Because, if it is acknowledged that science cannot "save us" (and I really see no reason to trust that it can), then perhaps a yawning void, reeking of nihilism and absurdism, will be felt to open in the souls of many -- a void traditionally filled by the religious quest.
You're describing the existentialist movement that appeared after the end of the First World War.
The proper response to which is, "Get your **** together, you big baby. You don't like it, do something about it."
That is not a fair assessment of the Existentialist movement, and that is not an appropriate response at all. While I'm not that familiar with Post War World I Existentialism (yet), post World War II Existentialism involved political productivity of Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simone de Beauvoir. And as far as I know, Existentialism is commonly marked with calls to action and people taking action. Even the credited Existentialist founder, Søren Kierkegaard, spent his life lampooning G.W.F. Hegel and the Danish Church for respectively being too abstract and tying faith to ritual, which destroyed Kierkegaard's career and reputation until almost seventy-five years after his death when he came to international light in Post World War I. Of the things (real) Existentialists are, not having their $*** together and being inactive is not a common or charitable attribute to give them.
I know that a debate forum is the exactly wrong place to look for such admissions; but I was just hoping, perversely, to get some sense (however veiled) that none of us have any idea what we are really talking about. That would be comforting in its own right.
It's true. I mean any one of us could be wrong. For all we know, we were created as some weird alien's science project and all of humanity's history is basically living the equivilant of 1 week in their lifespan.
But that's the thing. Many Athiests/Agnostics are focused on making today's life matter. I think where you get the annoyed bickering from them is when they are told by Christians to focus on the life beyond this one. Some Christians spend SO much time focusing on this afterlife that may or may not exist (because we're all just winging it here, aren't we?), and yet they end up being a big douchebag to everyone else living THIS one around them. Life is short, let's just do our best to be better people RIGHT NOW.
Seeing as i'm a Norwegian i guess this is relevant for me to answer. Earlier in my childhood before i came to the age of reason one could say that i wanted to believe in God. But as i aged one could say i just saw that for me it wasn't something i believe in, also i became rather cynical as i grew up. If i were to guess why Atheism is growing in the Northern countries i guess it's because Christendom is a religion that wasn't adopted much here until the year 1000. That means that religion hasn't been solidified in our countries as long as in southern countries. What is imporant to remember is that christian values is still pretty ingrained in our countries laws and customs but we don't need God to tell us what is right and wrong. Also our countries has had a very large focus on freedom of religion, freedom of speech and these things help create a community where one does not need to believe in God to perform good deeds.
Nearly every scientific discovery has opened up more paths of inquiry than it has closed off; new answers lead to new questions.
What you're implying here is that learning is a bad thing. Should we embrace ignorance then?
Example 1: Industrial agriculture. The idea was to solve world hunger; but the practice proved unsustainable.
An interesting fact: the Haber process produces 500 million tons of nitrogen rich fertilizer each year, which sustains one third of the world population. In other words, this one scientific process feeds billions of people each year, and you complain about science, and religion feeds nobody, and you like that better.
Example 2: Modern medicine. Combating illness and prolonging life = unmitigated win, right? Wrong. Now painful questions about quality of life
And here we go with another person who thinks that having an average 30-year life span in the good ol days where times were infinitely harder and more violent is better than the ~80-year life expectancy that we have today is worse. The fact that you have a computer and internet is enough to tell me that your life is a paradise compared to what people were going through during the dark ages.
or about who gets a life-saving organ transplant and who doesn't
I know. It was much easier when everybody died instead of having the option to save some of them.
Societies are struggling to deal with burgeoning numbers of unproductive elderly people who are living decades longer than they used to. People with serious genetic defects, who earlier would've died in childhood, are surviving to reproductive age and passing on their defects to the next generation, reducing the overall fitness of the human race.
I just have this terrible dark suspicion that, if there is no God, there really is no reason for me to keep going. If I were to leave my family, sure, I'd be a major league A-hole. But really, if this life is all I've got, shouldn't I try my damnedest to be happy with it? Why indeed should any of us let ourselves be burdened with the troubles of others? Out of self-sacrificial love? But again, if there is no God, then what is love but a neuro-chemical ephemera in our squishy, ridiculous brains?
The ol God-gives-my-life-meaning claim just never made sense to me, even when I was christian. And now that I'm an atheist, christians often try to make themselves feel superior by telling me that my life is meaningless and has no purpose because I don't believe in God....
...and I reply....Really? Because my life is filled with meaning. I have goals and dreams, I love people and they love me, I am a father who aspires to be the best dad I can be, I enjoy every summer breeze, every sunset, and a million million other things fill my life with meaning. I feel sorry for people whose kids, family, friends, loved ones, provide so little meaning that they require an imaginary deity to fill the void they carry.
Life is beautiful. When I was religious, I saw life as a meaningless stepping stone to a grander existence, but now that I'm an atheist, I embrace every moment. Plus I'm Norwegian. Perhaps that's a hint why these 'nordic' countries are doing so well.
The ol God-gives-my-life-meaning claim just never made sense to me, even when I was christian... Because my life is filled with meaning. I have goals and dreams, I love people and they love me, I am a father who aspires to be the best dad I can be, I enjoy every summer breeze, every sunset, and a million million other things fill my life with meaning. I feel sorry for people whose kids, family, friends, loved ones, provide so little meaning that they require an imaginary deity to fill the void they carry.
