By dismissing it as the hole-fiiled argument that it is. To point out just a few : If something did cause the universe to come into existence, there’s no reason to assume it was God; it solves nothing because it doesn’t answer where God came from; logically I would expect something preceding the univere to be something simpler and more basic than it - a natural force not a God; it’s a religous argument, which historically are virtually always wrong; and so on. It’s simply yet another way for the religious to pretend that they have something other than faith to base their delusions on.
I ignore it because there’s nothing that I can do about it. I’d like to be rich too, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to fall for those Nigerian e-mail scammers.
And it does have the comfort of knowing that I won’t be the eternal victim of the God-monster so many people worship.
I generally just ignore the religious aspects. Fortunately none of my immediate family are the sort who make ignoring their religion impossible.
With all due respect (sincerely), how is that any different from the hand-wringing, pencil kneeling, hair-shirted “I’ll never be good enough because I can never hope to be as good as Jesus” misery that many devout Christians subscribe to?
I’ve been to services- I’ve seen joyous noises, singing, tears of rapturous joy and whathaveyou, but I have far more frequently witnessed that shame filled self-deprivation that looks a whole lot like misery (or depression). And that sort of suffering is self-induced: “We must suffer though all the illness, war, crime, inhumanity, trials so that we may get our eternal reward.”
To be coarse, life and its trials are far easier to tolerate when you become aware that shit happens. And suffering isn’t for “A Reason”, and suffering isn’t a personal trial tailor-made to bring the individual Christian in step with the Crucified One, and suffering continues to happen to one and all whether one is devoted and devout or pagan. We are all in the same river, and none of us is immune to suffering; not even the Most Holy.
If the OP were phrased in the reverse i.e. “Do you non-religious peoples find the Christian hope of Heaven frustrating or annoying?” My answer would be "Of course not. As John Lennon said “Whatever gets you through the night…”
If you find joy and happiness within the cocoon of faith: That is wonderful. I’m happy for you. I wouldn’t begrudge a Christian his delight at his practice on bit. My only complaint has ever been the proselytizing and hard-core conversion of this planet’s people. If Christians weren’t programmed to leak platitudes at every function of life, you would never know that I am not a subscriber. In short: Good for you, but leave us alone unless we ask.
But if you want to skip the lengthy diatribe above and go for the short answer as to why we don’t require a delightful prize at the end: We are smart enough to realize that suffering and joy happen to all creatures regardless of faith or species. We are strong enough to endure the negative, unhappy facts of existence such as illness and crime. We accept total responsiblity for our actions; with no excuses, no implied forgiveness. And we are capable of finding our own rapturous peace, happiness, and joy right here, right now without the threat of eternal damnation or promise of eternal reward.
Now, to my rephrase my question- what about those who aren’t smart and strong and capable enough, but who see no reason to continue existing when there is no ultimate justice? What would you say to a such a suicidal loved one who doesn’t have the internal resources that you have?
I asked, is it a VALID life choice? Would you accept if a loved one made that choice, either drugging themselves into a slow oblivion or leaping suicidally into a fast one? I’m not asking about those who live with the consequences. I’m asking about those who would like to die with the consequences.
What motivation? The belief that what one does in and with this life has a strong correlation with what happens in the next one.
And no, I don’t think that necessarily follows. Notice that I don’t claim that Afterlife-believers make better uses of this life. I’m just asking why despair & suicide aren’t valid life choices for someone who despises an unjust existence.
Fair enough, and don’t think that lots of thinking believers (and YES, there are plenty of us) don’t struggle with that whole dilemna. There are survivors of abuse who reject the idea of God and Ultimate Justice AND survivors who embrace them as their means of survival. I’d be interested to see any studies on abuse-survivors religious attitudes.
But to get to my question again- an adult friend comes to you, explaining that they are doping up to dull the pain of childhood abuse, and that friend doesn’t care that such behavior may lead to an early death- and in fact, is hoping it does.
Do you just accept that is their choice & they can live or die with the consequences? To what do you ultimately appeal to get them to choose health & life & significance?
To start, I am deeply disturbed by the idea that any human being lives in hope of ultimate justice. Please elaborate on what you mean by that.
For the other question: Aside from suggesting professional help and ensuring that the loved one follows through: assure the loved one that he or she is valued and loved, handholding, hugs, remind the loved one what things in life have been good, helping the loved one to find new ways to seek happiness, including the loved one in activities, family time, hobbies, etc. Stressing medical help and kindness above all mundane activities. Internal resources can be learned; that is what therapy is for.
