# Atheists, How Do You Deal With the Problem of Injustice? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627 "2003-12-07T22:20:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/41 "2003-12-09T04:39:48Z")
Side issue. Since this is the Straight Dope, the least we can do is get our spelling straight. I spelled it as “Pharaoah” and Apos spelled it as “Pharoh.” If we take the extra “a” out of my spelling and put it in Apos’ the spelling will then agree with Merriam-Webster - “Pharaoh.” ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/42 "2003-12-09T05:08:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stereotypical Baptist \* > **Perhaps the free exchange of ideas disturbes you.** -On the contrary, dear Sir. I relish this sort of argument; I suspect that a considerable proportion of my activity on this board concerns the topic at hand. The problem, however, is that Religion, in general, is _not_ a “free exchange of ideas”, a factor you yourself have amply demonstrated in a brief two posts that are wholly Christian-centric. Christianity makes up only a fraction of the World’s belief systems- and it is by no means the largest numerically- and until you start giving equal weight to those other beliefs as you give to your own, I suggest you shy away from the terms “biased” and “free exchange of ideas”. > [@](#): > > \*\* And perhaps you consider it fair that my faith should be reduced to a mere novelty and I sit idly by so as not to be intolerant. So be it. I try to be somewhat reasonable. I wouldn’t want to subject you to needless cause for further bellyaching and offend your sensibilities.\*\* -Perish forbid! This is, as the saying goes, my meat and potatoes. As I have noted, this sort of topic is something of a favorite of mine- I don’t profess to be an expert, I’m no more than a mildly talented amateur. However, standing back and making vague allusions to your hurt feelings or insinuating that my own motives are somewhat less than pure, does not argue the topic at hand. To put it simply, I asked several questions in my reply to you, of which I note you answered precisely zero. Tell me, **do** you in fact lend equal weight to non-Baptist beliefs? How about those telepaths, water-dowsers and speakers-to-the-dead? If you can tell me why you disbelieve in, say, the Wiccan concept of the Earth-Mother, you will begin to understand why I disbelieve in your God-concept. > [@](#): > > **Therefore, for the willy-nilly, close-minded who hyperventilate at the nerve of someone expressing themselves and their religious persuasions, the remander of this post should be avoided. Have a nice life. See, no unwanted evangelizing here.** -And another theist nails himself to the cross, rather than answer a valid question. “Oh poor persecuted me, why am I oppressed so?” > [@](#): > > \*\*Granted, but a sweeping generalization of, “All x is whatever,” almost begs to be called into question doesn’t it? \*\* -Certainly. Now call it into question, rather than just alluding to it needing to be done so. It’s quite easy to sit there and say “I think Bush’s foreign policies need to be called into question” without actually stating wich policies, concerning which Nations, what part needs to be questioned, or even why. > [@](#): > > **And your basic argument here is essentially assumption, assumption, and assumption. Along with a few stereotypes and nose thumbing to boot.** -And this is different from basing an entire industry and human lifestyle around a 2,000 year old storybook, under the assumption that, even though we, as normal mortal humans wrote, edited, rewrote and retranslated it, it is the Divine Truth? The assumption that, since the Book says a thing, that thing must be true? The assumption that Christianity is the One and Only True Religion? > [@](#): > > \*\* You don’t know why I am religious, much less if I suffer from a “self-delusion.”\*\* -You profess a belief in Ghosts. Is that not a delusion? > [@](#): > > **Further, I could play the same game towards yourself. _Atheism is by nature the denial of the obvious that design demands inteligent thought…"_** -Perhaps. Which is why I tend to identify with **non** theism. A nontheist does not “deny” the existence of a god any more than he or she “denies” the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, sofa-stealing magic elves, wood dryads or smurfs. Simply put, if one never believed in it in the first place, and has been given no reason to start believing in it, and has a plethora of reasons _not_ to begin believing in it, then why “deny” it? That’s like denying the Earth’s third moon. > [@](#): > > **What do you call emotion? (And how precisely do you experience love?) What do you call insecurity taken away? What do you call contentment and peace giving rise to replace disgruntlemnent and anger?** -We can play that game all day long. What is guilt? Compassion? Lust? What does your name smell like? What does purple feel like? It’s an interesting philosophical pastime, but it’s no answer to any question or statement yet posed. > [@](#): > > **Maybe YOU have not experienced God, but you have no proof that someone else has not.** -Entirely true. That is, again, yet another _logical assumption_. Given the parameters of that which is sought (God or any other supernatural being or condition) and the parameters of Reality (‘supernatural’ being defined as outside of nature, IE, other than reality) and the wealth of past observations (which largely amount to vague images in foggy hospital windows, or perhaps a visage half-seen in a tub of margerine) one can rather easily come to the logical conclusion that no one has seen that which does not exist. Again, from before: Many people say God has “spoken” to them. On the other hand, Ted Bundy said his dog “spoke” to him, and some have said Elvis still “speaks” to them from the clear blue sky. Why is the former believeable while the latter two are not? Again, when you realize why you dismiss the latter two, you’ll realize why I dismiss your former. > [@](#): > > \*\* You present yet another hasty generalization wrapped totally around an egocentristic world view that if you can’t grasp something it can’t possibly be real.