Should Atheists Use God for their own benefit?

[BwhoUR]

Atheists use God, Jesus and the Bible to argue with the religious in religious debate and it is assumed we do so in order that we can prove something based on the "evidence" we have. Evidence which religious persons bring up as proof we argue with, even though we don't believe the Bible was written by God, etc.

It is obvious when we do so here, in an open forum when we admit we are Atheists. Is it also okay to use god or religion for our own good in other ways? Can we hide our Atheism when we do it? Here is an example: My City is run by conservative Christians, I grow pot legally in my State (stay with me, people) My grow area was lacking a posted reccomendation. I was cited and fined $100.00. I of course am fighting the fine on principle because under normal circumstances, an oversight like this would call for a written notice and 10 days to fix with no fine and the Code provides for that. Since the Christian cops around here think pot is for sinners, I felt it would help me to even the playing field to say my medicine was natural, "as God intended."

Was this moral? Does it matter if I don't believe that but know that they might? If I know God influences people, is it okay to use the power for good?

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 14 by Goat]

Your words ring true and although I don't know if I won my appeal yet, any victory seems hollow, as there was no virtue in it. Even if my fake God argument was not the deciding factor, how will I know and so it spoils everything else. Socrates would never have stooped so low but he did believe his actions were divine and that his convictions would someday be rewarded. I have no such inducement but feel unimpressed by my actions nevertheless. I can only learn from my mistake and not repeat it. My reward is confidence in my future judgment and wisdom and in knowing who I really am and who I want to be.

[Divine Insight]

You appear to have climbed every mountain and swum every river I posed to you but the more practical rational answer is that the world contains plenty of good and nearly everything has a good utility.

According to the Bible an atheist is an abomination and not a one doeth good. I don't buy that.

Christians cling to the good.

What justification do atheists have for clinging to the good?

Clinging to good? I don't of it in terms of clinging to anything. Typically I don't do things that are normally considered to be "bad" for the very simple reason that I have no interest in doing them.

The only time this might come into question is when the so-called "bad" thing that I'm doing isn't really bad at all. Like say masturbation. And the only reason I bring that up is because it harms no one, yet religious people tend to think that it's "bad" for some reason. So usually the so-called "bad" things I might do aren't even truly "bad" as far as I'm concerned.

And I simply have no desire to actually do the truly "bad" stuff. So I wouldn't have any desire to do "bad" things even if it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that no God exists or could exist.

In fact, I ask you, "Would you want to go out and do bad things if no God exists?"

If so, then you are quite different from me to be sure.

And if not, then you should be able to see that a God would make no difference at all.

Also given that whenever we discuss atheism/secularism we end up discussing subjectivity and determinism it is really a matter of not examining the alternative that has you arrive at your conclusions. To examine atheism/secularism and to believe in subjectivity and determinism is truly not rational. But who examines their own beliefs?

I believe that humanity has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that human morality is indeed subjective and relative. After all, most humans believe that it is moral to defend yourself from harm even if that means going to war. Therefore just about all humans believe in relative morality. In other words, morality is only justified by "Good Behavior". And if the enemy is seen to not be behaving properly then war against them is morally justified.

I don't disagree with this line of thinking, I merely point out that it is indeed subjective in its nature.

Also, I have never supported determinism and I see no need to. After all, the secular science of Quantum Mechanics tells us that at the core of our reality nothing is determined. It's all probabilistic. And therefore I have no need to support determinism from a secular point of view based on our modern day understanding of nature.

I think theists often attempt to shove "atheists" into a box by demanding what they must believe. Which would be ok, if they could actually give support for the demands they make. But there is nothing that supports that a secularist must believe in determinism.

In fact, according to Sam Harris, a secularist doesn't even need to believe in subjective morality since he claims that human morality can be scientifically objective. I personally have no need for such a concept. I'm quite happy with my own subjective morality. Therefore I have no need to bother trying to make it objective.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 14 by Goat]

Your words ring true and although I don't know if I won my appeal yet, any victory seems hollow, as there was no virtue in it. Even if my fake God argument was not the deciding factor, how will I know and so it spoils everything else. Socrates would never have stooped so low but he did believe his actions were divine and that his convictions would someday be rewarded. I have no such inducement but feel unimpressed by my actions nevertheless. I can only learn from my mistake and not repeat it. My reward is confidence in my future judgment and wisdom and in knowing who I really am and who I want to be.

In other words, you are doing the best you can, to the best of your ability, and when you make a mistake, you try to learn from it, and not repeat it.

Isn't that the best anybody can do? Even those people who believe in God, and pray and 'repent', isn't that what they are doing, with the added unsupported belief that 'someone forgave them'.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 13 by Wootah]

What justification do atheists have for clinging to the good?

