A problem I have with Atheism

[Angrymoog]

GOD: \"Hmmm, I think ill create the Earth and Mankind this week. I could create them to do exactly as I\'d like, but what fun would that be? No, I\'ll give them free will, and then punish them when they don\'t have faith in me.\"

What a character.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think it is more illogical to believe that life has meaning or afterlife consequences or that there is some magical Creator Fairy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people have said I don't understand Atheism, others have said my logic is flawed, but I have given reasons for my answers and to me they seem logical.

Now they may be not, if so I'll gladly change my thinking, but an 'off the cuff' comment won't do it.

You see, while the Enlightenment gave as rational thnking etc, and we should use our 'reasoning' only, then the belief in an afterlife with no evidence to support it would be illogical no?

Ok, but if there is no afterlife then what does our life mean? Why are we the only animal to be so advanced in terms of technology and conscience?

You may say 'the meaning of life is to reproduce' or 'the meaning of life is have fun' or 'I don't know what the meaning is'.

Whatever the answer, if the meaning is here, but obeying or disobeying both have no consequence then one can reject that meaning without punishment and follow their own path, whatever it may be.

I see life has having no grand purpose as illogical. I think it's more logical to believe in a God that may be jealous, a God that may be mean at times, than to believe in nothing.

Nietchze said Christianity is a nihlistic religion because it places importance on the afterlife, but if Christianity is wrong, and so are all religions and the meaning of this life is 'reproduction' or some other crap like that, then life itself is nihlistic because nothing means anything, everything is subjective and the only thing guaranteed is that one day you will die, therefore its logical to live whichever way will put a smile on you face for as long as you are living ... there are no guarantees, there are no boundaries, if it feels good, do it ... irregardless of how monsterous your desires may be.

One person mentioned 'would you like to live in a world without laws etc' ... no ofcourse not, this is why Anarchism has never worked and will never work, because certain people would abuse it for their own good, and others would cower in fear and be quick to give up their personal powers to someone to 'protect them' (enter Feudalism and Governments again)

But all throughout human history, people have given the power that is within 'their hands' up to something else - be it a tribal leader, a God(s), Monarchy, or Government.

People are by nature good slaves who are easily duped and pacified into submission by fear or greed, which is why this type of thinking (ie- that life means nothing, do what you want, no right/wrong, no good/evil etc) will never be recieved by the masses, especially when those in control know the ramifications would lead to chaos and them losing power. (which is of real importance)

I know Athiesm means belief in no god, but logically that means a belief in no afterlife right?

And that's my point, no afterlife = this life means nothing, and therefore you can do whatever you want. (and even some things you don't want to do but its smart to do them to obtain something else you want - think contract killing etc)

Need money? Break into your neighbours apartment, steal her money and kill her and her children. (I shudder to say you could rape them too, its all the same if life means nothing, and your 'empathy' is meaningless anyway ... if you have any)

What does it matter, we are all doomed anyway, and right and wrong could just be programming instilled into you by your parents who were in turn programmed by their parents (repeat ad nauseum) right back to that set of parents who believed their tribal elder when he said he spoke to God and that God said 'murder and theft was wrong MMkay?'.

Logical? (if not, rebut, I will listen)

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

"therefore its logical to live whichever way will put a smile on you face for as long as you are living ... there are no guarantees, there are no boundaries, if it feels good, do it ... irregardless of how monsterous your desires may be."

That is exactly right. That is how animals behave. That is how everyone behaves. Except that sometimes humans (and even animals instinctively) realize that postponing gratification results in more feelgoodness in the long run. So they don't take heroin. And because of jail, if nothing else, they don't rape. Sometimes they don't do monstrous things because evolution has made those things so repulsive to them that the net result makes them feel not good about doing it even if they can get away with it. Occasionally someone who is not repulsed, is sure he can get away with it, and would feel good if he did, still will not do the deed because he knows intellectually it is wrong by his philosophy and he FEELS GOOD when he is true to his intelletual philosophy and avoids an action, monstrous to others, that otherwise he feels no need to avoid.

There are a rare few of course who have no will power to delay gratification, no intelligence to see that they will probably get caught, no disgust at their own actions, and no personal philosophy that includes anything like the Golden Rule. Those people we want to believe in God.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes they don't do monstrous things because evolution has made those things so repulsive to them that the net result makes them feel not good about doing it even if they can get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, thankyou for your reply.

Could you elaborate on the above re: Evolution, specifically has it been proven that Evolution can do this. (if so where can I read more about it?)

Why do I ask this?

Well I seem to have the view that children are 'blank slates' and recieve all their programming about how the world works and how to communicate in it from their parents.

We see the teaching and experiences they have in the early stages of their life shapes who they will be, sometimes with terrible effects.

This is why I ask if evolution has been proven to weed out certain desires.

Example: Doctor A wants to make a child do "act 1" (Could be cannibalism, killer, rapist, thief, take your pick) and from the early stages of the child's life he/she is surrounded by a community where they partake and celebrate this monsterous act he/she is both a part of and/or exposed to. But what if Evolution has weeded out the desire for that action?

Now the act the child is partaking of/experiencing is supposibly "at odds" with his biological programming (Evolution) so will the child when immediately exposed to it (say at 2 years old) rebel against it, or willit take a longer time, maybe at puberty for his evolution to 'kick in' and enlighten him that all he knows is wrong?

Cheers,
SDM

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on the above re: Evolution, specifically has it been proven that Evolution can do this. (if so where can I read more about it?)

[/ QUOTE ]
The subject is treated well in Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I ask this?

Well I seem to have the view that children are 'blank slates' and recieve all their programming about how the world works and how to communicate in it from their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]
You will be disabused of this notion if you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.

[ QUOTE ]
Example: Doctor A wants to make a child do "act 1" (Could be cannibalism, killer, rapist, thief, take your pick) and from the early stages of the child's life he/she is surrounded by a community where they partake and celebrate this monsterous act he/she is both a part of and/or exposed to. But what if Evolution has weeded out the desire for that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution, and more to the point, human psychology, ain't that simple.