Basically the same thing that you would do, minus the threat of hell for suicides, and minus the cryptic hint that “God has a plan for you.”
I feel as though the question you ask is of the leading variety, so let’s just get right down to it. What is your rebuttal?
It’s valid. It’s not one I’d encourage in my friends, for selfish reasons, but I have no problem with people choosing to opt out of existence.
I’d say “They don’t have the same result in this life, and no result is final on a human scale, anyway*. We are not alone, and we make the world for each other, and everyone who comes after, they’ll know the difference between cruelty and kindness. Remember your humanity. Wouldn’t you rather leave a mark in the world? It’s the only kind of immortality that’s real. So don’t give up, and have a hug, 'cos I’ve got your back and we’ll see life through together. Here, have a hug, man. And some sherry. Maybe it’ll help to see a shrink. Or a slut. I can recommend a good one of either.” That’s what I’d say.
Any friend of mine would be au fait with the whole heat death of the universe thing.
Possibly not a popular answer:
It is a valid life choice, if it’s arrived at soundly, but we’re responsible for our own happiness and sense of purpose. I’d try to convince a loved one not to off his or herself, of course, by pointing out that life is pleasant sometimes (you mention justice, so I’ll assume you’re talking about a ‘depressed’ suicide and not the existential pointlessness question as a reason to die), or that they’re being a big chicken and need to cowboy up and they don’t get a second chance or something, but I’ve gone through this myself and understand the feeling (both the depressed and the existential void type-- read too much Kierkegaard). We’re tossed into these circumstances and have to use the hand we’re dealt, but that’s a bit more comforting in a way than thinking that you’re being especially persecuted by Dad, or tested, or that your prayers are being ignored. You’re only suffering in a neutral universal way, not a sadistic purposive way. “Unjust” implies something. . . judging. A failure of justice. There isn’t one. It is what it is.
If someone wants to quit the game, well. On a personal level I’d have to try to argue them out of it, but on a broader, apersonal way, well, it’s their existential choice. I’ve gone through the whole thought process and decided that life’s pretty amusing and I want to see how it plays out, but then again I’m not chemically imbalanced and I’m in my right mind-- I’d have to make sure that my suicidal pal was really on the level. The depressed suicide? Not great. The well-reasoned existential suicide? I have yet to talk to anyone who intended it but have considered it myself and decided to ‘keep playing.’
Actually, it really isn’t. As for “Hell” I may warn about some Afterlife consequences for suicide, but not “Eternal Conscious Torment” (in which I don’t believe in any traditional sense).
I was actually thinking of Doestoevsky’s quote “If there is no God, anything is permissable” which of course is an argument that God is the ground of morality. Now, I will certainly agree that most/many atheists are quite decent people. And there are various rational, utilitarian & social reasons for moral living.
Then I thought about the argument that God is the ground of meaning. Again, I agree that most/many atheists live significant, meaningful lives, having created that meaning for themselves.
HOWEVER, I was wondering what decent meaning-filled atheists would tell a suicidal atheist who sees no reason to keep living. Because I know that except perhaps in a few dire cases of terminal illness & unrelievable suffering, it wouldn’t be- “Well, good luck & good bye- Here’s the hemlock.”
I wonder if you have considered that for someone who does not believe in the afterlife that suicide is a way for it to STOP. Telling a suicidal friend the value they have to me and to the people around them in concrete terms, using examples, is far easier than trying to say that if they do it, they will piss off god.
I had to watch my Grandfather disappear because of Alzheimer’s. His whole life, he said if he lost his mind he would shoot himself or expect us to. I know without a doubt he had absolutely zero desire to live that way. However, he was not granted that dignity. He ended up a drugged up, emaciated, violent shell of my Grandfather. Suicide isn’t always the wrong answer.
Of all the things a suicidal person needs to think about, I think eternal damnation is ridiculous. Really? Your god loves you so much that even if you lived your life the right way and did all the right things, this ONE thing will cast you to eternal fire? It is your hell, you burn in it, indeed.
ETA: My husbands Grandfather died of cancer. The chemo made him so sick. They prescribed marinol (synthetic marijuana) to stimulate his appetite. It cost $70 a pill, he needed to take 4 a day. He ended up stopping using it because of the expense, and therefore not having an appetite. For the cost of a $20 bag of pot, he could have been kept fat and happier, but that is a different morality)
OP checking back in…thank you all for the interesting answers. I’m hopeful this thread doesn’t get sidetracked by the strident baiting I usually see in religious threads.
