’t. Not everybody wants to go to work either. I am much more interested in what is true as well. However, it is important to consider what will happen after you die. I mean, you might have a cushy life here, but is death really the end all? I would just advise you to make 100% that there isn’t a God because if there is, you might have to answer to him. And if there isn’t a God, then what is the point? I would be pretty disappointed to find out that there isn’t a God because that means that this life is pointless. You might think that Christians like to have an excuse for their sin, but actually Christianity allows the forgiveness of sin. People who have committed crimes or other sins against other people would feel guilty and it won’t matter if you are an Atheist or not. At least with Christianity, you can ask for forgiveness from God and God will forgive you. That is the one benefit of being a believer.
Comment by Greg on 20 June, 2009 00:48
One more thing, there is evidence for the existance of God. Have you looked around lately? Have you looked at the wonders of the world? Have you looked at the complexity of life?
There is so much evidence for God that some people are so blinded to even see it.
Comment by Eshu on 20 June, 2009 10:27
Greg,
It’s very interesting that you say you’re interested in what is true, then go on to make an emotional appeal like this. Instead of presenting some evidence that there is a god, you remind people of how much you’d like for there to be a god. How worrying death would be without a god. This is not looking at what is true and supported by evidence, it’s looking at what you’d like to be true.
I think that speaks volumes about the Christian case for god’s existence.