Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I myself know when I do something I feel is correct. God doesn't factor into it at all.

And humans are quite definitely worthy to judge, as long as they can apply a logical argument. I used to believe in the death sentence, but people convinced me otherwise.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right about God not being a factor in what choices you make. If he was then you wouldn't have free will. Humans will kill people that they don't understand so I don't think that they're worthy to judge as if they are God. You strengthen my statement that they're not worthy to judge souls (that's the judgement that I mean) because you are convinced that they are not even qualified to judge whether or not a human should be exterminated as a virus would be, regardless of the damage said human has caused and has the potential to cause. Souls (If you believe in them) are eternal and lives are finite.

In the death sentence case, humans are qualified to judge--and aside from the US, most 1st world countries have decided against the death sentence. I believe their arguments, so I believe that they made a correct judgment in that case. The US system, I do not think has strong arguments, so it cannot be the basis for judgment.

I don't believe in souls, and so for me their existence really has no impact on this issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, intuitionism. So were back to deontology.

But that's even more flawed. Not only do we have people that want to cause harm after being raised in a culture that forbids it, but there are cases of children being raised with little or no human contact who do not act in line with Christian moral theory. Or worse that, have you ever met a two year old? The only morality they can reasonably be aligned with is egosim.

Originally posted by The MISTER
How is the idea that you can tell whether what you are doing to someone is wrong based on how you would receive the action flawed? The people in the examples you use have free wills to behave as THEY choose. Their upbringing can definitely have much to do with their behavior for sure. The fact remains that humans learn quickly what is considered pleasant or unpleasant to themselves. Using this as a guide for interaction with other humans is optional, thus the free will.

Right and when they aren't influenced by culture they don't act in a way you would consider ethical. So then morality isn't hard coded into us otherwise a person who isn't being altered by culture would fit your morals.

The only other option is that there is a huge conspiracy by everyone on the planet to deny Christian morality when they know it's true.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I believe that human's "ability" to judge can only be based on whether their decision is logically sound; in this case, does killing people actually reduce the suffering caused to the world? Statistics would lead me to believe not. I do believe humans are worthy to judge based on logical reasons, but no human can judge others based on moral reasons.

In the death sentence case, humans are qualified to judge--and aside from the US, most 1st world countries have decided against the death sentence. I believe their arguments, so I believe that they made a correct judgment in that case. The US system, I do not think has strong arguments, so it cannot be the basis for judgment.

I don't believe in souls, and so for me their existence really has no impact on this issue.

As far as souls go, most of the world believes in them. You are an individual however and have the God given right to say that you don't believe that the world is round, or that the sun is a star. I'm sure that there is someone who won't believe those things no matter what evidence you provide them with.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Humans have various ideas of what is logically sound and it definitely depends on their level of intelligence. Perhaps Hitler felt that his logic was sound. I don't even know what logic he used and I disagree with whatever it was. The fact that many people agreed with his logic greatly diminishes my faith in human logic across the board. Statistics are not important when most humans make their decisions and I'd bet that you don't apply them to every decision that you make either.

It is true that statistics do not play a role in most decision made; like I said earlier, not every human perspective has a sound argument to to support it. This, however, is something to be avoided not reinforced.

Originally posted by The MISTER
As far as souls go, most of the world believes in them. You are an individual however and have the God given right to say that you don't believe that the world is round, or that the sun is a star. I'm sure that there is someone who won't believe those things no matter what evidence you provide them with.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Right and when they aren't influenced by culture they don't act in a way you would consider ethical. So then morality isn't hard coded into us otherwise a person who isn't being altered by culture would fit your morals.

The only other option is that there is a huge conspiracy by everyone on the planet to deny Christian morality when they know it's true.

Originally posted by King Kandy

It is true that statistics do not play a role in most decision made; like I said earlier, not every human perspective has a sound argument to to support it. This, however, is something to be avoided not reinforced.

These ideas seem illogical to me no matter how much you dress them up.

Originally posted by King Kandy

This is called argumentum ad populum. It can't be used as an argument because it has intrinsic logical flaws.

Originally posted by The MISTER
How can a person not be influenced by culture?