The thing that struck me the most about the answers was the wide range of opinion; some folks politely but succinctly dismissed the questions as irrelevant, while others used almost mystical terms in describing their personal challenges. It makes me think that atheists as a group couldn’t possibly have an institution equivalent to what a church provides the religious. That is not to say atheists are unfeeling or lack the tools to support fellow human beings, but that grounding that support or feeling in atheism itself is a non-starter.
So again I sincerely ask: Do you personally think atheism provides a community similar to what some religious institution provides its lay-members? If not (and I would guess most folks would say they’re not equivalent, or at least would question the quality of a religion-based community), is this a challenge, and how do you overcome/compenate for it?
A second, unrelated question: Some answers in this thread have clearly been dismissive of religion; that is not a complaint, just an observation. This makes me think many folks–perhaps even most–seriously adopted atheism as a reactionary position, i.e. after previous religious exposure or indoctrination. If this is true for you, is it a challenge to grow your beliefs beyond simply stating what isn’t true/real, i.e. make your credo more pro-active than re-active? To put it glibly (and I hope not insultingly), once you say “There is no God”, where do you go from there?
I see your point, and understand the basis for your question. But you already knew the answer: We have love, compassion, and kindness in the same quantities that you do, and would do everything within our power and knowledge to assist a loved one with finding a path out of depression. (except for threatening or promising an end result apres death)
As aside: Last Monday a good friend who I had fallen out of contact with since a job change killed himself. I have been filled with regret that I did not stay in touch, though in truth I had no clue that he was suffering. Happy, smiling, successful small business owner, on the board of a very well respected children’s charity, athletic, funny, outgoing, etc. Nearly everyone at the funeral was certain that he is now in Hell, and nearly everyone attending the funeral found a way to mortify his parents with some version of “I’m sure he isn’t actually in Hell, because he was such a good guy, God surely had mercy on his soul, etc” I would have done everything in my power to prevent his suicide, mostly to prevent the Christians who attended the services from horrifying his parents with hints of damnation. But at no point would I have encouraged his suicide, and at no point would I have ignored signs of depression or desparation.
Of course it doesn’t. And it is clear that the “community” many folks receive from participating in churches provides tangible benefits indepentant of the philosophy advanced. Many atheists find something similar in UU churches. But I’m not aware of any “atheist” organizations that provide anywhere near the across-the-board benefits offered by many religions.
But what is important to you - pursuing and celebrating a philosophy that you feel reflects your values, surroundings and experiences? Or belonging to a feel-good community? And if the “community” is what is important, then is a christian church any better than a group of satanists, or maybe even NAMBLA with Bingo and bake sales? I used to be surprised at the number of ostensibly religious folk I would encounter who belong to a particular church for community or even convenience, yet display astounding ignorance or ambivalence towards their chosen church’s history and underpinnings.
For this reason, I’m personally not thrilled with the term atheist. For me, nontheist would be more accurate. The question of a deity is simply irrelevant. Moreover, I am a-witchcraft, a-UFOs, a-fairies, and a-all manner of unproveable superstitions. Religious folk take is as an insult for their faith to be lumped together with fairy tales and the like, but they strike me as identically (in)valid.
If I were to describe my beliefs, I’d call myself a rational or natural humanist. I have little interest in “defining” myself by one particular irrational belief that I reject.
Atheists have the same communities that you do. Charities, clubs, hobbies, families; message boards. And as you said, atheists here have a wide variety of expressional styles, and a wide variety of experience and intrepretations of morality. Same as Christians.
I attend a Untarian church occasionally, and attend Christian churches with two of my friends when I am asked. If I need a group of like-minded people to hang out with, I am more likely to attend a *task-oriented * group (Habitat for Humanity, animal shelter fundraiser, et) than a *me-and-mine * oriented group (My family and I must get into Heaven).
My choice to forgo religion was done in childhood (age 9, I think) after learning quite a bit about science, and after observing behavior in the various churches I attended. I was never indoctrinated by any institution, and was raised by intelligent parents who encouraged their children to attend any and every church they were invited to and draw their own conclusions. I am not an apostate of any denomination. My choice to maintain my own moral law was/is not at all reactionary, and my choice is reinforced daily by science, and by observations of the behavior of others.
Atheism doesn’t provide a community, but why should it? It’s not a specific set of beliefs, it’s simply lack of belief in one thing. I have lots of other communities–my family, online communities, professional communities, academic communities. It’s always nice to find like-minded people, but I don’t need or miss the sort of community you’re thinking of.
