Atheism Examined

I've never understood how divine justice and divine benevolence can be different.
That's one of the biggest problems I have with some people's version of theism.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

In regards to the What is atheism? question I think it might be useful to address another question first.Who are atheists?The evidence for atheism is atheists - draw the conclusion from this evidence.Whom you consider to be an atheist will mould your opinion of what atheism is.Hence, why there can be differents opinions of what atheism is.This question seems to be getting addressed in a rather haphazard way so far. Can anyone produce a diffinitive diffinition of an atheist?Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

Saying that atheists don’t have morals, or lack the ability to firmly establish moral from immoral, is just a form of prejudice. The argument appears to be that atheists, lacking a scriptural reference, can not put their morals in words to substantiate their view. However, I think atheists are capable of setting ”official parameters’ for themselves. I have a written 'moral code' that I made for myself from my conclusion on what I consider to be moral.I don’t see why non-religious morals should be considered slippery or flexible in comparison to religious morals.While religions have defined creeds to judge morals on, you don’t need a scripture to figure out morals. Not having them written down doesn’t make them less real. Religious people tend to focus on different aspects of their creed as they progress through life. Your morality naturally changes as you mature - defined by scriptures or figured out for yourself, there is flexibility for personal growth. Therefore, religious & non-religious moral are both flexible.Now, are they slippery? You could in fact claim that religious morals are more slippery. For starters, many religion have absolution (dictionary definition - the act of absolving; a freeing from blame or guilt; release from consequences, obligation or penalties) a religious premises that if certain religious rights, ”good deeds’ or beliefs held, can remove responsibility for your immoral action(s) from you.What greater leniency for immorality can you get?On the other hand an atheist knows they are responsible for their immoral acts and nothing will remove that responsibility.(Please note, people who consider no act to be immoral can/have/will still claim to be part of a religion or atheists. They are incomprehensible, even to themselves, so it is unfair to judge a faction by that unreasonable minority that can/may occur in any faction).Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My point was that if I was an atheist, it would be easier for me to be immoral.

---

Which only suggests that you lack a firm sense of right and wrong.

quote:

---

Yes, especially with specific religions. But for theism, in general, the reliability improves, even if it is just a little bit. The specifics of a particular religion aren't that important for a discustion about theism/atheism.

---

That's far from obviously true. You have to assume that whatever is behind it all is unreliable on practically everything other than the bare existence of gods for that to make sense. Which doesn't really make a lot of sense, for instance, if you assume that it's divine revelation. In the end I see no reason why it should be assumed to be reliable on one issue and hopelessly unreliable on everythign else.

quote:

---

Maybe that's the best way to do it, in god's opinion. We can't really say how god shoudl have or should not have done things.

---

Or maybe you're just reduced to implausible speculatiosn to try and dismiss the counter-evidence. Whjy would it be the best way ? Doesn't God want the true religion to stand out as true ? Doesn't God want human worship ? On both counts letting humans do the spreading stands against the supposed wishes of God.

quote:

---

Sometimes its ruled as non-evidence a priori. It is refused to be examined, not incapable of examination.

---

I think you mean that the "evidence" itself is judged as worthless as evidential support for it's content - which as I have pointed out above is the rational judgement based on a wider and more correct examination.

Hypothetically, maybe my sense is firm but I choose to do wrong... or I just don't care if I do wrong.I don't really see a reason to do right other than because its the right thing to do. So what?I didn't not steal a PS3 from Wal*Mart because I thought it was immoral. I didn't do it because I didn't want to get arrested.Take the law away and I'd have a PS3. I don't really care about the immorality of that action because I think Wal*Mart is a piece of shit. I think stealing is immoral and that it is not the right thing to do, but if I don't care about being immoral (and if it isn't illegal) then why not? Heh, that is kinda what I was thinking. Well, I wasn't thinking that specifically...Shit, I gotta go....I'll explain myself better later.

quote:

---

Hypothetically, maybe my sense is firm but I choose to do wrong... or I just don't care if I do wrong.

​

I don't really see a reason to do right other than because its the right thing to do. So what?

---

So Brian's right - at least in your case.

In that case, yes.

Fair enough, it certainly is possible to know and understand what is right and wrong, and still choose to do the wrong thing. These are people we characterize as "bad" or "evil". That is all most people need. To do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do. And this is the exact reason why we have these laws. Because some people are bad people. And without these laws, these bad people will take advantage of the good people. Laws are not created to help the good people do good, they are created to stop the bad people from being bad. Because it is not the right thing to do, and it will prevent us from living in a cohesive, workable society.Some people are good people, they do not need laws or preventative measures to "keep them in line" or to allow them to work with others in a productive manner in which society can thrive and grow.Some people (like this hypothetical you) are bad people. They are selfish and uncaring. Laws are needed to curb their personal desires so that they too can work in a productive manner in society and still help it to thrive and grow. Without those laws, these bad people would destroy society and we would never have progressed to the point we are today in technological development or international relations or health care or even personal polite-ness.This is all really kind of obvious. And did not require any mention of any god or any set of absolute morals.In fact, the way this hypothetical person is bad, and needs laws to act in a good way. I would say that some religious people are bad, and need their religious rules to act in a good way.Of course, there are atheists who are bad, and need laws to act in a good way. But without any religious rules to also follow it is more difficult for an atheist to do good, just because it's good.