Also given that whenever we discuss atheism/secularism we end up discussing subjectivity and determinism it is really a matter of not examining the alternative that has you arrive at your conclusions. To examine atheism/secularism and to believe in subjectivity and determinism is truly not rational. But who examines their own beliefs?

I do but what you and I regard as 'rational' can be in disagreement.

I can't speak for all atheists because there's no atheist doctrine, more like a room full of cats that don't know each other, but I guess 'clinging to the good' is something most people do, unless they are damaged by significant mental illness or disorder. Religion has been helpful, if not pivotal, for most folks to be able to conceive of a brighter future for themselves. Humanism has taken on some of that role, but I don't see that the intention is any different. I've been both religious and humanist, and aside from particular religious doctrines, I just wanted a decent life and not too much trouble, no different than the next person.

As much as religionists want to set themselves apart, or nontheists from the religious, we all experience the same pleasures and pains and hopes for 'better' times be it in the corporeal future of this life or an afterlife.

[OnceConvinced]

What justification do atheists have for clinging to the good?

Because bad sucks.

One can fill their life with negative people, people who treat each other bad. They can stay at jobs with horrible bosses and workmates. They can remain in unfulfilling jobs. I want a happy peaceful life so if something doesn't fit... if something is not nice and good, then I work at changing the situation. I get rid of the bad and keep the things that are good.

Contrary to what some Christians may believe, Atheists are not the Addams Family. They don't delight in all things horrible while shunning what it lovely and nice.

[Hamsaka]

What justification do atheists have for clinging to the good?

Because bad sucks.

One can fill their life with negative people, people who treat each other bad. They can stay at jobs with horrible bosses and workmates. They can remain in unfulfilling jobs. I want a happy peaceful life so if something doesn't fit... if something is not nice and good, then I work at changing the situation. I get rid of the bad and keep the things that are good.

Contrary to what some Christians may believe, Atheists are not the Addams Family. They don't delight in all things horrible while shunning what it lovely and nice.

And . . . what justification do we (atheists) have? That was the question.

If one believes that what they value MUST be justified (given) by a god, it would look as though atheists have no justification -- they don't recognize a justification giver, so how could they justify anything, and have it be REALLY justified?

What's more, the value must be justified by the true god (usually one's own), and therefore the values of others who do not take their lead from that particular god share a lack of justification with the atheists. The wrong god, or a false god can't provide true justification either.

Which leaves many billions of people running about the planet WITHOUT true justification to seek the 'good' (or without any at all). When I was a Christian I used to wonder 'don't they know they are barking up the wrong tree? How can they stand it?" (we were learning about how to give the REAL word of God to Catholics).

Without true justification from God, there is no justification, and no 'good' -- or so I was told and believed. It's not difficult to bring it back from memory. Life wasn't worth squat without God, and people who lived without Him suffered for it, both from their disobedience and from rejecting God's 'good'.

After having been a Christian (not a very good one, too skeptical) and now a nontheist, I can look at both POVs, and I see that people do what they will whether they believe in a god or not. Most people (like I said above) want a decent life and not too much tragedy; they want fairness and justice (for the bad guys) and mercy (for themselves). We're not different except in how we name and conceptualize. I don't believe there is a god or ever was, so where else could justification come from but from ourselves, to ourselves? It eliminates the false distinctions implicit in Wootah's question.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 19 by Bust Nak]

Bust Nak, can you direct me to one of these conversations? Thank you.

A couple that springs to mind:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28097
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 765#710765

While I don't expect Wootah to accept our answers as truth, I do however expect him to acknowledge that our answers are a) follow logically form our premises; b) internally consistent; and c) not obviously externally inconsistent. In short, rational.

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 27 by Bust Nak]

Thank you. These subjects are clearer now.

[BwhoUR]

Atheists use God, Jesus and the Bible to argue with the religious in religious debate and it is assumed we do so in order that we can prove something based on the "evidence" we have. Evidence which religious persons bring up as proof we argue with, even though we don't believe the Bible was written by God, etc.

It is obvious when we do so here, in an open forum when we admit we are Atheists. Is it also okay to use god or religion for our own good in other ways? Can we hide our Atheism when we do it? Here is an example: My City is run by conservative Christians, I grow pot legally in my State (stay with me, people) My grow area was lacking a posted reccomendation. I was cited and fined $100.00. I of course am fighting the fine on principle because under normal circumstances, an oversight like this would call for a written notice and 10 days to fix with no fine and the Code provides for that. Since the Christian cops around here think pot is for sinners, I felt it would help me to even the playing field to say my medicine was natural, "as God intended."

Was this moral? Does it matter if I don't believe that but know that they might? If I know God influences people, is it okay to use the power for good?

UPDATE: I WON! My appeal was so good it was dismissed without a hearing. I have to admit, it feels great. I do think I won despite the reference to God, but can't be sure, but I will not use that tactic again. Lesson learned.