Well, I don’t think my response was particularly dismissive of religion in general, but my atheism is not reactionary. I was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon), and I was very faithful. Church, seminary, praying, scripture study, etc. And it wasn’t just my religion, since I was also raised in Utah–it’s my culture and my heritage. One of my ancestors was in Brigham Young’s first party to the Salt Lake Valley and his name is listed at the monument. My dad’s parents are more recent converts, but they invested themselves completely in the church. And you know what? I had nothing against the church (though I do have some complaints now). But one day, as the missionaries were explaining the gospel to my future-husband (who was there because marrying a Mormon was SO important to me), I thought, “Man, I’m just not buying this.” That stray thought kicked off 3 years of soul-searching, and at the end, I realized it just didn’t make sense to believe. That’s all. The same way it didn’t make sense to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I just couldn’t buy it. And I couldn’t pretend that I did. And I couldn’t make myself. I was much happier when I realized and accepted this.
Oh it absolutely doesn’t. Atheism isn’t a full belief system like a relgion; it’s just a denial of one particular belief. So it’s not surprising that atheists don’t share much common ground with one other.
Well I have friends and family who form a pretty good community.
Atheism is by definition reactionary. It exists only as a response to other people’s religion.
I like to say that I dream of a world where there are no atheists. Because in a world without belief in God, the concept of “atheist” becomes meaningless.
Nowhere. As I said, it’s not a belief system. It’s just the denial of one particular belief.
Let me turn it around. You’re a Christian, right? So it’s fair to assume that you don’t believe that Zeus is real? What are you doing with that knowledge? How are you working to turn your non-belief in Zeus into something positive?
You seem to be assuming that “atheism” occupies the same mental space in our heads that “Christianity” does in yours. But really they’re not parallel at all. The only time I think about being an atheist is when I bump up against someone else’s theology. It’s really a tiny part of my day-to-day existence – about the same level of importance as not liking pro football.
How do you, as an atheist, personally deal with the cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument only works by forcing the atheist to play by one set of rules and allowing by fiat the theist to play by another set of rules: “You the atheist need to explain where the universe came from; I the theist don’t have to explain where God came from.”
Actually, I think the argument from design (especially as applied to the apparent fine-tuning of the universe) is more troublesome than the cosmological argument, but frankly both of these arguments are IMO totally demolished by Dawkins’ Ultimate 747 Argument.
Some religious folks derive comfort in a form of immortality promised by many religions. It is difficult to understand how knowing one will cease to exist upon death can provide a similar value, but perhaps it does or it’s compensated for in other ways. Again, this is not at all a reason to adopt religious beliefs, but I am curious if atheists feel the regret of living with certain mortality as an emotional challenge.
Heaven would be nice. But when I die, I won’t know I’m dead, so it won’t represent a period of suffering for me. So I don’t (at this point) worry about death.
Religion is often tied to ethnic or cultural identities and practices. Christmas in America is a good example.
We celebrate these holidays, but just as cultural holidays (which they’ve mostly become anyhow). Christmas is for exchanging presents; Easter is for going on Easter Egg Hunts; etc. As I said, time has mostly eviscerated these holidays of real religious significance for most Americans, IMO, so it’s no great step to just celebrate them as normal, non-religious holidays like Halloween.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
[li]How do you, as an atheist, personally deal with the cosmological argument (glibly, something caused the universe to come into existence, that something must be god)? I personally would find it intellectually challenging to deny it, but I’m not really interested in arguing the point, just whether or not it is a personal challenge, and if so, how you deal with it. [/li][/quote]
By not saying “There cannot be a god”. Basically my answer is in two parts; first off, I don’t believe the universe requires an intelligence in order to exist, and there’s the whole “does god require a god to create it?” problem. Secondly, my answer is sort of recursive; I have problems with specific gods that I believe is enough to rule out their existence, and so not being able to say “they couldn’t possibly have created the universe” is ok in terms of that specific god because you only need one big enough problem to say they don’t exist (likewise, you need a lack of those big enough problems to believe in them).
[QUOTE]
[li]Some religious folks derive comfort in a form of immortality promised by many religions. It is difficult to understand how knowing one will cease to exist upon death can provide a similar value, but perhaps it does or it’s compensated for in other ways. Again, this is not at all a reason to adopt religious beliefs, but I am curious if atheists feel the regret of living with certain mortality as an emotional challenge.[/li][/QUOTE]
I feel like there may be a value in that there’s more focus on the here and now. A person who believes in life after death (and specifically in justice after death) is more likely to think that it’ll all be sorted out then, no need to do things now. Death may not be such a big thing to some of those people; especially in terms of other problems, such as death being less of a problem than following their particular god’s ideals. For we death-is-the-end types, any justice that exists must be created by us in this life.
