Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Colter]

What is the end of the universe?

Gods unrevealed purpose.

 

[Received]

Some atheists, such as myself, claim that the reward of a life lived well is a life lived well. The fact that I don't reflect on my life after my death does not make my life any less important to me.

Which is exactly why this type of thinking, arguably much more implicit with atheists than theists, that the reward for something is intrinsic in some way in the doing makes religious understandings of the opposite (the reward of something is "good job" or "well done by beloved servant") pretty lukewarm by comparison.

In a sense it nihilates things. If we're valuing something based on what happens as a reward after this thing, rather than valuing the thing we do for no other reason than because we do it, then we're only going to value the reward following the behavior and not the behavior itself. That has huge moral implications. "Hey, I'm not going to kill you, not because the act of killing is a vice and therefore destructive in itself, but because I would get punished after I die if I kill you." I'd definitely not want this person babysitting my kids.

Any religion that wants to be taken seriously needs to move beyond this thinking.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some atheists, such as myself, claim that the reward of a life lived well is a life lived well. The fact that I don't reflect on my life after my death does not make my life any less important to me.

That's well put.

It's sad that so many people suffer from a purely instrumental view of means and ends. The sort of spirituality (theistic or nontheistic) that I could respect is one which values sacred ends-in-themselves, rather than obsessing over grandiose plans of eternal life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

That's well put.

It's sad that so many people suffer from a purely instrumental view of means and ends. The sort of spirituality (theistic or nontheistic) that I could respect is one which values sacred ends-in-themselves, rather than obsessing over grandiose plans of eternal life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree with this, in my own religious philosophy, in the life after death we start right where we left off, death adds nothing to the salvaged individual except for the fact of survival. We are still confronted with the same growth hurdles. To me Gods way is the right way, not because of a reward later but just because its right.

One definition of knowing what Gods will is when faced with several options is to do that which you will ultimately respect yourself for.

 

[Eudaimonist]

One definition of knowing what Gods will is when faced with several options is to do that which you will ultimately respect yourself for.

Awesome. I've often said the same about ethics (minus the God's will part) from my naturalistic and virtue ethics perspective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Its Atheist that claim death is the reward of a life lived well.

Which atheist says that?

You have quite clearly said that if you die and there is no afterlife, that life WAS meaningless. You are claiming that a lack of an afterlife makes this life meaningless. Why would you say that?

A dead person doesn't draw on the experience of his or her life, derives no reflective satisfaction to the enjoyment of the moment.

A living person does draw on experiences and enjoys life.

 

[Chany]

Gods unrevealed purpose.

What could the possible end be for this purpose? When does the line of ends finish?

Eventually, something must be the end we are aiming at; something that is an end in and of itself. It is valuable in it's own sake and for no other reason.

I am saying that the only thing that we can ever value is somehow related to our life (or, to be more precise in the context, existence). Simply tacking on an afterlife and a deity doesn't change anything.

 

[Chany]

Which is exactly why this type of thinking, arguably much more implicit with atheists than theists, that the reward for something is intrinsic in some way in the doing makes religious understandings of the opposite (the reward of something is "good job" or "well done by beloved servant") pretty lukewarm by comparison.

In a sense it nihilates things. If we're valuing something based on what happens as a reward after this thing, rather than valuing the thing we do for no other reason than because we do it, then we're only going to value the reward following the behavior and not the behavior itself. That has huge moral implications. "Hey, I'm not going to kill you, not because the act of killing is a vice and therefore destructive in itself, but because I would get punished after I die if I kill you." I'd definitely not want this person babysitting my kids.

Any religion that wants to be taken seriously needs to move beyond this thinking.

Which is pretty much any religion with a threat of punishment in the afterlife.

Let's say there is an afterlife and a god, but no punishment for wrongdoing. Why should I follow the moral code at all times?

 

[Colter]

Which atheist says that?

You have quite clearly said that if you die and there is no afterlife, that life WAS meaningless. You are claiming that a lack of an afterlife makes this life meaningless. Why would you say that?



