The Anguish of Nonbelievers

[kbfc]

Well, Nietzche is basically required reading if you want to discuss philosophy, especially with an historical leaning like your original post had. Of course, that never stopped anyone from jumping right in, so what can you do?

I'm not going to write a summary of the book, but I'll link you to this brief summary. It does a decent job of summarizing, although I think it deemphasizes the historical nature of the work, in favor of the ethical stuff. "Geneology of Morals" is not the only Nietzche that addresses this topic. I cite it because it is the most comprehensive. I'm sure you've heard the "God is dead" quote countless times out of context. Here is the full quote, from "The Gay Science":

"God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. —And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

This is the anguish of the nonbelievers that you're looking for.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Nietzche is basically required reading if you want to discuss philosophy, especially with an historical leaning like your original post had. Of course, that never stopped anyone from jumping right in, so what can you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bit strong. The philosophy degree I never finished only included Nietzche in one of the more obscure optional units.

chez

[valenzuela]

Can a 17 year old boy like me lack belief for the right reasons??

[kbfc]

Really?!?! I can understand a full course being optional, but I can't imagine the lower division 'survey' courses don't address him at all. Does the program just stop at Kant? If Neitzche doesn't get covered, I suppose there's no chance in hell for guys like Wittgenstein and Russel.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Really?!?! I can understand a full course being optional, but I can't imagine the lower division 'survey' courses don't address him at all. Does the program just stop at Kant? If Neitzche doesn't get covered, I suppose there's no chance in hell for guys like Wittgenstein and Russel.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a lot of Russell and a bit of Wittgenstein in the general course but not a mention of Nietzsche.

Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein was one optional course.
Nineteenth-Century German Philosophy which includes Nietzsche was another optional course.

chez

[bluesbassman]

"So much time and energy has been wasted on a lie. This is not reasonable, rational, nor productive. How does it feel to know you in live in a world where a lie is so strong that a majority of people have fallen for it?"

Believers can answer this question as well, since most believe in a religion that teaches all other religions are incorrect. Thus, followers of a particular religion must also believe the majority of people have fallen for a lie.

[RJT]

Let me premise my post by stating that I haven’t read much about atheism and any logic (or lack of) relative to it.

Let me interrupt myself again and say that I would appreciate an answer that does not turn the issue to what believers might or might not believe or think. (This seems to happen often.) I am seriously interested in what atheists think.

Siegfriedandroy’s perspective about atheism is fairly close to my own. His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad. I also cannot see how an atheist could. (Of course, we can have agreed upon good/bad for a number of reasons.) If this is incorrect, (that instead atheists do indeed believe in absolute good/bad) then what is the source of these absolutes? What are the absolutes? Does the atheist have a formal logical proof (or even scientific theories) for these absolutes? (The only answer I have found that comes close is David S.'s apologetic for lap dances.)

Siegfried Androy makes the point regarding atheism that there is no rational reason to care (or not to care)about..pick a topic. Is this a true statement? It seems to me it is. If it is true then that pretty well answers my basic interest.

Now, simply out of curiosity, if true (no reason to care or not to care) then why are so many scientist, to pick a group, interested and “worried” about, for example, Green (ozone and such) issues. What is the major motivation for such interest in the longevity of the human race? Seems like so much energy is spent on such things that could perhaps be spent on more immediate concerns.

Again, please, no deflecting the answer with the irrationality of believers and any nonsense that might motivate them.

Your logic:

Atheists don't believe in a god --> They don't care about earth or anything
Theists believe in a god --> They care about stuff

These jumps do not follow logically. If I don't believe there's a god controlling day-to-day events on earth, couldn't I be MORE not less interested in understanding the world, how it works, and how to preserve it, rather than rely on a God and his will to just let things take their course. Conversely if you believe in a heaven and afterlife, couldn't you care LESS and not more about other topics beyond securing salvation?

You have it backasswards.

[RJT]

RJT:

Let me interrupt myself again and say that I would appreciate an answer that does not turn the issue to what believers might or might not believe or think. (This seems to happen often.) I am seriously interested in what atheists think.

Kidluckee:

Your logic:

Atheists don't believe in a god --> They don't care about earth or anything
Theists believe in a god --> They care about stuff

These jumps do not follow logically. If I don't believe there's a god controlling day-to-day events on earth, couldn't I be MORE not less interested in understanding the world, how it works, and how to preserve it, rather than rely on a God and his will to just let things take their course. Conversely if you believe in a heaven and afterlife, couldn't you care LESS and not more about other topics beyond securing salvation?

You have it backasswards.

RJT:

Again, please, no deflecting the answer with the irrationality of believers and any nonsense that might motivate them.


RJT, now:

I did not in any way, shape, or form say that since atheists don’t believe in a god that they don’t care about anything. I ASKED if they do or they don’t. If they do I am curious what the primary motivation is.

But, to answer your question about what believers should care about – I agree that a true believer should not be so concerned about the here and now per se. What should motivate a believer beyond that and for future generations is simply the love for his neighbor (and I guess love of God, since a believer believes He created this world) .

[ QUOTE ]
I did not in any way, shape, or form say that since atheists don’t believe in a god that they don’t care about anything. I ASKED if they do or they don’t. If they do I am curious what the primary motivation is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I play poker? because there's a god?

Why do I enjoy math? because there's a god?

Why do I enjoy running? because there's a god?

Why do I care about the environment? because there's a god?

Why do I care about the progress of science? because there's a god?

Why do I love my wife? because there's a god?

Why do I love my dog? because there's a god?



There's no reason why an atheist can't be interested or care about something just because he's an atheist. I reckon they have the same motivations as anyone else for the most part. Your question is leading in that it presumes that theists have their belief in God as their primary motivation for everything they do or care about, which is simply absurd.