Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The definitions are fine as they are; you're altering them to fit your preexisting notion that atheism has to be a knowledge statement. "I believe nothing" is an atheist statement.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If that is true then is it pointless to tell an atheist something? I do not readily trust everyone as I know my own limits. But a person who believes nothing seems to be quite stuck with having a distrust of everyone and everything being incapable of taking in any knowledge as truth. Truth to this person is a fictional idea. Would all those that call themselves atheist claim to know no truths? Seriously. If the answer is yes I would want to know. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by 753
no, what you are a referring to is a particular form of epistemic nihilism or extreme skepticism that is not, at all, universal among atheists

Originally posted by The MISTER
I would say that all sincere beliefs are followed by individuals, they are not available to any but the individual. A person cannot be forced to believe anything.

I'm not saying that people are wrong for believing anything that they believe unless they believe in hypocrisy as a way of life. Give me one reason why I shouldn't consider that as evil. My belief in what christianity is? 😕 I did not invent this word.
Christianity:
a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

That is what christianity is defined as in the english language.

Therefore a person calling themselves a christian cannot just dismiss the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The truth is not ours about many things and we know that is one thing that is truth in this life. Morality is another area that we can all identify truth within ourselves. We know when we are being hypocrites. There is no flaw I can find within the moral viewpoint of loving each other as we do ourselves.

and yet thy can be TAUGHT to beleive things which would otherwise, not occur to them at all, much less occur to them as self evident truths.

ill break apart your second paragraph to elucidate my point

monotheism: trinity is contradictory to the MONO there, and judaic and muslim beleivers would testify to that. reguardless of how you wish to make sense of it. essentially beleiving that 3 is 1 is a weaker for of monotheism than beleiving that 1 is 1, no matter how you slice it.

old testament: most christians follow only part of the old testament, torah etc. they dont even beleive in the whole tanakh or the zohar etc. furthermore, turning the other cheek or killing your neighbour if you see him working on the sabbath, im sure, are not values by which you live your life. hence you dont even follow that part of the old testament which christians profess to beleiving. you can rationalise it by trying to interpret it in the light of newer law with the advent of christianity but that would be an added step. making your argument for straight out beleif in the old testament as weaker than if you beleived in it unconditionally

role of jesus as saviour: is rife with interprettion, and contradiction, after all its hard to straught out reconcile that with why it doesnt simply mean salvation from sin from all. indeed why is it that people can not simply be pardoned for their sins due to the case of his death. there are also the questions of which sins are pardoned and which are not.

christinity itself is an english word but the myths you are referring to are greek/hebrew in nature.

the POINT is that your wrong. every person DOES invent their own christianity and can make of it whatever he o she pleases. there are agnostic christians who do NOT beleive in the divinity of jesus and infact only cling to christianity in a cultural sense. and they have every right to do so. furthermore, even if we go by the gospels{a dubious endeavour at best} less than 5 percent {i forget the exact percentage} of the bible is even claimed by the authors to be the direct quotation of yehshua's words, i.e. the red letter bible.

as for your view on morality, instead of pointing towards pretty much irrefutable technical issues and arguments in philosophy, which u might not accept. id rather point you towards the real world. if what you claim about a lack of objective dictated morality concerning non beleivers is true. than it goes to reason that the moral ambiguity that arises in the mindset of such people would lead to considerably more crime/selfishness/lack of guilt on the part of the atheists in the world. tell me, do you see these expected things in the world. do you see atheists being more evil and more harmful to society and the world? infact id say that atheists, on the whole. due to the current relegious climate, are often more reflective and do more good in the world than the relegious. so facts simply do not support you here

Originally posted by The MISTER
If that is true then is it pointless to tell an atheist something? I do not readily trust everyone as I know my own limits. But a person who believes nothing seems to be quite stuck with having a distrust of everyone and everything being incapable of taking in any knowledge as truth. Truth to this person is a fictional idea. Would all those that call themselves atheist claim to know no truths? Seriously. If the answer is yes I would want to know. 😮‍💨

I'd compare judgement for atheists with the evil monkey in the closet for everyone. It's very common to worry about it, no matter if it's real or not. I don't think atheists go around dwelling on it, but I also don't think they never think about it.
If nothing else, then playing with the thought "what if", as I often find myself doing. I can't exclude the possibility of judgement, as can I not exclude the fact that if it's real, I'm in some serious trouble.