You misunderstand, I think, the nature of the fear that afflicted me. Theists and atheists alike have loved ones, families, hobbies, etc., and derive enjoyment and even a sense of purpose from such things fairly instinctively. The trouble comes in asking (and maybe it is, in fact, a foolish thing to ask) whether there is any point to it all. It's the sort of question you're likelier to ask when things start going poorly. You've been a "good" person all your life, and that's how you see yourself: as "good." But then again, privileged person that you are, it's never really been very difficult to be good.
And all of a sudden, life is hard like it never has been; and all sorts of temptations that previously had spoken only in whispers are roaring in your ears. You are in pain; you want an escape hatch; and it appears that by making certain "bad" choices -- cheating on your taxes, cheating on your spouse, or simply shirking certain responsibilities -- you could have that escape. And you begin seriously to question: is it worth it to even try to be good?
Now, this is what the theist doesn't understand... Imagine the following scenario: you are in some kind of great emotional pain. Try as you might to coax your mind towards better alternatives, it seems to you that the best means of escaping this pain is to undertake a course of action that, while not criminal, is very widely regarded as immoral. If you don't believe, or at least strongly suspect, that there's a God -- or even an impersonal mystical force like karma -- that will reward you for persevering in goodness or punish you for falling to the dark side... then what else could there be to stop you from taking the plunge?
The condemnation of others? Well, screw them: they are not in your position; they do not know the true depths of your suffering, and would surely approve of your "evil" deeds if they did.
The possibility of negative repercussions somewhere down the road? Ah, but this life is all that we have, and no tomorrow is certain; even were you to live a life of perfect healthfulness and virtue, you could die of a freak accident next week. So, if you are in great pain today, why not take the course of action that has the best short term prospects for relief?
So I ask you: when an atheist hits (or feels that he has hit) rock bottom, and feels sorely tempted to abandon his civility and become a complete douche, what mental mechanism or intellectual guidepost does he have in place that will help him to fight that temptation? I really want to know, because I feel that there must be something; but from my own limited imagination, I cannot see how anything would compare to a sincere belief in God as far as giving a person the fortitude to keep "fighting the good fight."
(Which would be why the prospect of losing my faith terrifies me; for I know how I lived back when I was a pantheist, believing that God approved of everything I did without judgment -- I hurt people capriciously and blamed them for their own pain, since they felt "attachments" to my deeds because they were "unenlightened.")
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
So I ask you: when an atheist hits (or feels that he has hit) rock bottom, and feels sorely tempted to abandon his civility and become a complete douche, what mental mechanism or intellectual guidepost does he have in place that will help him to fight that temptation? I really want to know, because I feel that there must be something; but from my own limited imagination, I cannot see how anything would compare to a sincere belief in God as far as giving a person the fortitude to keep "fighting the good fight."
Obviously, there must be something, because it happens all the time. So our task lies solely in identifying where your reasoning has gone wrong. And I think the problem is that you're overestimating the weight of rational calculation in choosing a course of action. People don't just make decisions based on the consequences they intellectually expect. We act on impulse and emotion, often out of motives we ourselves don't understand and can't articulate. Rationality is often actually after-the-fact rationalization. And so the simplest answer to your question is that people don't do these things because. It may be completely unthinkable, or if thinkable, it is resisted by the powerful impulses of love, loyalty, conscience, social duty, whatever. And unfortunately when these impulses aren't strong enough, you've got a some sort of antisocial personality (in the vernacular: a bastard) and he does do it. But this occurs whatever his religious commitments. Surely there has been no shortage of bastards in the history of the planet who have deeply and sincerely believed in the existence of God and Heaven and Hell. Surely they'd have no rational reason to do anything outside of the straight and narrow path - but they do it anyway. Let their misdeeds serve as a commentary on the miniscule role of abstract theological propositions in the promotion of prosocial behavior. It's all a matter of the human heart.
(Which would be why the prospect of losing my faith terrifies me; for I know how I lived back when I was a pantheist, believing that God approved of everything I did without judgment -- I hurt people capriciously and blamed them for their own pain, since they felt "attachments" to my deeds because they were "unenlightened.")
It is, tragically, possible for a theory to be pathological, to provide justification for humanity's worst impulses. But you've got to remember that this proposition of "attachment" is particular to that theory of yours, and not in the least common to all who lack faith in God. I feel safe in saying that almost all unbelievers accept a rather straightforward account of causality in which what you do causes pain in others exactly as you'd expect. (And for that matter, there's a theological causation account in the Judeo-Christian tradition called occasionalism which says much the same thing as your pantheist view, only with God. Arguably destroyed Islamic civilization.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The ol God-gives-my-life-meaning claim just never made sense to me, even when I was christian. And now that I'm an atheist, christians often try to make themselves feel superior by telling me that my life is meaningless and has no purpose because I don't believe in God....
...and I reply....Really? Because my life is filled with meaning. I have goals and dreams, I love people and they love me, I am a father who aspires to be the best dad I can be, I enjoy every summer breeze, every sunset, and a million million other things fill my life with meaning. I feel sorry for people whose kids, family, friends, loved ones, provide so little meaning that they require an imaginary deity to fill the void they carry.
Your beliefs and mine are probably not so very different. To me if you're attached to this idea that God is some distant, abstract entity instead of a being whose majesty manifests in sunsets, a light wind, and the smell of the ocean, you're doing it wrong.