\*\* -Leaving the ‘egocentrism’ part aside- we’ve already covered that, I hope you’ve been paying attention- what, then, defines “real”? If I said an object could not be felt, seen, heard, tasted or smelled, it could not be detected by any instrument, it couldn’t be interpolated mathematically, it occupies no space, cannot be interacted with, and in general has no evidence of it existing now, and no evidence of it’s existence has _ever_ been seen, how then, can it be said to exist? > [@](#): > > **It proves you are capable of forming an opinion, nothing more. Prove that I have not experienced God.** -Prove that I have never eaten strawberry-rhubarb pie. In any case, in this situation the onus is on you. If you claim to have met or seen God, it is up to you to prove such an outlandish and extraordinary claim. Otherwise, you know, some people might call that an illogical statement and make fun of you in public. > [@](#): > > **I disagree. So would countless religious manuscripts which many believe accurately record such occurences from a first hand account.** -Belief is not evidence of truth. Thousands think we never managed to send a man to the Moon, that it was all filmed in a soundstage in Nevada. Because they believe it, does that mean it’s the truth? Keep in mind that many of those “religious manuscripts” are the only examples we have of certain events. With no outside corraboration, just how do we know it’s authentic, or an accurate representation? Also remember that a good many of those “first hand accounts” can in fact be no such thing. For example, we know that the first five books of the Bible were written over a period of no less than a thousand years, in some cases closer to 1,200, yet are often written from Moses “first hand” point of view. Later portions, such as an “eyewitness” account of the Crucifixion, was written by an author that very likely hadn’t been born at the time. > [@](#): > > **It depends on what you believe. Once, again your hasty generalization wrapped totally around an egocentristic world view has proved that you are opinonated- and nothing more.** -“Sound and fury”. Do you know the rest of the quote? Show me a man with no opinion and I will show you a man in his casket. I do note, however, that you have thus far strenuously avoided actually answering any of my questions, or addressing any of the more salient points, in favor of attacking me, personally. Kettle, thy name is Black. > [@](#): > > \*\*Prove that no man has ever seen a trace of Theism. Or, once again, are we only talking about that which you are capable of grasping and eager to, rather arrogantly, generalize. No offense. 🙂 \*\* -None taken. But you really should pay closer attention; I at no time said no one has ever seen a trace of _Theism_. That would be rather silly- theism is a general term for religion, and religion is the belief in supernatiural entities. You yourself have professed such a belief- at least heavily implied it- therefore in reading your posts I have seen Theism. What I said was that no man has ever seen God. Any god. Yours, President Bushs’, anyones. No one has seen Allah, Or Yaweh, or Shiva or Zeus or Odin. “Proof” of these is not to be found in the books from which we heard of them in the first place. If that was how it worked, we could use Stephen King’s _Tommyknockers_ to prove the existence of alien spacecraft in Maine, and Chrichton’s _Jurassic Park_ to prove there are dinosaurs off the coast of Costa Rica. > [@](#): > > **I count the existence of this universe as proof enough that there is a God.** -Yes, I know. And eyes, don’t forget the eyes. Too complex to have evolved, you know. And DNA- _much_ too complex to have come from “inert chemicals” over a period of about two billion years. Been there, done that, argued for the T-shirt. Again, belief is not proof, and your belief runs contrary to evidence and observation. > [@](#): > > **But there is evidence that all this did not come from nothing, hence, even atheists search for missing links and origins in faith of finding them. Different conclusions, same drive: faith.** -Whip, whip, whip. That poor horse… Continuing to state that a person’s desire for truth, fact and knowledge is a form of “faith” does not make it so. In any case, that is merely a semantical difference, and you _still_ have not refuted or argued a single one of my salient points as posted in my reply to you. In the legal profession, the saying is, if the Law is on your side, pound on the law. If the Facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table. So far, all I’ve seen is a lot of table-pounding. Do you actually have an argument? > [@](#): > > **Well, in matters weighty enough to deal with the meaing of life, and since we don’t want to be accused of having faith, everything should be proved. Or so says I. Besides, if my basic explanation for life is questioned why can’t yours be as well?** -Never once said it couldn’t. Moreover, I heartily _welcome_ such questioning! Was it Aristotle who said “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Anyway, I agree. I consider myself a natural student- if a thing interests me, I look for whatever information I can regarding that thing, and welcome any outside opinions and experiences. At this point, a lesser man might make a snarky comment repeating the “Christian-centric” mindset, and repeat the part about you not replying to- or even acknowledging- my inquiries about “those _other_ religions”, but I’m above that. Barely. 😃 > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes, you can assume that. In faith. And assume is the key word as that is the essence of faith. You technically only know that which you experience with one of your five sense and having not experienced this particular session of setting the glass on the table you do not know that it will repeat prior performances until tried. \*\* -So, since I safely set my glass on _this_ table, where it remained steady and stable, I’ll have to have _faith_ that setting a different glass on _that_ table will have an identical effect, but I can’t be _sure_ until I actually try it? Interesting that you choose to ignore the more important points I raised previously, and instead harp on was was essentially a throwaway comment. > [@](#): > > **But you have now made my point. It becomes rather crazy though to keep demanding physical evidence to interrogate and validify common sense doesn’t it?