If you live a good life, free from evil deeds, then I don't think you think much of it. Not as an atheist, nor theist.

Originally posted by 753
there are philosophical doctrines that maintain that morality is objective without making any claims whatsoever about god. likewise there are theistic traditions that do not posit any god given code of morality

I'm aware of this, but thanks 🙂 I was merely referring from my bias, Christian perspective. I do have issues with these outlooks, obviously. For example I don't see how morality can be objective without God, but I'm not here to debate the finer points of that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We can get clear cut definitions without doing that.

Strong Theism - there is proof of God
Weak Theism - there is reason to believe in God thus I do
Agnosticism - there is no way to make a decision about god
Weak Atheism - there is no reason to believe in God thus I do not
Strong Atheism - there is proof against God

Now the interesting thing is that you can't simply drop a person into one of these categories. People who are Weak Atheists as a general rule may well be Strong Atheist when considering particular deities. Even more common is for Strong Theists to be Strong Atheists outside of their own religion.

If that's how you would define it, far be it for me to judge but personally like you've alluded to, I'm not sure you can apply those criteria realistically though, mate. By your logic, take someone like me as an example. I'm a Christian. Now by your reasoning here that would make me atheistic to any form of non-Christian theism. Whilst it's true that I maintain that no God outside the Christian one exists, this in no way makes me an atheist. I do not believe or adopt in any way the notion that God does not exist.

I think the problem I have with those definitions is that Weak Theism is compatible with Agnosticism and Atheism and weak Atheism is compatible with Agnosticism and Theism, belief does not relate to the actual existence of something.

It certainly raises some interesting points on the matter, though ✅

Originally posted by willRules
I'm aware of this, but thanks 🙂 I was merely referring from my bias, Christian perspective. I do have issues with these outlooks, obviously. For example I don't see how morality can be objective without God, but I'm not here to debate the finer points of that.

It's really easy to have objective morals without

Originally posted by willRules
If that's how you would define it, far be it for me to judge but personally like you've alluded to, I'm not sure you can apply those criteria realistically though, mate. By your logic, take someone like me as an example. I'm a Christian. Now by your reasoning here that would make me atheistic to any form of non-Christian theism. Whilst it's true that I maintain that no God outside the Christian one exists, this in no way makes me an atheist. I do not believe or adopt in any way the notion that God does not exist.

That's a good point. I was a bit to concerned with symmetry and ended up with definitions that don't quite fit the way the words are used.

Strong Theism - there is proof of at least one god
Weak Theism - there is reason to believe in a god or gods thus I do
Agnosticism - there is no way to make a decision about gods
Weak Atheism - there is no reason to believe in gods thus I do not
Strong Atheism - there is proof against gods

It loses the subtleties of the other system but it still works pretty well.

Originally posted by willRules
I think the problem I have with those definitions is that Weak Theism is compatible with Agnosticism and Atheism and weak Atheism is compatible with Agnosticism and Theism, belief does not relate to the actual existence of something.

I'm not even sure what this means.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not even sure what this means.

What I mean by this is that on your definitions a weak theist is just someone who believes that God exists. So they can't prove it and presumably they are aware that belief doesn't make something exist or not exist. So weak theism is really no different from the agnostic who thinks there could be a God. So where's the difference between weak theism and agnosticism? Also the strong atheist would claim he has good evidence that God doesn't exist, thus rendering belief based weak theism irrelevant.