Now, this is what the theist doesn't understand... Imagine the following scenario: you are in some kind of great emotional pain. Try as you might to coax your mind towards better alternatives, it seems to you that the best means of escaping this pain is to undertake a course of action that, while not criminal, is very widely regarded as immoral. If you don't believe, or at least strongly suspect, that there's a God -- or even an impersonal mystical force like karma -- that will reward you for persevering in goodness or punish you for falling to the dark side... then what else could there be to stop you from taking the plunge?
Because it's wrong. Because it's immoral. Because you will bear the weight of your actions.
The relevant question you should be asking yourself is that why do you feel that someone who believes in God would have reasons so very different as someone who doesn't?
So I ask you: when an atheist hits (or feels that he has hit) rock bottom, and feels sorely tempted to abandon his civility and become a complete douche, what mental mechanism or intellectual guidepost does he have in place that will help him to fight that temptation?
You're not going to become a complete douche, Panda. You're far from one. We've all made mistakes. You're obviously a decent human being, so clearly you've learned from them and become better because of it.
Panda, can I just say something here? This is just my take on this, take it for what you will.
You're going through a really rough time right now and we feel for you here. You have our support on this, know that we're hoping that your life is going to get better, and know that you can turn to this forum if you need a community to be a part of.
That being said, right now you're writing invectives against atheism and talking about discourses on profound metaphysical and ethical topics, and none of that is actually the issue here. None of these things are what is really bothering you. All of this is, in fact, a distraction from what is the real issue, which is your wife's depression and your fear of losing your children. The questions you really want to ask are, "Is my wife going to make it through this?" and "Am I going to lose my children?"
And I'm sorry, I wish we had the answers to help you through this, but I'm afraid no one on this website does, and that's because no human being does except for your wife, and you're going to have to find those answers together.
You have this chaos, this unknown, in front of you and you're searching for some way to think it through. And unfortunately, there's no way you can think through or solve your wife's depression or your family situation the way you can a math problem. This is one you're going to have to walk through. You have to solve this by walking. You're going to take this one day by day, not knowing where it will take you, and you're going to have to trust that somehow this will work out.
I greatly envy my brother, with his healthy wife and no kids, who can just go to work and then come home and play XBox or go to concerts or festivals or whatever.
Yes, because it is caring about someone that is hurting you and has broken your heart.
But you cannot tell me for a second that you actually would choose to swap lives for your brother. You're not that hollow.
then by what right do we submit to suffering for love's sake?
Because you would endure that for your wife because that's how much you care about her. That's who you are.
And all of a sudden, life is hard like it never has been; and all sorts of temptations that previously had spoken only in whispers are roaring in your ears. You are in pain; you want an escape hatch; and it appears that by making certain "bad" choices -- cheating on your taxes, cheating on your spouse, or simply shirking certain responsibilities -- you could have that escape. And you begin seriously to question: is it worth it to even try to be good?
So I ask you: when an atheist hits (or feels that he has hit) rock bottom, and feels sorely tempted to abandon his civility and become a complete douche, what mental mechanism or intellectual guidepost does he have in place that will help him to fight that temptation? I really want to know, because I feel that there must be something; but from my own limited imagination, I cannot see how anything would compare to a sincere belief in God as far as giving a person the fortitude to keep "fighting the good fight."
What keeps me in line when no one's watching? A conscience, friend. There is always someone watching what I do: me. I genuinely care about living a good and moral life - doing so makes me happy - and so it's what I try to do. In a perverse way, I suppose, you could call this a form of hedonism - doing good because it makes you feel good and keeps you happy with yourself.
And you've got one too. If it didn't matter to you, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. You have everything you need inside you to be a good person, even when times are rough. Live your life so that you can be proud of it, because it's your only life and it matters to you.
No take backs, no second chances; this is the only time you'll get to love other people, be loved in return, and generally make a difference, or alternatively, not. It's your choice whether you add good or bad to the world - so why not add good?
It's a fair question, Panda. I know a lot of people feel that without some objective morality stopping them, people would just be raping murderous thieves. (Or be heading in such a direction.) (And I should note I don't think you're saying that, precisely)
All I can say is that (god) is not what stops me is me. I believe that cheating on a partner is wrong, so I wouldn't do it. And I mean ever (as far as I can tell in advance).
Some other things - cheating on taxes, stealing etc - I would do. In a heartbeat, if things were bad enough. I mean - if I can't pay my rent and buy food? I'm coming up with ways to beg, borrow and steal food. I am only bound by the societal contract to the extent that society looks after me.
Now, in Australia, I'm unlikely to ever be in that situation; I don't have expensive hobbies and the dole is good enough that both food and housing are affordable (although lots of economising would be needed.)
(To clarify, I'm not nor have I ever been on the dole, although I'm sure it would suck major ball).
Essentially the mental guidepost I use is: What is the right thing to do?
Once you can work out an answer to that, it doesn't matter if it is a hard thing to do or not. And, hell yes, I fail sometimes. But the answer is some combination of inbuilt judgement/golden rule type thing and it seems to work. My internal moral compass is such that, as far as I can tell, would crush me beneath its weight were I to ever stray too far.
Surely there has been no shortage of bastards in the history of the planet who have deeply and sincerely believed in the existence of God and Heaven and Hell. Surely they'd have no rational reason to do anything outside of the straight and narrow path - but they do it anyway. Let their misdeeds serve as a commentary on the miniscule role of abstract theological propositions in the promotion of prosocial behavior. It's all a matter of the human heart.