But certainly I would want life after death, assuming it was of the “non-believers get the chance too!” kind. But it’s not something that impinges on me every day (I assume when I get older it probably will ;)). I don’t see it as a challenge, since challenges tend to imply a challenger. It’s just an unfortunate situation that has to be lived with (or not, rather).
[QUOTE]
[li]Religion is often tied to ethnic or cultural identities and practices. Christmas in America is a good example; though technically a religious holiday, it is for all intents and purposes a cultural celebration. What challenges do you face in keeping religion and culture personally separate, or do you think such distinctions are irrelevant and therefore not challenging (unless someone else insists on making it a challenge)? Use Christmas as an example if you like, but the question is generally about religious ties to culture.[/li][/QUOTE]
I’m happy to celebrate anything, really. Christmas as a specific thing being pretty must tied into British culture (as well as Easter) I tend to celebrate as more an excuse to get/give presents and see family; for me there’s nothing religious about my celebrating of it, even though we may use religious symbols. I mean, there’s a good few pagan symbols used, and Christians seem to be alright with using them without actually celebrating anything paganistic.
But that said, i’m happy to conform to religious people’s celebrations. I’ll be quiet if people are praying in a church/synagogue/mosque/etc. I’ll take off my shoes or my hat. In these cases it’s not for the god or religion in question, but respect for the people who believe in them. This assumes I have respect for those particular people, and trying to force me to take part would pretty much rob them of that respect in my eyes. I may even actually attempt to participate, for example actually praying to God or Allah or Goddess or whoever, but this would be for me just in case i’m wrong. More a sort of “If you exist, please don’t fuck me over” pray, so entirely selfish, alas.
This is true. I think this is a common fallacy (no offense) religious people tend to see atheism as being an equivalent sort of affair as Christianity, Judaism and so forth. It isn’t; it’s the equivalent of* theism*. It’s much harder to think of theistic organisations, given the lack of agreement between all those religions that hold it. Likewise, atheism itself is just a statement on the lack of gods, and atheism or theism alone aren’t really that community building. It’s a similarity of moral code or similar beliefs which provide a sense of community. The equivalent of an actual religion would be Buddhist atheists, or some UU (as I understand it), or utilitarian atheists, but even with that there’s not always a reason to meet up and form an actual community. So in some cases, yes, and in others, no. Overall I would say that this is one of religion’s greatest benefits; it does cause a sense of unity. Also of exclusion, which is bad, but there you go.
I don’t think i’d characterise my atheism as that. I grew up in a family where religion was pretty much never mentioned, either in terms of atheism or theism. I still don’t really know where my parents stand. I would very much like to say that my upbringing was religious neutral, but that seems to nice a thing to believe to be true.
I would say you move from saying “there is no God” to “there is no god”; that is, moving from problems with a specific deity to deities in general. Instead of thinking solely in terms of how God, father of Jesus (or whichever god) doesn’t exist, expand terms to gods in general. Think about whether you can see any problems with omnipotence or theism in general. Atheism has to be reactionary, to an extent, because you need to suggest something in order to disagree with it, if that’s a specific deity or religion, or just a principle.
Nope. Sure, there’ve been attempts, like the Bright movement, but they are… a little silly.
I used to get the same community from Buddhism, and was still atheist. The two don’t necessarily preclude each other.
Long before I finally decided I was atheist, not Deist/pantheist, I realised I had to sort out my own morality. So I took what I could from the Buddhism I was still practicing, then learned more about Humanism, and so forth. It’s a continuing process of self-evaluation and growth, asserting your place in the world and your relation to others.
I suppose I would say that if there is nothing after death, no ultimate justice, then they have to seek that justice in the here and now. Giving up on life means they will never get the chance to do so; once you’re gone, that’s it. Continuing to live means you get a chance to create justice for yourself, and for others. And more prosaically, once you’ve decided, you can’t take it back. It’s sort of like knowing that at 10:00, someone will punch you in the face. Does it make sense to say “Oh, what a horrible thing; the solution is to go early and get punched sooner”? Much better to arrange matters so that the puncher will get caught by the police, or something. Arrange your own justice, don’t just give in.
That said, I can certainly envisage cases when people would genuinely and reasonably want to commit suicide. To which I would still try and convince them, but it’s their life, their choice.