By not being raised by people. There are a few reliable instances of feral children being found.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Perhaps they aren't altered by culture but who are you to say what the individuals will and won't do? I would never suggest that a human can't treat others in any way they choose. We ALL have free will unless other humans take away the freedom to use that will. Even in extreme situations like that, humans have still shown the ability to exert their will. Kunta Kente said that his name was Toby after many lashes but some humans would have died first, exerting their will to the end.

Not a good metaphor. We know that Kunta Kente has that name to begin with. We don't know that people all subscribe to Christian moral theory to begin with, you have to prove that.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Unless I'm incorrect atheists' logic is that something came from nothing.

Scientists have ways of determining the origin of the universe that don't depend on God. But we don't even have to understand those to be atheists.

1) Something exists.
2) It had to come from somewhere.
3) We don't know where it came from.
4) There is not fourth step, we don't know where it came from so the only thing a reasonable person can profess is ignorance. Crediting it to God is exactly as reasonable as crediting it to George Washington.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The fact that humans can make individual choices and rule over EVERY other creature on the planet (Something that no other creature has EVER done) is coincidental, and they have no responsibility to behave considerably to others.

Every part of that, that isn't factually untrue is absurd.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I used to believe in the death sentence, but people convinced me otherwise.

So was your belief in the death sentence weak in the the first place, or are you just malleable/easily convinced?

Originally posted by The MISTER
You are absolutely correct. That is why I started this thread. Unless I'm incorrect atheists' logic is that something came from nothing.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Or perhaps that nothing isn't a possibility despite the lack of a power that can defy the impossible.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The energy that we see had no origin, it has existed eternally.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The fact that humans can make individual choices and rule over EVERY other creature on the planet (Something that no other creature has EVER done)

We do not rule every creature on the planet. Right now, the flu is kicking my ass. How can you possibly define us "ruling" all animals? We aren't better in terms of population size, we aren't the best in terms of altering the environment, and we don't have direct control over the sizable majority of lifeforms on earth. By what can you say we rule them?

Originally posted by The MISTER
and they have no responsibility to behave considerably to others.

Originally posted by The MISTER
These ideas seem illogical to me no matter how much you dress them up.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right of course. However you were stating your beliefs, not provable facts. I was just making you aware that your beliefs are not something that anyone can force you to support with sound logic.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So was your belief in the death sentence weak in the the first place, or are you just malleable/easily convinced?

@ King Kandy
First off I'm interested in the evidence that something can come from nothing. Please elaborate. My statement about a power that can do the impossible was made due to my being unaware that we have any evidence that something can come from nothing. You stated that energy existing eternally seems like a possibility but you don't know. I can relate to the feeling of not knowing what may be the case or not. It's annoying to me. Since my faith in God is one of those rare areas where I do feel certainty, I am exceedingly interested in why it seems like flawed logic to people that I consider intelligent. It almost seems to me that the more intelligent people get the more they abandon the faith that they once had in the fact that there is a divine order to things.

Humans can choose to teach good or evil through actions due to the fact that they are aware of how their actions are perceived by their kin. No other sentient animal species can choose to pursue it's own imaginations, outside of what it has been shown. Are humans more capable of making choices? Humans have dominated every animal that we have come across. The flu may be kicking your ass but I'd put money on you killing it. The virus can't capture some humans and dissect them constantly searching for a permanent advantage over humans. Humans are kicking the flu's ass and not in numbers of course but in influence. Humans could choose to purposely obliterate the planet with bombs and attempt sustained survival on an experimental space colony that theoretically can last ten million years. The creatures of earth are more at the mercy of humans than ever before. The environment has been in danger of us since we first wielded fire as ours, so we have long been capable of making more choices than the other sentient species. As far as ruling over them consistently, making choices about their future is the norm.

Why would you presume that you represent all those that call themselves atheists.? I surely don't represent all those that call themselves christians. I am definitely not suggesting that all atheists are anything. I already stated that I'm concerned with individuals. I'm glad that you feel a sense of responsibility, but do you truly believe that all christians or atheists do? All I was suggesting is that an atheist can state that any action they might take is OK as long as they survive for survival is all that matters to any animal. Humans and bacteria are equals when concerning responsibility as survival is for the fittest. A person calling himself a christian can choose to state this. I just see it making more sense when it's coming from someone who says ( whether they believe it or not ) that there is nobody to answer to for their behavior after death.