You're obviously correct here. I think that part of my problem has been a matter of psychological projection: I tend to be deeply (perhaps pathologically) introspective, to think on things from every conceivable angle and worry them to death; and I assume that others are similarly inclined, and that whatever conclusions they hold and live out have been reached only because they have rationally discredited the alternatives (as opposed to willfully ignoring them, or not knowing about them in the first place, or simply finding that they do not feel right). And everyone in debate tries to claim the rational high ground, on the basis (so it seems) of the unspoken assumption that the rational high ground is the moral high ground; and most of the popular atheistic invective against religion claims that religion is immoral to the extent that it is irrational. Yet -- it is true -- we can be rational, but we are so much more often rationalizers.
----
I just want to thank everyone for the concern and compassion that has been expressed here on my behalf. It really does mean something; and I ought to share that a few things have happened, just over the past couple of days now, that have renewed my hope for the future. The biggest one is that I look to be getting a different job, one that won't have me on night shift, since my not being home at night has been one of the most psychologically difficult things for both my wife and stepdaughter to deal with. And my wife seems to be bouncing back from her lowest point, and is taking her blood sugar seriously now, and has sworn off Pepsi for water bottles with those low/no calorie powdered mix-ins.
But one day at a time, right? That's the same rate the future comes to all of us, no matter who we are. Thanks again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Thanks to all the Norwegians who have answered me in this thread. I have found it very educational.
I would just like to add that some things about these secular societies have hinted at the rather unpleasant consequences of a secular state. I have read about forced abortion in Denmark for babies who show signs of down syndrome. In the Netherlands they had legalized mercy killings which had disastrous effects. Things that would not have happened if those countries where more Christian. Their is some evidence that these countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about.
Bakgat, it sounds like you're getting your information from biased anti-secular Christian sources if you're touching on issues like abortion.
This is how Sweden stacks up with regards to overall quality of life, freedom, security, health, education, and so forth circa 2011. Compare to the most religious (Christian) 1st world nation, the USA.
Edit: According to the sources I was able to find, what has happened in Denmark is that the government has offered free genetic testing for Down's syndrome to all pregnant women since 2004. If the test returns positive, it is still left to the mother's discretion whether or not to abort. Something close to 90% of women in such cases have chosen abortion (in Denmark).
Edit2: From here "In 2002, the Netherlands passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician assisted suicide. This law codifies the twenty year old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care." The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.
Please note that, moral questions aside, euthanasia is notlegal in other secular nations like Norway, and assisted suicide of this sort is legal in 3 US states. Saying things like "There is some evidence that these [secular] countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about." is completely unwarranted nonsense.
This is how Sweden stacks up with regards to overall quality of life, freedom, security, health, education, and so forth circa 2011. Compare to the most religious (Christian) 1st world nation, the USA.
We're the *most* Christian?
Granted, I've not done any demographics surveys personally, but I'm pretty sure the Vatican eclipses us.
Please note that, moral questions aside, euthanasia is notlegal in other secular nations like Norway
And again, I'm going to nitpick: on what basis do we call Norway a secular nation?
Eh, it appears that remark was a little off; countries like Greece and Mexico beat us. In a cross index of wealth vs religiosity though, I'm pretty sure we're at the top. I believe I saw a graph like that a while back and it's probably what I was thinking of.
Norway falls at 20% here (5th least religious) while we're at 65%. Is there a reason you asked that question in particular?
I have read about forced abortion in Denmark for babies who show signs of down syndrome. In the Netherlands they had legalized mercy killings which had disastrous effects. Things that would not have happened if those countries where more Christian. Their is some evidence that these countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about.
Making a claim like that really needs some backing up. I think you're confusing Denmark with China? Even there though... it's due to their "one child" law, not because of some secular agenda.
I've also found it interesting that the same politicians that are eager to end abortion and birth control awareness are also not so keen on social welfare systems for the poor, which are the people most likely to have a gazillion kids they can't afford to keep. Also, interesting that some of the countries listed on that list Mr Stuff provided as finding religion extremely important are also wracked with violence and strife.
I would just like to add that some things about these secular societies have hinted at the rather unpleasant consequences of a secular state. I have read about forced abortion in Denmark for babies who show signs of down syndrome. In the Netherlands they had legalized mercy killings which had disastrous effects. Things that would not have happened if those countries where more Christian. Their is some evidence that these countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to call complete bull**** over here. A search about the first thing shows zilch. The second is even more bull****, since the Netherlands is an example of a country in which there is voluntary euthanasia and there have been no problems with it.
What I'm most offended by though, is your implicit idea that if people are atheist (or perhaps even the larger group of non-christians), they are apparently evil.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to call complete bull**** over here. A search about the first thing shows zilch. The second is even more bull****, since the Netherlands is an example of a country in which there is voluntary euthanasia and there have been no problems with it.
Once again, the actual story:
Edit: According to the sources I was able to find, what has happened in Denmark is that the government has offered free genetic testing for Down's syndrome to all pregnant women since 2004. If the test returns positive, it is still left to the mother's discretion whether or not to abort. Something close to 90% of women in such cases have chosen abortion (in Denmark).
Edit2: From here: "In 2002, the Netherlands passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician assisted suicide. This law codifies the twenty year old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care." The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.
What I'm most offended by though, is your implicit idea that if people are atheist (or perhaps even the larger group of non-christians), they are apparently evil.
Eh, it appears that remark was a little off; countries like Greece and Mexico beat us. In a cross index of wealth vs religiosity though, I'm pretty sure we're at the top. I believe I saw a graph like that a while back and it's probably what I was thinking of.