A living person does draw on experiences and enjoys life.

It was in relation to the individual who is dead, they don't exist to enjoy the meaning. Others left behind could benefit from say Abraham Lincoln even though he is gone. But in the cosmic economy nothing good is ever lost even though an individual may elect not to survive death.

 

[Davian]

Which is exactly why this type of thinking, arguably much more implicit with atheists than theists, that the reward for something is intrinsic in some way in the doing makes religious understandings of the opposite (the reward of something is "good job" or "well done by beloved servant") pretty lukewarm by comparison.

In a sense it nihilates things. If we're valuing something based on what happens as a reward after this thing, rather than valuing the thing we do for no other reason than because we do it, then we're only going to value the reward following the behavior and not the behavior itself. That has huge moral implications. "Hey, I'm not going to kill you, not because the act of killing is a vice and therefore destructive in itself, but because I would get punished after I die if I kill you." I'd definitely not want this person babysitting my kids.

Indeed. And, with some religions, even that killing of your children is forgivable. The only 'sin' is to not believe.

Any religion that wants to be taken seriously needs to move beyond this thinking.

Know of any?

 

[Chany]

It was in relation to the individual who is dead, they don't exist to enjoy the meaning. Others left behind could benefit from say Abraham Lincoln even though he is gone. But in the cosmic economy nothing good is ever list even though an individual may elect not to survive death.

Individuals who are dead are nonexistent, correct. They can't care. I'm not seeing the point or how it disputes anything I'm saying. Again, because existence can be an end in and of itself, eventual nonexistence doesn't make existence any less valuable, only finite.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was in relation to the individual who is dead, they don't exist to enjoy the meaning.

The living are enjoying life.

Others left behind could benefit from say Abraham Lincoln even though he is gone. But in the cosmic economy nothing good is ever list even though an individual may elect not to survive death.

Assuming you mean "nothing good is everlasting" . . .

Why would something good need to be everlasting in order to be meaningful?

 

[Colter]

The living are enjoying life.



Assuming you mean "nothing good is everlasting" . . .

Why would something good need to be everlasting in order to be meaningful?

It doesn't, to the dead nothing is anything.

 

[Colter]

Individuals who are dead are nonexistent, correct. They can't care. I'm not seeing the point or how it disputes anything I'm saying. Again, because existence can be an end in and of itself, eventual nonexistence doesn't make existence any less valuable, only finite.

Right, we don't have any disagreement on this.

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't, to the dead nothing is anything.

You seem to be hung up on death. What about life?

 

[Received]

Indeed. And, with some religions, even that killing of your children is forgivable. The only 'sin' is to not believe.

With some.

Know of any?

Penisanity?

 

[Received]

Which is pretty much any religion with a threat of punishment in the afterlife.

Let's say there is an afterlife and a god, but no punishment for wrongdoing. Why should I follow the moral code at all times?

Like, no punishment for wrongdoing in the here and now?

 

[Colter]

You seem to be hung up on death. What about life?

I'm not hung up on death, it's just the topic at the moment. I'm more into the meaning and purpose of life, of a philosophy that caries one beyond the grave. Death arose in the discussion because ultimately death is the destiny of godless materialism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm more into the meaning and purpose of life

So are we.

of a philosophy that caries one beyond the grave.

I believe in life before death.

Death arose in the discussion because ultimately death is the destiny of godless materialism.

If you mean that everyone dies then, yes, everyone dies. However, it is the meaning of this life that is important as far as personal meaning and destiny goes, not the nonexistence of death.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

So are we.



I believe in life before death.



If you mean that everyone dies then, yes, everyone dies. However, it is the meaning of this life that is important as far as personal meaning and destiny goes, not the nonexistence.

This world is where I am right now, but its not permanent, so I won't waste time building a home on it. For the saved this life is a preparation for the next life, important for sure, but transient. It's sort of like a Residence Inn.