Are atheists afraid of judgement?

The reason this question goes on and on is because one perspective argues that they are speaking for an ultimate being, while also never taking into consideration that being is a construct. This is why theists feel there is something mentally lacking in atheists; like their own perspective is so much common sense when taking into consideration they're talking about the creator of EVERYTHING. It isn't that atheists don't get it, it's that they've already heard it all before and reached a less fantasy-based conclusion. I think what makes Mister's approach so non-sensical is that while he presents the appearance of open-mindedness, innocent knowledge-seeking, he still maintains that man-made dogma when he feels the need to make his knee-jerk reactions more institutional, rather than owning them for himself. Religion becomes a crutch for people to use when they can't operate in a more PC world while maintaining their outdated opinions.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Humans created God is an idea that can be supported by the simple evidence that humans create ideas.

sort of, I think there is much more evidence for the creation of God, especially that of Western civilization (which was the point being made in the film), than just the fact people can create ideas. I agree though, our psychology does have a lot to do with it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The real problem with that theory is that it leaves the question of what created life a mystery.

see, I don't think that is a problem at all. The question "where did life come from" and "did man create God" can differ.

I understand, that, to you, God had to create life, but if one doesn't have that a priori assumption, there is no reason that we need to explain the origin of life if there is no God.

Originally posted by The MISTER
An explosion of matter has no reason to come to life and discuss philosophy and purpose so the idea that something living produced all life (Humans) is supported by the evidence that we have before us.

but it really isn't. It is only supported as a sort of tautology. Because you believe there is a purpose to life, you can say, "oh, where did that purpose come from"

but really, there is no evidence of a universal purpose to people. Unless you want to say there was a purpose to things like, oh, the holocaust, and then we must say, is a "good" god really also congruent with millions of people tortured to death? like, not as a consequence of our own will, but as part of its divine purpose?

so sure, lets assume there is a purpose to all things, I'll figure out the purpose of philosophy, you tell me how that doesn't mean God supports the greatest attrocities in human history. A divine purpose isn't just him letting it happen, it is God causing them.

Originally posted by The MISTER
There is also evidence to support the statement that no other life form shares created ideas and can choose to empathize or not with the ideas it is presented with. We are the most unique animal on the planet being the most aware of other creatures and things and how our actions affect them. This can be perceived as being chosen by whatever living force began what we know as life.

I don't see how that follows. All you have done is define our "uniqueness" by our evolutionary niche qualities. It would be like saying a tiger is special because it is the best at being a tiger.

all animals are unique in the way you describe.

Originally posted by The MISTER
How can you blame us when we know that dead things stay dead?

actually, I don't blame anything. I agree, our unique psychology produced the beliefs we have, and maybe I have misunderstood your point....

I agree, a lot of the things you mentioned have given humans the idea that they are a very unique and special type of animal, and that there is a God watching us.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If something living didn't produce life then existence would be understandably comprised of inorganic matter.

that only moves the question of life back one step further, however.

what created the first creator?

but ya, again, I may have misunderstood your point

Originally posted by inimalist
A divine purpose isn't just him letting it happen, it is God causing them.

Directly or indirectly? Did God make the Nazis do it, or did he just sit back and leave the ants to their own devices?

If God had materialized before Hitler and said "That's a no-no" while waiving his finger, that would seem to interfere with freewill, que no? For an individual to be tried for a crime, volition or mens rea must have been a factor. So wouldn't it seem that the same would/should apply to sin?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Directly or indirectly? Did God make the Nazis do it, or did he just sit back and leave the ants to their own devices?

If God had materialized before Hitler and said "That's a no-no" while waiving his finger, that would seem to interfere with freewill, que no? For an individual to be tried for a crime, volition or mens rea must have been a factor. So wouldn't it seem that the same would/should apply to sin?

The MISTER was suggesting everything that happens has a place in the great divine plan. If we assume that is true then the Holocaust must have been planned out by God (unless you set all reason and language aside so God can plan things without planning for them to happen).

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Directly or indirectly? Did God make the Nazis do it, or did he just sit back and leave the ants to their own devices?

If God had materialized before Hitler and said "That's a no-no" while waiving his finger, that would seem to interfere with freewill, que no? For an individual to be tried for a crime, volition or mens rea must have been a factor. So wouldn't it seem that the same would/should apply to sin?

essentially what sym said. sure, all the Nazis would have had whatever freewill people have in Christianity, but if God had a plan for these people that included the holocaust, he certainly bares responsibility for its cause

If a person has no books at all (scriptures) and their culture doesn't read much as a part of their lifestyle.....