Norway falls at 20% here (5th least religious) while we're at 65%. Is there a reason you asked that question in particular?
Because I remember someone was talking about Japan being a nonreligious state, and looking through demographics and in fact, the majority of people in Japan and many countries in Northern Europe such as Norway had the majority of people identifying as a religion, in Norway's case Christianity.
Japan's a tough nut to crack because most people aren't religious per se, but do subscribe to a wide range of varying superstitious beliefs and traditions - everything from animism to astrology to Buddhism to even sometimes western religions like Christianity or parts thereof, often very jumbled together. And some nations in Europe automatically enroll you "officially" in the state church when you're born, regardless of your actual beliefs, which makes determination of things a bit trickier.
Japan's a tough nut to crack because most people aren't religious per se, but do subscribe to a wide range of varying superstitious beliefs and traditions - everything from animism to astrology to Buddhism to even sometimes western religions like Christianity or parts thereof, often very jumbled together. And some nations in Europe automatically enroll you "officially" in the state church when you're born, regardless of your actual beliefs, which makes determination of things a bit trickier.
South Korea exports missionaries like the dickens. Meanwhile in other areas there's a push towards secular practice, not to believe in the deity but to continue practice. Which if you look at Jews in particular it's the Orthodox that tend to intermarry less, have the most children, and are more likely to keep their kids as Jews to make more Jews. Which is reflective of most religions in increasing numbers that don't evangelize.
American religious history also undulates in intensity a lot. Considering we're having the Fourth Great Awakening generating dying off/retiring/ect., we're seeing an ebb towards secularism and the rise of Adventists, Mormons, and more conservative branches of Christianity in the US, still, as a continuing trend. There's also a trend with American religions, they begin as orthodox or fundamentalist and the more they become liberal they tend to climax and fall off the radar as a movement in the face of other resurgent fundamentalist groups. So in tandem with the Awakenings, and the typical ebb and flow the US has is a religion factory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Why does bakgat have a problem with athiest countries wtf, it just proves how ignorant some people are. lol where do i start? do i want to get started hahah? this is probably going to go nowhere but i really do think religious people have deaf ears. They shut of to whats really going on and make up magical excuses wtf... How is the world ever going to be peaceful if there are people like bakgat? They dont even know what they are fighting about, hoy land... what makes it so holy, all the oil there no dowt. Grrrrrrr i could go on forever, Sk ignorant religious pplz, cant we all just get along¿
Standard: pft, i love to see my cards depreciate in value once they rotate :S
Mordern: Melira, UR Storm, RDW, Infect, W life/control, UW Tron
Legacy: RDW, Pox
Vintage: Dark Depths, R Grey Orge
Why does bakgat have a problem with athiest countries wtf, it just proves how ignorant some people are. lol where do i start? do i want to get started hahah? this is probably going to go nowhere but i really do think religious people have deaf ears. They shut of to whats really going on and make up magical excuses wtf... How is the world ever going to be peaceful if there are people like bakgat? They dont even know what they are fighting about, hoy land... what makes it so holy, all the oil there no dowt. Grrrrrrr i could go on forever, Sk ignorant religious pplz, cant we all just get along¿
He didn't say he has a problem with 'atheist' countries. He didn't even identify any country as atheistic; instead he highlighted the prevalence of secularism and a decline in religiosity in certain countries. I think it is no coincidence that those countries which have relatively low levels of religiosity are also fairly affluent with high levels of 'happiness', though the definition of happiness can vary significantly based on the questioning (typically defined by health, economics and satisfaction/fulfilment). This certainly suggests that the citizenry of these countries are not suffering in any significant way for their lack of organised religion/belief in a personal god, though it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a 'spiritual' element in their lives (however they choose to define spiritual). At the very least the fact that these countries apparently show no ill effect for their low levels of religion suggest that Bakgat can relax in the knowledge that people are able to live fulfilling lives without believing in a deity. That is of course until they die and spend eternity in hell, but at least that means we'll have a bunch of cheery Scandinavians to keep us company.
Great link! Also, I think it's important to say that it seems likely that bakgat just doesn't understand why anyone would want to be an athiest since he's perfectly happy as a Christian. I don't see him as being hostile in any sense of the word. I do see him as being perhaps a little confused or not sure on some things.
When you spend a lot of time ingesting a lot of information about ANY topic, it's easy to not see the logic of the opposing viewpoint. Many Christians are told that Athiests have no morals and no happiness... when in reality it's not the case at all.
A Christian won't rob a bank because God tells them it's bad and they don't want to burn in eternal hellfire.
An Athiest won't rob a bank because they don't want to be a douchebag.
I think that bakget and a lot of other christians do view atheist in a negative light. bakget is quick to call an atheist ignorant because that atheist does not believe in god, Jesus as the son of god, or any of the william lane craig debating points.
For example it is an absolute truth in bakget's mind that only a supreme law giver can ever create objective morality. This is a common argument from william lane craig. To accomplish this goal william lane craig has to define objective morality as a moral code outside of all humanity. He purposefully defines objective morality outside of humanity to create a space for an unproven god to exist in.
This leads christians to make negative assumptions about atheism and atheistic cultures. Bakget's view is that ignorance is the barrier for me to be a theist.