The ideas I mentioned earlier are illogical to me. And I am supporting my ideas with logic as you can see. And I'll do my best to dehumanize the process as I don't want my bias influencing me while doing this.

Evidence that the soul exists. Hypocrisy directed upon others is evil and corrupts the soul of the people who do it. Treating others in ways that you wouldn't want yourself treated is obviously wrong and we know it, but it does come naturally. We have the ability to stave off this natural selfishness and deal with others sincerely as we have an emotional connection with all other life forms that no other creature can boast. We can imagine how others feel. We can purposely seek to help or harm and we will do one or the other. Doing nothing equates to harming others with inaction. Because we MUST choose then it is logical to believe that there is a penalty for choosing to harm others.

one question; why is faith good, in any sense?

Originally posted by Sappho
one question; why is faith good, in any sense?

I suppose it would depend on what you have faith/believe in. Having faith that you are safe can reduce stress. Having faith that you are a being the best parent that you can be can create a sense of accomplishment and sometimes the desire to maintain your extra efforts in difficult areas. Some people have faith that their personal pride is WORTH killing for and they plan to share their beliefs with anyone who upsets their ego.

Personally I have faith that good and evil really do exist and that good will always win over evil. Sound corny? 💃 Is that a bad thing? All jokes aside i'm going to be completely honest so this won't sound all technical and proper or logical. Wouldn't it take an all powerful one to make people pay for being horrible, and vicious and cruel. People have been so very cruel to each other and they didn't have to be they chose to be nasty and mean to each other and kill their families and anything terrible you can imagine. And all while they had the choice to be kind when they could. There's no way that I could ever believe that some people only existed just to suffer at the mercies of the cruelest creatures ever known....and cruel by choice.

Sorry about the rant! 😮‍💨 I think it was a good question!

Originally posted by The MISTER

As far as souls go, most of the world believes in them. You are an individual however and have the God given right to say that you don't believe that the world is round, or that the sun is a star. I'm sure that there is someone who won't believe those things no matter what evidence you provide them with.

Perhaps incidentally, but perhaps not, the people now believing in souls are subscribing to the same ideology as the people who steadfastly refused to believe that the earth is round and the sun a star....interesting.

And you can give evidence that the earth is round, you can give evidence for what the sun is, there's not single piece of evidence that "souls" exist...they are extremely vaguely defined as well.

Originally posted by Mindship
Unless they're right.

Or like I said wrong.Which they are but they will find out on Judgement day.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Or like I said wrong.Which they are but they will find out on Judgement day.

But what if the Muslims are right. Then you'll find out on judgement day, do you not fear that?

Anyways, perhaps I am a bit different than the other atheists here, but I do have some fear of God, it's not very prominent and it doesn't affect my life at all, but the threat is so insanely great and evil that as a skeptic I must worry if it was true, as unlikely as that is. It reminds me of the afterlife discussion we had with Digi and inimalist, the threat of eternal torture is to great in my opinion to outweigh the chance of eternal bliss. I'd rather have no life than that gamble. Though it is a gamble everyone has, cause everyone's God could be the wrong one and another right one be the one to torture you.

Not that it matters, though I can't make myself belief in God, as a product of my experiences it is impossible for me to choose to go against something that feels so contrary to everything I belief in and have seen to be true. One of the many flaws of Pascal's wager, another being the earlier one of there not only being one option of a God.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But what if the Muslims are right. Then you'll find out on judgement day, do you not fear that?

Pascal's Wager is a really dumb argument when you get down to it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Or maybe I don't think its a sign of weakness to change when shown new evidence. That's the scientific way to approach things. If you don't consider what others say, then you're the one with weak will; you have no confidence in your position to actually let it be tested.

He's done the same to me as well. In reply to my relating my search through religious beliefs to come to the point I'm at now, he called me clearly confused, because I had wandered near or through numerous different belief systems. Inquisitive is probably the more correct term, and amenable to changes in belief based on superior reasoning/evidence/logic.