The same criteria could be applied to weak atheism. Their belief that God does not exist is no different from the agnostic that feels this way or falls apart when in contact with the theist who claims to have good evidence for God's existence.

EDIT: Here's how I would label it (you may not agree)

Theism: Maintains the existence of God/s
Agnosticism: Unsure. May veer towards Theism or Atheism but wouldn't ultimately claim one side or the other to be absolutely true
Atheism: Maintains that there is no God/s

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's what I mean..)

pfft, you are just riding my coattails 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I am to use the 3 instances out of 27 years in which I "heard the voice of God", being prepared for that detection moment would be very difficult.

Additionally, if we assume God is intelligent, and he fits the Christian bill of "do not tempt the Lord thy God", then he would not communicate to a person that is being monitored just for his prayer answer..)

but then the question becomes, what is most likely, can we explain your experiences through other means.

I don't want to suggest anything, because I don't really want to challange things that are meaningful experiences to you, but ya, even if God can't be expected to play ball, I don't think we are in the dark when it comes to why most people who have religious experiences do

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, I do not see it as ever happening unless you get a schizo that thinks God is talking to him or her. (I do not know how different the brain "fires" on a schizo that hears voices versus someone having a conversation. I would think it's different...so forgive the poor analogy.)

ya, this would be much different. A schizto talking to themselves would show some type of deep processing for both sides of the conversation, I would assume.

At the very least, it certainly wouldn't serve as a proper control for "God"

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
What I meant by "if you say so", is that I don't know what you went on about for a bit there. I don't know the things you speak of too well, so I am taking your word for it.

*

Oh, I'm well aware of what happen when you put your belief out there on the Internet. I'm not surprised, offended or in any way in dismay with this discussion. I love a good discussion, and this is one of few. What I meant with what I wrote, was that you've gone beyond my field of knowledge with your talk and that I can not discuss the things you've brought up.

My point is that I'm trying to sate your curiosity, but you're insatiable. My point is that the things you struggle to turn logical, is natural to me. I can't explain it to you, because I can barely define it myself. So what I mean when I say what I did, is that I'm sorry I can't be more insightful.

Reading it now afterhand, I realize it came out very wrong. I apologize for this. I vote we scratch that part, because I'm not quite sure where it came from to begin with, nor its relevance.

*

I'd be delighted to be part of an elaborate debate, but I'm afraid my knowledge on the matter is far more limited than yours.

*

Oh, I know it doesn't support my point. That's not what I've been saying. What I'm saying is that because of our inadequacy in particular fields of science, we don't really know, and because we don't know, it's not impossible. Which is the root of my participation in this thread, the word "impossible"

I understand now what you mean with that, and in a sense I suppose I plead guilty on the matter. I don't say "therefore God", however (That I don't believe in God being irrelevant), but rather "perhaps God?" (Note the questionmark).
I have a very open spirituality, a quite unorthodox faith. I don't believe in God, but I don't deny his existence, because I feel it's not my place to say that he does or doesn't exist.

I believe in an abstract intelligence, which makes all of this very easy to discuss and faults in my belief easy to excuse. I'm probably a very unsatisfying person to discuss faith with in depth, because I can probably be something of a broken record, I suppose. But I digress, quite majorly ...

*

That last thing was just a general statement. Wouldn't want to waste your time if it turns out you were out to foil my faith. I also didn't want to appear like someone who asks people to think as I do, because "it makes sense", so it was more or less a 'fyi'

haha, no, thats not my point either, but thanks.

anyways, you make a good point, you know, I just don't agree, but intelligent people don't always have to have the same position, you know?

Originally posted by willRules
I'm aware of this, but thanks 🙂 I was merely referring from my bias, Christian perspective. I do have issues with these outlooks, obviously. For example I don't see how morality can be objective without God, but I'm not here to debate the finer points of that.