** -Definitely. It does not, however, seem “crazy” to demand evidence- any evidence at all, even vague and circumstantial- of as important a being/entity/force/object as a God, Creator of the Universe. The concept of a god is by it’s nature contrary to common sense, and yet we’re told to “just believe”, that we must simply “have faith”. > [@](#): > > **That’s where my faith differes from yours. It’s common sense and a safe assumption to me that since something reproduces something and nothing reproduces nothing, I can apply that basic principle to the origins of life and conlude God is.** -Ah, then again, Where did God come from? By your statement, “nothing” cannot produce “something”, and since God supposedly created our Universe- IE, he interacted in a direct physical way with our reality- that assumes he is in fact “something”, then He must have come from somewhere. Something created God. Who? Or perhaps what? Oh, and have you, perchance, read anything on paleobiology? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/43 "2003-12-09T05:32:19Z")
> [@](#): > > **The atheistic world view, if adhered to consistently, demands that every assumption be tested and nothing taken at face value. Only the five sense count, remember?** -Ah, the great Denial of Shades of Grey. Gotta love it. Yessir, since we have only observed gravity functioning for at least ten thousand years of recorded history, we will have to check and make _sure_ the glass will not fly off the table and smash on the ceiling _every single time_. Thus the popularity of Duct Tape, I’m sure. No, sir, rather the opposite. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Geology, radioisotopes, erosion and fossilization, among a thousand other disciplines, give a somewhat accurate idea of the Age of the Earth- that being roughly 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 300 million. A book, written a mere 2,000 years ago, at the very dawn of human written language, contains a story that, if interpreted one way, implies the earth is a mere six thousand years old. Further, that same book describes events and creatures far beyond what we know of the world and the Universe. Similar books, from different areas and different demographics, have different estimates on the age and wildly different concepts of the creation. So, do we assume the storybooks are right, or do we lean toward the observable, repeatable evidence gathered by hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide? > [@](#): > > **I never said logic was an object. Likewise, God is not an object.** -If God is an entity who can hear your prayers and interact with this world, he must then be some sort of actuality, whether he is a physical being, or perhaps a “Unified Energy Field” or whatever you choose to believe. Light, as it is emitted from a lamp, is a physical object. Tachyons, even less numerous and smaller still than the photons that make up light, can still be detected, and are therefore physical objects. Radio waves, microwaves, heat, sound, are all physical objects. Your God, if he interacts with the world, must interact in some physical manner, even if it’s just using some kind of as-yet-unheard-of magic to manipulate atoms and molecules. Therefore god, if he existed, would be an object. > [@](#): > > **But if we don’t apply the appropriate conditions to test objects we reach faulty conlusions don’t we?** -What, like assuming fossils, the Grand Canyon and diatomites on Everest are results of the Great Flood? Like assuming that Jesus, on the cross, saying “Why hast thou forsaken me?” is actually speaking to a supernatural being and is not actually delerious and hallucinating from injury, dehydration and blood loss? Like assuming that Koalas can swim a couple thousand miles of ocean in order to be saved on Noah’s ark, and then swim back? Like assuming that Christianty is the “correct” religion, as opposed to all those other obviously fake religions, like Hinduism, Islam and Judaism? > [@](#): > > **This requires testing our conditions, including our individual “logic.” (The world just… happened? Really?)** -“God just snapped his fingers and willed the entire Universe into existence? Really?” > [@](#): > > **Really? Says who? It is not logical for me to love my girlfriend but I do. Explain that through a mechanical process. It is not logical for me to do acts of charity and receive nothing in return for them.** -Sure it is. Both of them are perfectly logical. In both situations you are involved in something that makes you feel good. No different than enjoying a book that makes you laugh, or smelling a pleasant scent. If you’d like to get picky, there’s reams of documentation concerning neurochemistry and the production/release of endorphins in the brain in certain physical situations, and how those chemicals produce varying levels of euphoria, and how, by cause-and-effect and Pavlovian responses we associate those pleasant euphoric feelings with certain situations, conditions and individuals, but the bottom line is, those acts or that person makes you feel good. Our little mammal minds are addicts for those pleasant sensations, so we seek them out- we eat good-tasting foods, listen to pleasant music, associate with good-natured people. > [@](#): > > **Nothing about “observable reality” dicatates the way most people live their lives. In fact, I’m sure you are even illogical at times and at a loss for explanation for it.** -That only depends on your point of view. Yes, a drug addict might be a vicious robber and thief, unwashed and disheveled. You might think him illogical- why could he possibly be doing that to himself? Back up a paragraph. Remember those endorphins? The drugs produce sensations very similar to- but far more powerful- the brain’s own chemistry. The addict, simply put, does what he does because, for a few fleeting moments, it feels really, really good. The alcoholic associates his drink with good times with his friends in the bar. No, not all of these things are strictly black-and-white logical, but they _do_ follow common, observable patterns so they are logical after a fashion. What you’re referring to is _rational_. A man leaving his wife because he’s addicted to heroin may not be _rational_ but it’s not necessarily _illogical_. Addiction is a known factor, a powerful motivator. Some guy walking across the lake using his Divine Powers is neither rational, logical or possible. There’s a difference. > [@](#): > > \*\*Also, my working logic says that design demands a designer and that is precisely, solely, exclusively based on observable reality. Care to explain what I’m missing? \*\* -You’re not missing anything. You’re _assuming_ there is some grand design, and thus some Grand Designer. You said it yourself above: “_But if we don’t apply the appropriate conditions to test objects we reach faulty conlusions don’t we?