I would think that being human they would come to the conclusion that they were a unique animal. The evolutionary process that you spoke of seems to have made us a unique favorite for though the tiger and all other animals are unique they do not have the ability to appreciate why. We are the only creature that can appreciate all uniquenesses. Our abilities are are actually very God-like. We create things that didn't exist before. We imagine new ideas and communicate those ideas to others who can now imagine the shared idea. We judge like gods. We have an innate idea of what we feel is fair or unfair according to our personal opinion. We must choose our own futures. Our ability to choose our every move, when compounded with our creative power and our ability to determine fairness and unfairness, leaves us with a connection to everything that we would understand a god to be. Now apply our awareness of the existence of past and future. We quickly determine that some power defies what we understand as the passage of time. Some power exists indefinitely as this power did NOT originate period. No beginning is a mental oxymoron and we're all aware of this. We may conclude that it is obviously beyond our ability to comprehend and dismiss exerting energies on a moot point. We also have the option of concluding that like all things created by us, an idea was the source of the creation of all other things as well. If one is entertaining the latter, suddenly everything has purpose even if that purpose is outside of our abilities to comprehend. A person who entertains the idea that it is a moot point cannot so easily be defined and thus falls victim to the judgement of humans who feel assured in their beliefs, as many are manipulated by teachers of superiority over others.

Originally posted by inimalist
essentially what sym said. sure, all the Nazis would have had whatever freewill people have in Christianity, but if God had a plan for these people that included the holocaust, he certainly bares responsibility for its cause

edit: Theists and atheists can be mentally lacking. The difference is that atheism can be defined in so many varying ways. If a theist tells you that that he is hindu or practices voodoo you could wikipedia their religion and learn something about their ideals. An atheist would have to elaborate, for you cannot know much about their individual views with only the knowledge that they are atheists.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The idea that causing evil and allowing it to happen are synonymous is interesting. If a man knows that this world has suffering for his children if he allows them to live is he showing mercy when he kills his babies? He has succesfully spared them of all possible suffering. This example shows how if God were to intervene in all possible human decisions then humans would not be creatures that are in his image. They would be like the instinct driven beasts that do not create individual paths, judge fairness, and appreciate their position amongst all other animals. They would lack what it takes to love him of their own free will. This would be a case of God creating a rock that is too big for him to lift. Since all is in his power he could lift the rock whenever he decided defying the impossible. He does whatever he wants to do. It would seem as though he derives pleasure and frustration out of us having the God-like ability to do exactly as we please. Realistically, how else would a spirit of infinite power escape boredom? What we consider unfair and fair wouldn't be over God if one believes he exists. 😮‍💨

So then god has no plan for the universe and does not interfere with humanity (as that would effect our free will). Why would we worship it?

Originally posted by The MISTER
If a person has no books at all (scriptures) and their culture doesn't read much as a part of their lifestyle.....

I would think that being human they would come to the conclusion that they were a unique animal. The evolutionary process that you spoke of seems to have made us a unique favorite for though the tiger and all other animals are unique they do not have the ability to appreciate why. We are the only creature that can appreciate all uniquenesses. Our abilities are are actually very God-like. We create things that didn't exist before. We imagine new ideas and communicate those ideas to others who can now imagine the shared idea. We judge like gods. We have an innate idea of what we feel is fair or unfair according to our personal opinion. We must choose our own futures. Our ability to choose our every move, when compounded with our creative power and our ability to determine fairness and unfairness, leaves us with a connection to everything that we would understand a god to be. Now apply our awareness of the existence of past and future. We quickly determine that some power defies what we understand as the passage of time. Some power exists indefinitely as this power did NOT originate period. No beginning is a mental oxymoron and we're all aware of this. We may conclude that it is obviously beyond our ability to comprehend and dismiss exerting energies on a moot point. We also have the option of concluding that like all things created by us, an idea was the source of the creation of all other things as well. If one is entertaining the latter, suddenly everything has purpose even if that purpose is outside of our abilities to comprehend. A person who entertains the idea that it is a moot point cannot so easily be defined and thus falls victim to the judgement of humans who feel assured in their beliefs, as many are manipulated by teachers of superiority over others.

Not sure the abilty to "chose our every course of action" is the best way to describe what we do.

As for how god like we are, I believe we seem that way to you because god is a made up construct based on our own mental capacities and practices - god was made in our image - so everything we atribute to it will remind us of ourselves. The idea that we are godlike and can deduce its existence logically from our own seems unwarrantedly self-important and pretentious to me.

The issue with the passage of time and first causation requires no deity to be adressed:

something created reality vs reality always existed

but if it's the first, then what created this something?

something created god vs god always existed

but if it's the first, then what created this something?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So then god has no plan for the universe and does not interfere with humanity (as that would effect our free will). Why would we worship it?