But when they do good for no reason other than it is the right thing to do, then they are morally superior to the theist who does good just to avoid punishment. I don't think that is true. I think that most people are bad and need an incentive to do good. I see a distinction between being a bad person and "getting out of line". You could be a bad person and be productive and not distrupt society, etc. "Getting out of line" is the extreme case of a bad person. Without laws we'd have to rely on one of the good guys to take out the bad guys. The same goes for religions. Yeah, if that's the only reason, I think I would find it a lot easier to be one of the bad guys.If I was an atheist, it would be easier for me to be immoral.

Because benevolence gets all wishy-washy in that god is really nice and happy all the time. When you add that he is also Just, then he's gonna have to get mean at sometimes, punish the wicked, wrath of god and all that fun stuff. I think that its hard to mix with benevolence, but I agree with you that they go hand-in-hand.

Yes. ...that was my point. However, they are not any morally superior to the theist who does good because it is the right thing to do. As well, the theist who does good because it is the right thing to do is morally superior than the atheist who only does good because of the fear of social laws. Perhaps. I don't have any documentation, and I don't really see how this could really be tested. Sure, we hear of lots of bad people in the news. But, for every 1 bad person on the news... there are thousands of people watching that news we never hear about who could be either way. In my experience, I've found most people are good, and do right because that's what's right. I've also lived a stereotypically sheltered life. I don't see how. We could never have become a global society, or much of any society at all, without social structures and social laws. I can, however, imagine a society creating social structures and social laws and becoming a thriving society without religion. I believe this has even been accomplished by some cultures in history.Religion is not mandatory. Sure, it's a path we can take to create those social laws and structurs. But it is certainly not the only path.Could you name something we have in society, that we need in order to be a society, that is provided only by religion?If all you've meant to say is that religion has helped our particular society in creating those social structures and providing another means by which bad people can be scared into a beneficial place in society... then, well, I agree with you. For this reason, I agree with PaulK when he says to you: On which I would even elaborate to say that you are a bad person. You are one of these theists that are only doing what is good because you are afraid of the punishments of your religious structure.In this case, any atheist who does good simply because it is good, along with any theist who does good simply because it is good, are equally morally superior to you.If you really had a firm structure of right and wrong, if you really wanted to be a good person, and seriously considered other people's feelings as equal to your own. It would not matter if you were religious, or atheist, or even a human being. You would be good, and do good simply because it is the right thing to do.With what you've just said, if you are actually interested in being a good person then you have some work to do. Being good, and doing right because it is the right thing is very difficult. It is not easy, or trivial. It requires constant attention and awareness of others. However, the benefits of a truly clear conscience and the uplift received from helping others, and receiving help from others simply because you know they want to help you can be overwhelmingly calming. Of course, doing good in order to reap those benefits is a pitfall that can easily bring anyone right back to a selfish level.

But this defeats the purpose of religion. As pointed out by Socrates, if goodness can be reached without a middle man (the gods), why need a middle man? If you think hard enough, just about every good deed could be considered a selfish act.

Word.and like you said:

quote:

---

Being good, and doing right because it is the right thing is very difficult. It is not easy, or trivial. It requires constant attention and awareness of others.

---

Have religious 'incentives' to good makes it easier. Take them all away (atheism) and its easier to be bad. It must be nice. Yes and that without them we would have less moral structure, but I do not think that they are mandatory. I agree. No, but if I could, it would be too hard to determine if we actually need them. But I (the hypothetical me) do have a firm sense of right and wrong, its just that without god, I don't care about being wrong, much less being called 'morally inferior'. So what? With a godless relative morallity, you're in no position to say that there is anything actually wrong with me being bad, other than society has deemed it unacceptable.

Why?What does "justice" mean? What does "punishing the wicked" accomplish?Is god a petulant three-year-old who "punishes" his teddy-bear for not sitting up straight?If God writes the laws, He writes the punishment too. He's under no obligation to be mean in His justice. His justice can be forgiveness - which is why I say that your concept of "divine justice" contradicts divine benevolence.A contradictory god is a less probable god.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I agree. Which is why I'm an atheist.I would say though, that "reaching goodness" isn't religion's only purpose. I believe it is used by many as a source of comfort and companionship. There are probably many other uses for such a large part of our society as well. I agree with this statement as well. But just because we can come up with a possible selfish motivation for an act does not mean the one who did that act used that particular motivation.