_” > [@](#): > > **And if you had no motive to define the world logically then you wouldn’t do it. Your motive preceeds your logic.** -More properly, I try to _understand_ the world, not define it. I read, I observe, on occasion I test. I collect evidence where I can, in whatever form is necessary, and the more I learn, the wider my worldview. That is indeed a logical motivation. To try and hammer the round peg of the World into the square hole of the Bible (IE, redefining “Pi”, arguing against evolutionary theory and geologic history, _ad nauseum_) is illogical. You’re taking a result and trying to make the test work to prove the result. Nature, logic and science doesn’t work that way. > [@](#): > > \*\*Explain the logic in your motive. Logic demands motive and you are evidence of it, which is why attempting to divorce the two in explaining life is impossible. \*\* -My motive, as above, is a simple human curiosity, the need to learn. The more I learn, the more I discover I don’t know. It’s a vicious circle and I love it- probably those endorphins again. However, again you’re making the erroneous assumption that there is indeed some “motive” behind life- IE, we were put here for a reason. And if that’s the case, what is that reason? God supposedly wiped the entire earth clean because a few hundred people were “wicked” and apparently committing sodomy. Yet today, we have millions engaged in various levels of warfare, from the Israeli/Palestinitan conflict to Chechen rebels to African tribal genocides. To say nothing of the fact that homosexuality is rampant- far more so today, in both distribution and overall numbers, than back then. And yet we have yet to be “wiped clean”, so it seems our being “good” or “bad” isn’t the reason. I’m sure you’ll offer some sort of platitude where we’re not able to understand the complex reasons God might have for our existence, but that will just bring us back full circle to the first part of my first post in this thread- that’s just an excuse, something that sounds superficially pleasant. You say I’m trying to seperate life as it is from the motive for that life, but you have offered no evidence or explanation for why the two are combined in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/44 "2003-12-09T06:05:44Z")
There is no such thing as justice. Only self-interest, compassion, and revenge. None of them requires the existence of a god. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/45 "2003-12-09T06:23:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*There is no such thing as justice. Only self-interest, compassion, and revenge. None of them requires the existence of a god. \*\* Wait a minute! Don’t lawyers define “justice” as what prevails when they and their clients win? ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/46 "2003-12-09T06:54:41Z")
Just to add my two cents, in case someone is counting responses: Justice, compassion, malice, and indifference, etc are characteristics of moral beings. ‘Natural Evil’ such as earthquakes, hurricanes, etc seem to me to be neither just or unjust. The events weren’t caused by moral beings, so they have no moral content. Are they tragic? Yes. Are they evil or unjust? No. ‘Natural Goodness’ such as spontaneous remission of cancer or the beauty of babies are the same. The OP could have just as easily asked how atheists/agnostics deal with the problem of ‘Natural Goodness’. By making the God the Cause of all things, a monotheistic religion makes all things either punishment/rewards deserved by the unlucky/lucky or it makes them **undeserved** by the unlucky/lucky. But either way, they’re God’s doing. To me, that’s a slander against God. It implies that God inflicts pain and suffering on people intentionally, when they don’t deserve it. It implies God tortures and sacrifices some of us because, in some bigger scheme of things, it’s better that way. Not only is it a horrible thing to say about God, it’s a horrible thing to say to someone who is suffering or someone who’s just lost a loved one. “Sorry Billy, God killed Mommy slowly with breast cancer because her faith wasn’t strong enough. She deserved it.” or “Sorry Billy, God killed Mommy slowly with breast cancer because it was better that way. Maybe not for her. Maybe it was for you. Maybe God inflicted that horrific pain on her for your sake, so you’d build character. Or maybe it was for my sake, so I could remarry. We’ll never know, so you’ll always have to wonder if you should bear the guilt of her suffering and death.” ---
**Author:** ![Violet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ebca7d/32.png) [@Violet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Violet)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/47 "2003-12-09T07:13:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\*Wait a minute! Don’t lawyers define “justice” as what prevails when they and their clients win? \*\* And lawyers also have billable HOURS! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/48 "2003-12-09T08:59:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shade \* > I don’t see why. When I say a person is unjust, I mean that he does things that we (or possibly a consensus of people) wouldn’t consider fair if we had the choice ourselves. The exact same definition works as well for laws of nature. Nature is not a person. Nature has no conscious, no concept of right or wrong. Nature is amoral. Nature does not care. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Shade_ > Or would you restrict ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ to people, who might have the option to choose? That’s fair, but in this discussion I think it’s justified to use the slight extension of ‘unjust’ to ‘not just’ ie ‘acting irrespective of (someone’s judgement of) guilt.’ I would say it is not unexpected that a segment of the population attributes certain human aspects to nature. We often do. In fact, this is how religion was started (pantheism). Nothing wrong with that in causal usage, though it shouldn’t be used to base part of your ethics on. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/49 "2003-12-09T09:10:14Z")
It certainly is amusing to see **Stereotypical Baptist** denying logic on one hand and attempting to argue _using logic_ on the other. The dilemma Mr **Stereotypical Baptist** faces is this: either he has to admit that logic exists, or you has to admit that all your argument is no better than bovine excrement. So, which one is it, Mr **Stereotypical Baptist**? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/50 "2003-12-09T11:47:46Z")
It’s even more amusing, though sadly unsurprising, to note that his sole argument is little more than minutiae over the use and definiton of “logic”. Especially telling is the rather obvious avoidance of my inquiries about “alternate” religions. That too, is no surprise- rather common, really, even **Poly** has done it in more than a few occasions. I shall, therefore commit the heresy of Chronomancy; I will attempt to predict the future. Thus, Mr. **S. Baptist** will do one of two things: He will simply fail to return, or he will return and continue, for at least one more posting (which will, in that case, most likely contain the phrase “I don’t have time for this” and/or “this will be my last post on the subject, I can see all your minds are closed to alternate viewpoints”, which will, of course, score a near-perfect on the Marx-Howard Irony Scale) studiously avoiding the real meat of the question. ---
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/51 "2003-12-09T11:53:36Z")
I would like to point out that religion and faith are two different things. I’m not religious, yes, I’m an atheist because I do not believe in a God concept. I do have faith, however, that all this is for a reason. I’m what you could call a spiritualist . The definition of faith is, as far as i know, to believe without proof. I believe without proof. I believe in reincarnation, for instance. Do I have proof? No. Do I still believe? Yes. Why? Because it is the only explanation that feels right to me. I don’t have the answers (logical answers, that is) to explain this world, the injustice of it, or the cruelty of it it, or even the indifference of it. I need something to fill those gaps up, too. To be reborn until we have experienced everything there is to experience, and to learn everything there is to learn (the ultimate goal being to achieve a higher state of consciousness), that, for me, feels like the only right way to explain, justifiably, all humanity’s suffering. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/52 "2003-12-09T13:13:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stereotypical Baptist \* > Whatever. I’m religious: I’m a Chrisitan. I don’t live in wonderland. Reality check: Besides the fact that none of the above is anything other than a whiney opinion masqeraded as something intellectual or unbiased, it is not a given- much less a general consensus- that religion is for the mythologically inclined. Also, I could spew the same asinine tripe about yourself. I was all set to dispute **Doc Nickel’s** posts and realized I agree with his reasoning more than yours. For the record, I believe in God, without any doubt. This is like deja vu, because I naively started a thread not long ago and although I didn’t mean to come across poorly, I did. It’s really wrong to consider yourself somehow better because you think you have something they don’t. We don’t. They have the same choice we do. That little jewel of knowledge came from answering 300 posts and realizing some hard truths. You need to stop being self-righteous, put yourself in their place and see what you can learn. Hold on to those beliefs though, some of mine “went missing” during the conflict. I was living in wonderland and so are you. **Doc Nickel** , if I repeat some of what you said, forgive me. Those are mighty long posts. Don’t pick on me either. I’ve pretty much dumped religion. I’m just keeping God. He’s quiet, not much trouble and I like having him around.🙂 > [@](#): > > Consider: > > The assumption that logic exists cannot be proven. You assume there are both logical and illogical choices to make, but you do this by faith as you cannot prove that there is such a thing as this nebulous concept of logic. What may make sense to you may not make sense to someone else. What is logic? How does it work? How can it be tested? What are it’s origins? How can it be identified and separated from that which is illogical? You don’t have a rat’s rear-end, but it’s mighty benevolent of you to become a self-apponited expert on rational thought and define in stone. If the same stipulations that God was subjected to interrogation by were applied to your faith in “logic” you would have quite a bit of backpedaling to do. At least the concept of God gives way for motive, something dry logic apart from theism lacks and therefore cannot logically explain. You practice a form of pseodomonotheism. Your substitute for God is whatever you decide is logical and your entire concept of logic depends on yourself. Can you say circular reasoning? You cannote prove anything about what is logical and what is not, but you exercise faith in the 'logic" of your lack of faith to bash or belittle those who are honest enough to admit they adhere to faith. It’s counterintuative to say the least, staunch hypocrisy at worse. To start with, logic is the process of thought, a system of reasoning. It isn’t right or wrong. It’s your conclusions that are wrong. I have faith in logic, because it is the only way I think. > [@](#): > > To pass a judgment on Chrisitanity requires you to place faith in several factors: > > 1. You must have faith in yourself that you are smart enough to form a correct opinion. This requires faith in your ability to comprehend. An atheist does that. > [@](#): > > 1. You must have faith that the