Originally posted by 753
The idea that we are godlike and can deduce its existence logically from our own seems unwarrantedly self-important and pretentious to me.

It may seem unwarranted but one man can singlehandedly save the rainforest or lead to its destruction. One man can spread prosperity across the earth or leave the earth in turmoil. It is important to all the creatures on this planet that the one creature, human being, behave in a considerate and responsible way. Each individual human will help the world or hurt it with their actions. Even if they choose to wander the earth as a hermit they may hurt those they leave behind or hurt those that they chose to never interact with. Humans must choose to act and those choices will either go with what they feel is fair or unfair. I wouldn't think that it's pretentious, just a blessing or a curse.

Originally posted by The MISTER
We have plans that include the wills of others. Things do not always go according to plan when you include the wills of others. That doesn't mean that you cancel your plans though. Many claim that God is omniscient in the sense that he knows what will happen before it happens. If we do have free will then we create our futures and God's will is done by choice. His plan for drawing things to a close is up to him alone just as his plans for intervening where he sees fit. Realistically he can be surprised by our actions when he allows OUR wills to be done. We can appreciate how this inability to predict the future actions of others can be quite pleasurable. For instance if you think your child is a spoiled brat but they surprise you by sharing their candy. With us having free will this is an experience that God has the potential to have. Pleasing surprises and unpleasant surprises. Suspense is not something that we should believe is outside of God's ability to create and enjoy, imo.

If god doesn't know our will then he's not omniscient, there is obviously something he doesn't know. In that case God can't have an ultimate plan because we could screw it up for him by doing something unexpected. And it still suggests malevolence on the part of God, letting people die by the millions in hopes of some fleeting pleasure at the idea that they might not is horrible.

If genocide is okay to God becase people dying only affects god as much as a spoiled child then he cannot be all loving (unless you define love to mean apathy).

If we can only make choices that are god's will then we don't have freedom of choice, we're just characters in a story.

If he does know our will then he chooses to allow genocide for no reason (it wouldn't even require something big to stop it, he could just tell everyone in danger "hey you're gonna get killed, might want to leave"😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If god doesn't know our will then he's not omniscient, there is obviously something he doesn't know. In that case God can't have an ultimate plan because we could screw it up for him by doing something unexpected.

Right, like eating from the tree of knowledge, developing common languages, building towers and generally being wicked enough to merrit a global flood event.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If a person has no books at all (scriptures) and their culture doesn't read much as a part of their lifestyle.....

I would think that being human they would come to the conclusion that they were a unique animal. The evolutionary process that you spoke of seems to have made us a unique favorite for though the tiger and all other animals are unique they do not have the ability to appreciate why. We are the only creature that can appreciate all uniquenesses.

well, yes, they probably would, but that reflects the mechanisms of our psychology that make us think we are better drivers than we really are, or make us think our children are just, inherently, way better than other kids. It certainly doesn't reflect that humans are any more unique than other animals that fill biological niches.

For instance, you could similarily privilage any other unique phenotype in nature; the peacock tail, the bomabdier beatle's ability to fire napalm, etc, etc. Now, you say, "only humans can appreciate this uniqueness", but that is tautological. You are basically saying because a human is best at doing the things only humans can do, we know they are the most special of all the unique animals. But you could say the same about the peacock. You aren't half the peacock it is, in fact, you couldn't even understand what it is about the peacock that makes it so special because you are so un-peacock-like. It is your psychology, not some universal quality that humans posess, that makes you think you are so unique.

and, as 753 pointed out, we aren't all that unique. Most of the cognitive skills we have are seen in the animal kingdom, and in many we are surpassed by other animals. The only unique human quality is language, but really, that is only our elaborate tail or flame shooting ass.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Our abilities are are actually very God-like. We create things that didn't exist before. We imagine new ideas and communicate those ideas to others who can now imagine the shared idea. We judge like gods. We have an innate idea of what we feel is fair or unfair according to our personal opinion. We must choose our own futures. Our ability to choose our every move, when compounded with our creative power and our ability to determine fairness and unfairness, leaves us with a connection to everything that we would understand a god to be.

well, yes, exactly. There is, to me, no clearer evidence of how man made gods are than their clearly human qualities. They are just like extra-human humans, often just reflecting "aspects" of the human psyche.

you are trying to tell me that the all powerful lord of the universe acts like a hot headed bronze age lord when insulted by a human? really? that isn't man just inventing some patriatrch in the sky?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Now apply our awareness of the existence of past and future. We quickly determine that some power defies what we understand as the passage of time. Some power exists indefinitely as this power did NOT originate period. No beginning is a mental oxymoron and we're all aware of this. We may conclude that it is obviously beyond our ability to comprehend and dismiss exerting energies on a moot point. We also have the option of concluding that like all things created by us, an idea was the source of the creation of all other things as well. If one is entertaining the latter, suddenly everything has purpose even if that purpose is outside of our abilities to comprehend.

on what basis would you claim any of this? humans have never created a universe, thus, there is no reason at all to think it takes human qualities to create a universe. Further, there could be an unlimited number of ways that a universe "could" be created, it says nothing about how it "was" created.