I will certainly get into it with you

I can't give you an absolute criticism to solipsism, egoism or nihilism, but I can give you a fairly well articulated moral stance based on clearly objective measures, that requires only shared human experience, rather than God, as a point of definition.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You misunderstood me. Not all atheists would say "I believe nothing". However, someone who believes nothing would be an atheist. My point was that being an atheist doesn't entail any knowledge or belief by definition. Someone can definitely have knowledge, but it'll stem from something besides just "being an atheist".

Atheism can be represented by very intelligent open minded people who work hard to improve the standard of life for everyone they meet. On the other hand it can be represented by people who share complete opposite views than the first person. If a man destroys his family with a bomb and seriously tells the law that God told him to do it they would label him insane and take him to the mental ward. If the same man said he was an atheist people would assume that he was quite SANE and be ready to prosecute him to the fullest.

That's biased but it's almost a complimentary bias because it assumes the awareness level of an atheist is more reliable. In comparison people of differing faiths ( of which there are many ) are seen as possibly delusional and definitely brainwashed. Non-atheists view atheists as evil or lost more often than not. This creates a riff between atheists and non-atheists as the two do view each other as a lost cause and what's wrong with the world. How will we ever get people to respect each other on individual levels, period? 😮‍💨

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and yet thy can be TAUGHT to beleive things which would otherwise, not occur to them at all, much less occur to them as self evident truths.

Originally posted by 1315389 6
Originally posted by leonheartmm
monotheism: trinity is contradictory to the MONO there, and judaic and muslim beleivers would testify to that. reguardless of how you wish to make sense of it. essentially beleiving that 3 is 1 is a weaker for of monotheism than beleiving that 1 is 1, no matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
old testament: most christians follow only part of the old testament, torah etc. they dont even beleive in the whole tanakh or the zohar etc. furthermore, turning the other cheek or killing your neighbour if you see him working on the sabbath, im sure, are not values by which you live your life. hence you dont even follow that part of the old testament which christians profess to beleiving. you can rationalise it by trying to interpret it in the light of newer law with the advent of christianity but that would be an added step. making your argument for straight out beleif in the old testament as weaker than if you beleived in it unconditionally

Originally posted by leonheartmm
role of jesus as saviour: is rife with interprettion, and contradiction, after all its hard to straught out reconcile that with why it doesnt simply mean salvation from sin from all. indeed why is it that people can not simply be pardoned for their sins due to the case of his death. there are also the questions of which sins are pardoned and which are not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
christinity itself is an english word but the myths you are referring to are greek/hebrew in nature.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the POINT is that your wrong. every person DOES invent their own christianity and can make of it whatever he o she pleases. there are agnostic christians who do NOT beleive in the divinity of jesus and infact only cling to christianity in a cultural sense. and they have every right to do so. furthermore, even if we go by the gospels{a dubious endeavour at best} less than 5 percent {i forget the exact percentage} of the bible is even claimed by the authors to be the direct quotation of yehshua's words, i.e. the red letter bible.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
as for your view on morality, instead of pointing towards pretty much irrefutable technical issues and arguments in philosophy, which u might not accept. id rather point you towards the real world. if what you claim about a lack of objective dictated morality concerning non beleivers is true. than it goes to reason that the moral ambiguity that arises in the mindset of such people would lead to considerably more crime/selfishness/lack of guilt on the part of the atheists in the world. tell me, do you see these expected things in the world. do you see atheists being more evil and more harmful to society and the world? infact id say that atheists, on the whole. due to the current relegious climate, are often more reflective and do more good in the world than the relegious. so facts simply do not support you here

Originally posted by inimalist
I will certainly get into it with you

I can't give you an absolute criticism to solipsism, egoism or nihilism, but I can give you a fairly well articulated moral stance based on clearly objective measures, that requires only shared human experience, rather than God, as a point of definition.

I was about to write down a response to this when I remembered this youtube video that summed up my thoughts so succinctly......