conditions you applied to test and disprove the Christian faith are substantial and valid and relevant. (i.e. Testing the abstract with the concrete is misguided. It’s eerily reminiscent to saying people don’t need love because they can’t experience it or prove its existence with their five sense.) There is no concrete material or fact to test the Christian faith. You would have to believe it on some level to do this. Seems like circular reasoning. An atheist knows the emotion love, feels it and realizes that there is a chemical, electrical component to it. Love is not faith. > [@](#): > > 1. You must have faith in your ability to be fair and unbiased while examining the evidence against Chrisitanity. There is very little evidence _for_ Christianity other than the history of the religion. There is no evidence of God to a non-believer. > [@](#): > > 1. Again, you must have faith that logic itself is acutally a valid option and actually does exist beyond your personal preferneces. I can’t address this one, I’m lost. > [@](#): > > My faith may not make sense to you, but that’s okay. It makes sense to me and is logical to me. The world did not come from nothing; it had a Creator, or so says my logic. To me, it’s illogical to say that the something produces nothing. Prove your logic trumps mine. Know what? You can’t. You can only exercise faith in your own, personal, biased, world view. (Sounds more like faith than logic doesn’t it?) If you really believe in God, then you have to realize that since he is timeless, has always been, the universe has always been timeless also. Without believing in God, it’s starting to look like the universe has always existed. Granted I believe he created our physical part of the universe, but there is no such thing as nothing, so it stands to reason that where ever God was before we came about was the universe. > [@](#): > > Chrisitanity is a myth? Who says? You? Sorry, doesn’t cut it. Especially not when you seem to be oblivious to your own faith. I believe the Christianity we have today is almost completely a myth. There are too many discrepancies and contradictions to believe otherwise. I believed in religion without questioning it for most of my life. Accepted all the vagueness and errors, “because I had faith”. It looks pretty silly from the outside. There is no debate in the world where you can prove your case for religion or God. In a reasonable debate, the only one that will normally have any change in belief is the believer. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stereotypical Baptist \* > Perhaps the free exchange of ideas disturbes you. Perhaps also you should read the introduction to this forum which specifically states that this is the appropriate medium for said “witnessing.” (A refresher course in Christianity- or any religion for that matter! would also do you some good, as advocating the existence of a God is a far cry from converting someone to a specific sect.) And perhaps you consider it fair that my faith should be reduced to a mere novelty and I sit idly by so as not to be intolerant. So be it. I try to be somewhat reasonable. I wouldn’t want to subject you to needless cause for further bellyaching and offend your sensibilities. Therefore, for the willy-nilly, close-minded who hyperventilate at the nerve of someone expressing themselves and their religious persuasions, the remander of this post should be avoided. Have a nice life. See, no unwanted evangelizing here. The witness you’re giving is vaguely hostile and it’s reasonable for **Cervaise** to point out the witness hi-jack. The thread was addressed to athiest, but they’re actually pretty good-natured about being hi-jacked. The reference to a “refresher” course in Christianity doing them some good is condescending and would be like me telling you to sit down and listen to my Satanic religion. Your faith is a mere novelty and rightfully so to anyone that doesn’t believe in it. You really do need to put yourself in their shoes. You will be able to represent your religion better if you “know” your audience. Still won’t do you any good, but at least you’ll know how to keep from looking ridiculous right off the bat. > [@](#): > > Granted, but a sweeping generalization of, “All x is whatever,” almost begs to be called into question doesn’t it? If I believe all x is whatever, that is what I would state. Makes sense to me. > [@](#): > > And your basic argument here is essentially assumption, assumption, and assumption. Along with a few stereotypes and nose thumbing to boot. You don’t know why I am religious, much less if I suffer from a “self-delusion.” Further, I could play the same game towards yourself. _Atheism is by nature the denial of the obvious that design demands inteligent thought…"_ But a discussion of the issues is more pressing than the hasty know-it-all labeling of demographics. All the assumption is on religions side. We are assuming a God, they are not assuming anything. They are waiting for proof. It doesn’t matter why you are religious or why they are not. You need to learn to respect their right to choose. > [@](#): > > What do you call emotion? (And how precisely do you experience love?) What do you call insecurity taken away? What do you call contentment and peace giving rise to replace disgruntlemnent and anger? Maybe YOU have not experienced God, but you have no proof that someone else has not. You present yet another hasty generalization wrapped totally around an egocentristic world view that if you can’t grasp something it can’t possibly be real. It proves you are capable of forming an opinion, nothing more. Prove that I have not experienced God. You are talking about emotions. Emotions don’t prove God. I cannot prove you have not or have experienced God, in spite of the fact that I believe in him. That belief is personal and I don’t expect someone to take my word for it. You shouldn’t. > [@](#): > > I disagree. So would countless religious manuscripts which many believe accurately record such occurences from a first hand account. It depends on what you believe. Once, again your hasty generalization wrapped totally around an egocentristic world view has proved that you are opinonated- and nothing more. Prove that no man has ever seen a trace of Theism. Or, once again, are we only talking about that which you are capable of grasping and eager to, rather arrogantly, generalize. No offense. 