That is not a fair assessment of the Existentialist movement, and that is not an appropriate response at all. While I'm not that familiar with Post War World I Existentialism (yet), post World War II Existentialism involved political productivity of Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simone de Beauvoir. And as far as I know, Existentialism is commonly marked with calls to action and people taking action. Even the credited Existentialist founder, Søren Kierkegaard, spent his life lampooning G.W.F. Hegel and the Danish Church for respectively being too abstract and tying faith to ritual, which destroyed Kierkegaard's career and reputation until almost seventy-five years after his death when he came to international light in Post World War I. Of the things (real) Existentialists are, not having their $*** together and being inactive is not a common or charitable attribute to give them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
It's true. I mean any one of us could be wrong. For all we know, we were created as some weird alien's science project and all of humanity's history is basically living the equivilant of 1 week in their lifespan.
But that's the thing. Many Athiests/Agnostics are focused on making today's life matter. I think where you get the annoyed bickering from them is when they are told by Christians to focus on the life beyond this one. Some Christians spend SO much time focusing on this afterlife that may or may not exist (because we're all just winging it here, aren't we?), and yet they end up being a big douchebag to everyone else living THIS one around them. Life is short, let's just do our best to be better people RIGHT NOW.
An interesting fact: the Haber process produces 500 million tons of nitrogen rich fertilizer each year, which sustains one third of the world population. In other words, this one scientific process feeds billions of people each year, and you complain about science, and religion feeds nobody, and you like that better.
And here we go with another person who thinks that having an average 30-year life span in the good ol days where times were infinitely harder and more violent is better than the ~80-year life expectancy that we have today is worse. The fact that you have a computer and internet is enough to tell me that your life is a paradise compared to what people were going through during the dark ages.
I know. It was much easier when everybody died instead of having the option to save some of them.
So you advocate eugenics then?
The ol God-gives-my-life-meaning claim just never made sense to me, even when I was christian. And now that I'm an atheist, christians often try to make themselves feel superior by telling me that my life is meaningless and has no purpose because I don't believe in God....
...and I reply....Really? Because my life is filled with meaning. I have goals and dreams, I love people and they love me, I am a father who aspires to be the best dad I can be, I enjoy every summer breeze, every sunset, and a million million other things fill my life with meaning. I feel sorry for people whose kids, family, friends, loved ones, provide so little meaning that they require an imaginary deity to fill the void they carry.
Life is beautiful. When I was religious, I saw life as a meaningless stepping stone to a grander existence, but now that I'm an atheist, I embrace every moment. Plus I'm Norwegian. Perhaps that's a hint why these 'nordic' countries are doing so well.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
You misunderstand, I think, the nature of the fear that afflicted me. Theists and atheists alike have loved ones, families, hobbies, etc., and derive enjoyment and even a sense of purpose from such things fairly instinctively. The trouble comes in asking (and maybe it is, in fact, a foolish thing to ask) whether there is any point to it all. It's the sort of question you're likelier to ask when things start going poorly. You've been a "good" person all your life, and that's how you see yourself: as "good." But then again, privileged person that you are, it's never really been very difficult to be good.
And all of a sudden, life is hard like it never has been; and all sorts of temptations that previously had spoken only in whispers are roaring in your ears. You are in pain; you want an escape hatch; and it appears that by making certain "bad" choices -- cheating on your taxes, cheating on your spouse, or simply shirking certain responsibilities -- you could have that escape. And you begin seriously to question: is it worth it to even try to be good?
Now, this is what the theist doesn't understand... Imagine the following scenario: you are in some kind of great emotional pain. Try as you might to coax your mind towards better alternatives, it seems to you that the best means of escaping this pain is to undertake a course of action that, while not criminal, is very widely regarded as immoral. If you don't believe, or at least strongly suspect, that there's a God -- or even an impersonal mystical force like karma -- that will reward you for persevering in goodness or punish you for falling to the dark side... then what else could there be to stop you from taking the plunge?
The condemnation of others? Well, screw them: they are not in your position; they do not know the true depths of your suffering, and would surely approve of your "evil" deeds if they did.
The possibility of negative repercussions somewhere down the road? Ah, but this life is all that we have, and no tomorrow is certain; even were you to live a life of perfect healthfulness and virtue, you could die of a freak accident next week. So, if you are in great pain today, why not take the course of action that has the best short term prospects for relief?
So I ask you: when an atheist hits (or feels that he has hit) rock bottom, and feels sorely tempted to abandon his civility and become a complete douche, what mental mechanism or intellectual guidepost does he have in place that will help him to fight that temptation? I really want to know, because I feel that there must be something; but from my own limited imagination, I cannot see how anything would compare to a sincere belief in God as far as giving a person the fortitude to keep "fighting the good fight."
(Which would be why the prospect of losing my faith terrifies me; for I know how I lived back when I was a pantheist, believing that God approved of everything I did without judgment -- I hurt people capriciously and blamed them for their own pain, since they felt "attachments" to my deeds because they were "unenlightened.")
Obviously, there must be something, because it happens all the time. So our task lies solely in identifying where your reasoning has gone wrong. And I think the problem is that you're overestimating the weight of rational calculation in choosing a course of action. People don't just make decisions based on the consequences they intellectually expect. We act on impulse and emotion, often out of motives we ourselves don't understand and can't articulate. Rationality is often actually after-the-fact rationalization. And so the simplest answer to your question is that people don't do these things because. It may be completely unthinkable, or if thinkable, it is resisted by the powerful impulses of love, loyalty, conscience, social duty, whatever. And unfortunately when these impulses aren't strong enough, you've got a some sort of antisocial personality (in the vernacular: a bastard) and he does do it. But this occurs whatever his religious commitments. Surely there has been no shortage of bastards in the history of the planet who have deeply and sincerely believed in the existence of God and Heaven and Hell. Surely they'd have no rational reason to do anything outside of the straight and narrow path - but they do it anyway. Let their misdeeds serve as a commentary on the miniscule role of abstract theological propositions in the promotion of prosocial behavior. It's all a matter of the human heart.