YouTube video

Originally posted by willRules
I was about to write down a response to this when I remembered this youtube video that summed up my thoughts so succinctly......

YouTube video

He's not responding to atheism he's responding to something call "naturalism". He also goes running right past "it's arbitrary" without stopping to consider that all morality is based on some arbitrary declaration (for example "god says so" is no less arbitrary a basis for morals than "inimalist says so" or "the color blue is the world's supreme good" or "human suffering is bad"😉.

Originally posted by willRules
I was about to write down a response to this when I remembered this youtube video that summed up my thoughts so succinctly......

YouTube video

There is a very good reason why humans might privilage the human perspective when discussing what is the correct way to interact with humans [sic]

that there is "nothing special", in the absolutist, universal sense, about human life and emotion is moot. Objective morals don't have to simply be a list of unmutable axioms of things people can't do because they are wrong, but in the way I conceptualize it, they are a way of evaluating action in very specific contexts, based on motivations and especially measurable and verifiable outcomes.

I would disagree with the premise of the question asker as well. "human nature" is a diaphanous concept at the best of times, but there is plenty of evidence that shows humans "naturally" are capable of the extremes of altruism and evil. I don't think using "human suffering" as a standard to judge the morality of actions is the same as appealing to human nature, especially given there are very simple lab manipulations that can be done to show people "naturally" can take joy or comfort in the suffering of others. My point being, your answer is a strawman, though probably not intentionally.

the idea that a belief in God is what causes us to think humans are in some way special is nonsense aswell; putting the cart well before the horse. humans invented God because we knew how important we were, thus we must have had a creator. This sense of self-importance that makes us think there must be a purpose for ourselves, and thus by extension, our family and species, almost certainly existed before any organized "western" tradition of philosophy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's not responding to atheism he's responding to something call "naturalism". He also goes running right past "it's arbitrary" without stopping to consider that all morality is based on some arbitrary declaration (for example "god says so" is no less arbitrary a basis for morals than "inimalist says so" or "the color blue is the world's supreme good" or "human suffering is bad"😉.

However christians, like myself, are under a different definition based upon how we view Gods rule:

having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law

Regardless we have a case of pots and kettles here.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Good point. We're often guilty of the same things we say others are doing wrong. You do have to consider though that arbitrary has differing definitions. I would assume he was referring to arbitrary as: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

That sort of arbitrariness still applies to the divine command theory. If it didn't religious people would never disagree.

Originally posted by The MISTER
However christians, like myself, are under a different definition based upon how we view Gods rule:

having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law

That sounds like might makes right.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is a very good reason why humans might privilage the human perspective when discussing what is the correct way to interact with humans [sic]

that there is "nothing special", in the absolutist, universal sense, about human life and emotion is moot. Objective morals don't have to simply be a list of unmutable axioms of things people can't do because they are wrong, but in the way I conceptualize it, they are a way of evaluating action in very specific contexts, based on motivations and especially [b]measurable and verifiable outcomes.

I would disagree with the premise of the question asker as well. "human nature" is a diaphanous concept at the best of times, but there is plenty of evidence that shows humans "naturally" are capable of the extremes of altruism and evil. I don't think using "human suffering" as a standard to judge the morality of actions is the same as appealing to human nature, especially given there are very simple lab manipulations that can be done to show people "naturally" can take joy or comfort in the suffering of others. My point being, your answer is a strawman, though probably not intentionally.

the idea that a belief in God is what causes us to think humans are in some way special is nonsense aswell; putting the cart well before the horse. humans invented God because we knew how important we were, thus we must have had a creator. This sense of self-importance that makes us think there must be a purpose for ourselves, and thus by extension, our family and species, almost certainly existed before any organized "western" tradition of philosophy. [/B]

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That sort of arbitrariness still applies to the divine command theory. If it didn't religious people would never disagree.

That sounds like might makes right.