🙂 No man on earth has ever proved they saw God. I personally am sure that it happens, but it’s not meant to be evidence for the world; otherwise it would be a world event. I haven’t went back and looked, but I’m sure **Doc Nickel** addressed the issue of proving a negative. I can’t prove there _is not_ anything that is as abstract or hidden as God. I think I could do a pretty good job at disproving the validity of religion, because faulty though it is, at least it is a tangible thing. > [@](#): > > I count the existence of this universe as proof enough that there is a God. We disagree on what constitutes proof. But there is evidence that all this did not come from nothing, hence, even atheists search for missing links and origins in faith of finding them. Different conclusions, same drive: faith. I don’t believe the existence of the universe proves God. I don’t believe in God because of the universe and neither should you. You might take a mighty fall one day if you’re counting on the fact that there is not a way it could have happened without God. What will you do when they prove it can, deny it. > [@](#): > > I never said logic was an object. Likewise, God is not an object. But if we don’t apply the appropriate conditions to test objects we reach faulty conlusions don’t we? This requires testing our conditions, including our individual “logic.” (The world just… happened? Really?) I may have missed it. You said God is not an object. Have you defined God, other than the creator? How do you know he’s not an object? > [@](#): > > Depends on what you mean by prove. I prove God to me by the evidence of life. You prove the lack of God to whomever by your whatever. The lack of belief comes from lack of information, fact. > [@](#): > > I am not angry. I never was. I suggest sticking with the conversation. If you are not angry, why are you using condescending phrases like “capable of grasping”, arrogant, egocentric, etc. These are not “warm fuzzies”. > [@](#): > > And if you had no motive to define the world logically then you wouldn’t do it. Your motive preceeds your logic. Explain the logic in your motive. Logic demands motive and you are evidence of it, which is why attempting to divorce the two in explaining life is impossible. Well, that’s not really correct reasoning, but I’m not going to address that. The main reason I answered this post is to let you know that I agreed in large part with **Doc Nickel** , even with a belief in God. Believers do not have the right to _demand_ or take offense at other people not believing. Any more than you should tell them what to believe. It disrepects their intelligence and thought process and implies that you are right and they are wrong. You don’t know that, you believe it. If you expect them to listen to what you believe, then you need to listen to what they believe. If you want them to consider it, you should consider their beliefs. Your beliefs should be strong enough to stand up under your own critical examination and not just be something you have always believed without examination. On the otherhand, they do enjoy the debate. It has high amusement value. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/53 "2003-12-09T14:16:21Z")
It turns out that I have been lucky. I survived WW II, as did most of those involved, and in the process became desensitized to the evils that result from things that I can’t do anything about. I just try not to do harm to others by being greedy and pushing and shoving others around in order to satisfy my wants. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/54 "2003-12-09T16:02:05Z")
I’m not going to address the entire thread, since others seem to be doing fine keeping up, but I can’t just let this go by (it’s been addressed, but not in the words I would use, so here I am) 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stereotypical Baptist \* > _ **Atheism is by nature the denial of the obvious that design demands inteligent thought…"** _ I’m an atheist, and I by no means deny that _design_ demands intelligent thought. However, I see no evidence that nature was _designed_. In fact, I see far stronger evidence that nature was _not_ designed. It seems awfully strange fo an intelligent being to _design_ organisms to have genomes full of junk DNA that does nothing except help to explain evolution… Oh, and as for the original topic, as many have said… there is no injustice in nature, that’s just nature. I cope with it by heading for the basement when the tornado hits, and feeling bad for the people who weren’t able to find shelter. As for the injustice done by man on his fellow man… I try to fix it (or elect people to fix it or what have you). It’s terrible to hear about someone who died in prison, only to be later cleared by DNA evidence… but the existance of the DNA evidence gives me hope that maybe eventually we’ll get all of this stuff sorted out. ---
**Author:** ![Stereotypical\_Baptist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@Stereotypical\_Baptist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stereotypical_Baptist)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/55 "2003-12-09T23:19:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*-On the contrary, dear Sir. I relish this sort of argument; I suspect that a considerable proportion of my activity on this board concerns the topic at hand. \*\* That wasn’t addressed to you. Sorry for the confusion. > [@](#): > > **Tell me, do you in fact lend equal weight to non-Baptist beliefs? How about those telepaths, water-dowsers and speakers-to-the-dead?** Are we debating the existence of God or the proper role to worship God/whatever? If we are going to par religion against religion then we do so, presumably, under the assumption that one or more is true. Pitting religion against the absence of religion is a whole other game. Please make up your mind. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/56 "2003-12-09T23:24:56Z")
After an unfortunately awkward beginning, **IWLN** has become one of my favorite new posters. There ya go, Mr. **Stereotypical Baptist.** Proof that the two sides can cohabitate. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/57 "2003-12-10T04:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cervaise \* > After an unfortunately awkward beginning, **IWLN** has become one of my favorite new posters. Hey, thanks. That first link you gave me (your story) was a “lightbulb” moment for me. You did your part in the “fight against ignorance”. You rule!!!😃 ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/58 "2003-12-10T05:50:08Z")