Originally posted by The MISTER
A person who entertains the idea that it is a moot point cannot so easily be defined and thus falls victim to the judgement of humans who feel assured in their beliefs, as many are manipulated by teachers of superiority over others.

thats silly on its face

no one intellectual position is any more or less biased than another, and you probably shouldn't suggest that anyone who disagrees with you has fallen victim to some type of manipulation... you know, in a way that makes you look foolishly assured of your beliefs, the exact thing you are trying to criticize

Originally posted by The MISTER
The idea that causing evil and allowing it to happen are synonymous is interesting.

it might be, but I have explicitly outlined why God having a divine plan is no the same as him letting it happen. Nobody is arguing that God bares responsibility because he let it happen. God bares responsibility because it was part of his divine plan that set the universe in motion.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If a man knows that this world has suffering for his children if he allows them to live is he showing mercy when he kills his babies? He has succesfully spared them of all possible suffering. This example shows how if God were to intervene in all possible human decisions then humans would not be creatures that are in his image.

that example shows nothing, except a complete lack of creativity. The only option God has available is to kill? he can't do anything about the suffering? really? what definition of benevolent do you use?

Originally posted by The MISTER
They would be like the instinct driven beasts that do not create individual paths, judge fairness, and appreciate their position amongst all other animals. They would lack what it takes to love him of their own free will. This would be a case of God creating a rock that is too big for him to lift. Since all is in his power he could lift the rock whenever he decided defying the impossible. He does whatever he wants to do. It would seem as though he derives pleasure and frustration out of us having the God-like ability to do exactly as we please. Realistically, how else would a spirit of infinite power escape boredom? What we consider unfair and fair wouldn't be over God if one believes he exists. 😮‍💨

are you suggesting human suffering exists because of God's boredom?

Originally posted by The MISTER
edit: Theists and atheists can be mentally lacking. The difference is that atheism can be defined in so many varying ways. If a theist tells you that that he is hindu or practices voodoo you could wikipedia their religion and learn something about their ideals. An atheist would have to elaborate, for you cannot know much about their individual views with only the knowledge that they are atheists.

But arguing that they really agree with you because they don't comprehend something that you feel you've figured out is not affecting the true definition of atheist. When your method of discussion relies so heavily on illustrating to them that they aren't really atheists, that assumes that you think you know something they have over looked in reaching that conclusion. When you are confronted with the fact that your belief that you are speaking in defense of some all-knowing, all-powerful being that your own mythology explains can not be known, still doesn't alter their lack of belief in this being, you recast your innocent questions through a prism to trap them into agreeing with you. If you are not preaching, then you would not be arguing.

Originally posted by The MISTER
It may seem unwarranted but one man can singlehandedly save the rainforest or lead to its destruction. One man can spread prosperity across the earth or leave the earth in turmoil. It is important to all the creatures on this planet that the one creature, human being, behave in a considerate and responsible way. Each individual human will help the world or hurt it with their actions. Even if they choose to wander the earth as a hermit they may hurt those they leave behind or hurt those that they chose to never interact with. Humans must choose to act and those choices will either go with what they feel is fair or unfair. I wouldn't think that it's pretentious, just a blessing or a curse.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats silly on its face

no one intellectual position is any more or less biased than another, and you probably shouldn't suggest that anyone who disagrees with you has fallen victim to some type of manipulation... you know, in a way that makes you look foolishly assured of your beliefs, the exact thing you are trying to criticize

I myself have heard what people are programmed to believe about atheists despite the fact that the term is very vague. John Hagee has a church full of people that probably think that they know all that they need to know about anyone who refers to themself as an atheist. I was in no way suggesting that atheists are manipulated in my earlier post. I was referring to theists and know for certain that this was attempted on me in the past.

I may be foolishly self assured, but I am self assurred that all people have equal value and that people shouldnt judge others as if they actually are gods. With all my self assuredness it would be wrong for me to judge another person as wrong for having their own. I may be proven wrong one day but until that day comes I'll keep believing the simple things that I am sure about.

Originally posted by The MISTER
the simple things that I am sure about.

What, exactly, are those things?

Originally posted by skekUng
What, exactly, are those things?

Originally posted by The MISTER
[B]Something doesn't come from nothing.