It is, tragically, possible for a theory to be pathological, to provide justification for humanity's worst impulses. But you've got to remember that this proposition of "attachment" is particular to that theory of yours, and not in the least common to all who lack faith in God. I feel safe in saying that almost all unbelievers accept a rather straightforward account of causality in which what you do causes pain in others exactly as you'd expect. (And for that matter, there's a theological causation account in the Judeo-Christian tradition called occasionalism which says much the same thing as your pantheist view, only with God. Arguably destroyed Islamic civilization.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Your beliefs and mine are probably not so very different. To me if you're attached to this idea that God is some distant, abstract entity instead of a being whose majesty manifests in sunsets, a light wind, and the smell of the ocean, you're doing it wrong.
Because it's wrong. Because it's immoral. Because you will bear the weight of your actions.
The relevant question you should be asking yourself is that why do you feel that someone who believes in God would have reasons so very different as someone who doesn't?
You're not going to become a complete douche, Panda. You're far from one. We've all made mistakes. You're obviously a decent human being, so clearly you've learned from them and become better because of it.
Panda, can I just say something here? This is just my take on this, take it for what you will.
You're going through a really rough time right now and we feel for you here. You have our support on this, know that we're hoping that your life is going to get better, and know that you can turn to this forum if you need a community to be a part of.
That being said, right now you're writing invectives against atheism and talking about discourses on profound metaphysical and ethical topics, and none of that is actually the issue here. None of these things are what is really bothering you. All of this is, in fact, a distraction from what is the real issue, which is your wife's depression and your fear of losing your children. The questions you really want to ask are, "Is my wife going to make it through this?" and "Am I going to lose my children?"
And I'm sorry, I wish we had the answers to help you through this, but I'm afraid no one on this website does, and that's because no human being does except for your wife, and you're going to have to find those answers together.
You have this chaos, this unknown, in front of you and you're searching for some way to think it through. And unfortunately, there's no way you can think through or solve your wife's depression or your family situation the way you can a math problem. This is one you're going to have to walk through. You have to solve this by walking. You're going to take this one day by day, not knowing where it will take you, and you're going to have to trust that somehow this will work out.
Yes, because it is caring about someone that is hurting you and has broken your heart.
But you cannot tell me for a second that you actually would choose to swap lives for your brother. You're not that hollow.
Because you would endure that for your wife because that's how much you care about her. That's who you are.
What keeps me in line when no one's watching? A conscience, friend. There is always someone watching what I do: me. I genuinely care about living a good and moral life - doing so makes me happy - and so it's what I try to do. In a perverse way, I suppose, you could call this a form of hedonism - doing good because it makes you feel good and keeps you happy with yourself.
And you've got one too. If it didn't matter to you, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. You have everything you need inside you to be a good person, even when times are rough. Live your life so that you can be proud of it, because it's your only life and it matters to you.
No take backs, no second chances; this is the only time you'll get to love other people, be loved in return, and generally make a difference, or alternatively, not. It's your choice whether you add good or bad to the world - so why not add good?
All I can say is that (god) is not what stops me is me. I believe that cheating on a partner is wrong, so I wouldn't do it. And I mean ever (as far as I can tell in advance).
Some other things - cheating on taxes, stealing etc - I would do. In a heartbeat, if things were bad enough. I mean - if I can't pay my rent and buy food? I'm coming up with ways to beg, borrow and steal food. I am only bound by the societal contract to the extent that society looks after me.
Now, in Australia, I'm unlikely to ever be in that situation; I don't have expensive hobbies and the dole is good enough that both food and housing are affordable (although lots of economising would be needed.)
(To clarify, I'm not nor have I ever been on the dole, although I'm sure it would suck major ball).
Essentially the mental guidepost I use is: What is the right thing to do?
Once you can work out an answer to that, it doesn't matter if it is a hard thing to do or not. And, hell yes, I fail sometimes. But the answer is some combination of inbuilt judgement/golden rule type thing and it seems to work. My internal moral compass is such that, as far as I can tell, would crush me beneath its weight were I to ever stray too far.
You're obviously correct here. I think that part of my problem has been a matter of psychological projection: I tend to be deeply (perhaps pathologically) introspective, to think on things from every conceivable angle and worry them to death; and I assume that others are similarly inclined, and that whatever conclusions they hold and live out have been reached only because they have rationally discredited the alternatives (as opposed to willfully ignoring them, or not knowing about them in the first place, or simply finding that they do not feel right). And everyone in debate tries to claim the rational high ground, on the basis (so it seems) of the unspoken assumption that the rational high ground is the moral high ground; and most of the popular atheistic invective against religion claims that religion is immoral to the extent that it is irrational. Yet -- it is true -- we can be rational, but we are so much more often rationalizers.
----
I just want to thank everyone for the concern and compassion that has been expressed here on my behalf. It really does mean something; and I ought to share that a few things have happened, just over the past couple of days now, that have renewed my hope for the future. The biggest one is that I look to be getting a different job, one that won't have me on night shift, since my not being home at night has been one of the most psychologically difficult things for both my wife and stepdaughter to deal with. And my wife seems to be bouncing back from her lowest point, and is taking her blood sugar seriously now, and has sworn off Pepsi for water bottles with those low/no calorie powdered mix-ins.