To get back to the justice/injustice issue again, rather than the general existence of God. Assume God exists and assume he oversees the allocation of Natural Evil (and Natural Good presumably). Suppose my wife isn’t a very good Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or whatever your flavor of monotheism is). She’s an average person, but her faith is weak. She has sins, and she tries to repent, but her heart just isn’t in it. God has not blessed her with Grace. Suppose she contracts some horrible cancer and dies after a long painful struggle. Suppose that, since her faith is weak, we can’t be sure she’s going to Heaven. You, as a religious person, are trying to console me in my hour of grief. You can either tell me: “She wasn’t that good of a person. She deserved the cancer. And since she wasn’t that good, she’s–let’s face it–probably going to Hell.” I’d never want to say that, but I suppose if we concentrate on having a just God instead of a loving God, it makes some kind of sense. Or you can tell me: “She wasn’t that good of a person, but she wasn’t so bad as to deserve cancer and to die without being in a state of Grace. She deserved to live, and to have a chance to experience Grace. But, in order to make something somewhere else better, she had to be sacrificed. Her life on Earth was Hell this past year, and now she’s in Hell for eternity. But remember–it was all for the greater good. Maybe she was stricken down so that your faith wouldn’t waver, so that you would stay on the straight and narrow. We can’t know–God works in strange and mysterious ways.” I can’t imagine actually saying that. And, more to the point, if it were true, I can’t imagine such a God being worthy of worship rather than disgust and hatred. If all Natural Evil were deserved and God were meting it out correctly, that’d be satisfactory. But that strains credibility, since so many good people are stricken and so many evil people prosper. If God (a Deist God?) took a Hands Off approach to Natural Evil, that’d make sense too–though then you’d have that old Problem of Evil. But saying that God metes out undeserved Natural Evil–that’s just obscene to me. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/59 "2003-12-10T05:51:29Z")
Big thumbs up to IWLN. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627/60 "2003-12-10T11:39:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stereotypical Baptist \* > **Are we debating the existence of God or the proper role to worship God/whatever?** The OP was asking the nontheists opinion on what is essentially the anthropomorphification of impartial nature; IE, is reality “just” or “unjust”. The question was couched in religious terminology and the replies were in kind. My original reply stated, quite clearly I thought, that nature, Reality, the Universe, having no consciousness, no sentience, has no, and cannot have, any morals, opinions, emotions or sense of “justice”. It is wholly neutral and impartial. You, in your first post, took offense to that, accurately taking it as a declaration that “God” does not exist, whereupon you attempted to somehow explain that, since we cannot easily “prove”- whatever that means in this case- the existence of an abstract term describing a condition, that therefore the unprovable abstract concept of God must exist. The following _repartee`_ then discussed the use of the term logic and it’s definition, additional citations for the nonexistence of a deity, and was rather wide-reaching in it’s content. It was also something of a hijack, but these threads do that. Simply put, I do not argue the “proper role” to worship a deity, since I have found absolutely no evidence, no matter how vague, for the existence of a deity of any kind. Thus, such worship is largely a waste of time, akin to a football fan yelling at the quarterback shown on the big-screen TV. I find my time is better spent pursuing activities of substance. So my argument, then, is for the former- the existence or nonexistence of a God. > [@](#): > > **If we are going to par religion against religion then we do so, presumably, under the assumption that one or more is true.** -And upon what do you base that assumption? As I have said before, generally speaking the Christian thinks the Muslim is condemned to burn in Hell. The Muslim believes the Jew will be cast from Heaven by Allah. The Jew feels the Christian will remain forever in a formless limbo. All of them cannot be right, (unless you are willing to entertain the possibility of multiple Gods, which all three firmly deny) but all of them CAN be wrong. The assumption that one or the other is “right” is in itself erroneous, and a question I have asked here on this board at least three times; a question that no theist on this board has yet dared to answer. And that question is: How do you know your particular religion is the “correct” one? > [@](#): > > \*\*Pitting religion against the absence of religion is a whole other game. Please make up your mind. \*\* -You apparently disagree with yourself. My original post made a case against religion in general (thus answering the OP in that, without a deity or god-concept, the Universe has no morals or emotion, which would be necessary for the concepts of “justice”) and to that post you replied with a somewhat rambling attempt to discredit the idea if logic itself, and by doing so, open the door to the possibility of God. It is not a different game, it is merely one of many possible moves on a complex playing field. I would also like to note that you have, yet again, skipped over a great many salient points from the previous posts, and instead continued to worry a few irrelevancies. Do you, I ask again, have _any_ argument at all? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-how-do-you-deal-with-the-problem-of-injustice/217627.md?page=4)