But one day at a time, right? That's the same rate the future comes to all of us, no matter who we are. Thanks again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUhP1_1Xy0A
Again I'm very willing to admit I'm wrong.
Thanks to all the Norwegians who have answered me in this thread. I have found it very educational.
I would just like to add that some things about these secular societies have hinted at the rather unpleasant consequences of a secular state. I have read about forced abortion in Denmark for babies who show signs of down syndrome. In the Netherlands they had legalized mercy killings which had disastrous effects. Things that would not have happened if those countries where more Christian. Their is some evidence that these countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about.
This is how Sweden stacks up with regards to overall quality of life, freedom, security, health, education, and so forth circa 2011. Compare to the most religious (Christian) 1st world nation, the USA.
Edit: According to the sources I was able to find, what has happened in Denmark is that the government has offered free genetic testing for Down's syndrome to all pregnant women since 2004. If the test returns positive, it is still left to the mother's discretion whether or not to abort. Something close to 90% of women in such cases have chosen abortion (in Denmark).
Edit2: From here "In 2002, the Netherlands passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician assisted suicide. This law codifies the twenty year old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care." The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.
Please note that, moral questions aside, euthanasia is not legal in other secular nations like Norway, and assisted suicide of this sort is legal in 3 US states. Saying things like "There is some evidence that these [secular] countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about." is completely unwarranted nonsense.
We're the *most* Christian?
Granted, I've not done any demographics surveys personally, but I'm pretty sure the Vatican eclipses us.
And again, I'm going to nitpick: on what basis do we call Norway a secular nation?
Norway falls at 20% here (5th least religious) while we're at 65%. Is there a reason you asked that question in particular?
Making a claim like that really needs some backing up. I think you're confusing Denmark with China? Even there though... it's due to their "one child" law, not because of some secular agenda.
I've also found it interesting that the same politicians that are eager to end abortion and birth control awareness are also not so keen on social welfare systems for the poor, which are the people most likely to have a gazillion kids they can't afford to keep. Also, interesting that some of the countries listed on that list Mr Stuff provided as finding religion extremely important are also wracked with violence and strife.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to call complete bull**** over here. A search about the first thing shows zilch. The second is even more bull****, since the Netherlands is an example of a country in which there is voluntary euthanasia and there have been no problems with it.
What I'm most offended by though, is your implicit idea that if people are atheist (or perhaps even the larger group of non-christians), they are apparently evil.
Do you really expect to be able to compare the Vatican's demography to other countries on anything like a useful basis?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, there is that.
Yes, if we're talking about correlation between religiousness and ___, a theocracy is useful.
Because I remember someone was talking about Japan being a nonreligious state, and looking through demographics and in fact, the majority of people in Japan and many countries in Northern Europe such as Norway had the majority of people identifying as a religion, in Norway's case Christianity.
South Korea exports missionaries like the dickens. Meanwhile in other areas there's a push towards secular practice, not to believe in the deity but to continue practice. Which if you look at Jews in particular it's the Orthodox that tend to intermarry less, have the most children, and are more likely to keep their kids as Jews to make more Jews. Which is reflective of most religions in increasing numbers that don't evangelize.
American religious history also undulates in intensity a lot. Considering we're having the Fourth Great Awakening generating dying off/retiring/ect., we're seeing an ebb towards secularism and the rise of Adventists, Mormons, and more conservative branches of Christianity in the US, still, as a continuing trend. There's also a trend with American religions, they begin as orthodox or fundamentalist and the more they become liberal they tend to climax and fall off the radar as a movement in the face of other resurgent fundamentalist groups. So in tandem with the Awakenings, and the typical ebb and flow the US has is a religion factory.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Flaming.
Mordern: Melira, UR Storm, RDW, Infect, W life/control, UW Tron
Legacy: RDW, Pox
Vintage: Dark Depths, R Grey Orge
There are loads of happiness and religiosity studies comparing studies.
eg:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43287918/ns/business-world_business/t/us-doesnt-make-cut-happiest-nations-list/#.Ty_KRfkVA0o
Also, this is a debate forum, so lol's and wtf's should be replaced with capitalisation and sentence structure.
Great link! Also, I think it's important to say that it seems likely that bakgat just doesn't understand why anyone would want to be an athiest since he's perfectly happy as a Christian. I don't see him as being hostile in any sense of the word. I do see him as being perhaps a little confused or not sure on some things.
When you spend a lot of time ingesting a lot of information about ANY topic, it's easy to not see the logic of the opposing viewpoint. Many Christians are told that Athiests have no morals and no happiness... when in reality it's not the case at all.
A Christian won't rob a bank because God tells them it's bad and they don't want to burn in eternal hellfire.
An Athiest won't rob a bank because they don't want to be a douchebag.
For example it is an absolute truth in bakget's mind that only a supreme law giver can ever create objective morality. This is a common argument from william lane craig. To accomplish this goal william lane craig has to define objective morality as a moral code outside of all humanity. He purposefully defines objective morality outside of humanity to create a space for an unproven god to exist in.
This leads christians to make negative assumptions about atheism and atheistic cultures. Bakget's view is that ignorance is the barrier for me to be a theist.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Also why is euthanasia morally wrong?
Why is aborting a baby with down syndrome morally wrong?
Before you answer realize that i am an atheist so quoting the bible will not convince me.