Are atheists nobler than christians?

[ShieldAxe]

If an atheist and a christian perform the same exact good deed, is not the atheist more noble in his actions? The christian has a heavenly reward as motivation. The atheist doesn't. The christian's deed is cheapened by the selfish motivation. The atheist's deed is more selfless. (All other conditions being equal).

[harvey1]

I think I'm grasping your message here. Are you saying that since atheists don't believe in an afterlife, they should think this life is pointless? So life is meaningless without an afterlife? That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Not necessarily. If the universe has a purpose, even if we are not part of that purpose, it still has meaning. It is not a monkey typing away. What gives meaning is actually very simple: it has meaning. What removes meaning is also very simple: it has no meaning. It all gets back to information theory. If a message has meaning, that is to say, there is a sender having intent behind the information (structure) provided, then this is a theistic outlook. If a message has no meaning, that is to say, there is no intent by any sender behind the information provided, then this is an atheistic outlook.

The situation of no meaning is made worse in that our time is infinitesimal (i.e., no afterlife), but even if we existed forever, it would still be a meaningless universe if atheism is true.

[Bugmaster]

Morality is a subjective term to the atheist. It's like saying that someone has a good taste in Chardonney.

I don't speak for all atheists, obviously, but my own morality is at least somewhat objective. For example, killing random people is objectively wrong, because of the Golden Rule, and the fact that it weakens the society that supports me. Same thing goes for stealing. Adultery, I don't care so much about, and "thou shalt have no other gods before me" is obviously not a big thing either.

Atheists have different morals than theists, yes, but that doesn't mean that our morals are totally random.

[Bugmaster]

If atheism is correct, then everything great and small is meaningless... What do you mean by "meaning"? When I say the atheist view of the universe lacks ultimate meaning, I mean that there is no purpose or intent to the universe for one to grasp beyond the fact that it exists. That is, it's random data.

I just don't see how you make the jump from "the Universe has no externally-imposed purpose" to "everything is meaningless". Why can't we impose our own meaning on our lives ? I strive to improve my life and the lives of people I care about (and, to a much lesser extent, humanity at large). I do this not because some God arbitrarily commands me to do it, but of my own free will.

In the end, "meaning" is a construct in our heads, it's not a universal constant (though, I can see how a theist would disagree). Thus, I don't see why you can have this construct in your localized head, but I can't.

Think about it this way: the Christian worldview is sort of like a giant puzzle. You're a tiny piece of the puzzle, and your goal is to fit into your appointed slot, along with the billions of other puzzle pieces, to please the puzzle designer.

The atheistic worldview is more like a blank canvas, with some inks and paints sitting next to it. You are still constrained by some laws of physics (mixing blue and yellow won't give you purple, etc.), and you'll never fill the entire canvas, but you're free to paint what you like in your own small corner of it.

Now that I think about it, I see how both worldviews can be comforting, in their own ways.

[Bugmaster]

If a message has no meaning, that is to say, there is no intent by any sender behind the information provided, then this is an atheistic outlook.

Strictly speaking, this is not true. The laws of physics that underlie or Universe are not random; thus, the Universe is not just random noise. That's kind of off-topic, though.

even if we existed forever, it would still be a meaningless universe if atheism is true.

Actually, there's a school of thought (The Singularity) that states that we can live essentially forever (not today, but in the distant future), and that we can obtain powers that are virtually godlike. I am not a big believer in The Singularity, but it seems like it would require some serious responsibility (being a responsible god is not easy), and thus, would create all kind of additional "meanings" for our existence.

[ShieldAxe]

Harvey that's a bit silly don't you think? You think someone who rejects your god is ignoble? I think belief in god is a terrible measure of nobility. Actions and their intent are a much better measure.

Well, I would much rather live next to a peaceful atheist than a vengeful theist, if that's what you mean. However, I think I'm more likely to live next to a peaceful atheist who's kids shave their heads and shoots bee bees at my windows. Like I said before, it's not the atheist that concerns me, it has always been their kids that concern me. So, I have to weigh those considerations in any evaluation of an atheists righteousness. (Although, I do think there are righteous atheists. Perhaps QED is such a person.)

Your getting in to parenting styles here. I agree that kids need consequences to undesirable behavior but I don't think eternal damnation need be the consequence. I'll let you know how it goes with my kid(s).

[ShieldAxe]

I think I'm grasping your message here. Are you saying that since atheists don't believe in an afterlife, they should think this life is pointless? So life is meaningless without an afterlife? That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Not necessarily. If the universe has a purpose, even if we are not part of that purpose, it still has meaning. It is not a monkey typing away. What gives meaning is actually very simple: it has meaning. What removes meaning is also very simple: it has no meaning. It all gets back to information theory. If a message has meaning, that is to say, there is a sender having intent behind the information (structure) provided, then this is a theistic outlook. If a message has no meaning, that is to say, there is no intent by any sender behind the information provided, then this is an atheistic outlook.

The situation of no meaning is made worse in that our time is infinitesimal (i.e., no afterlife), but even if we existed forever, it would still be a meaningless universe if atheism is true.

Like bugmaster, I don't see how the existence or nonexistence of a (unknown) purpose behind the creation of the universe has any bearing on the meaningfulness of individual lives.

Let's say you found out the creator created the universe as an activity to pass the time and he may just wipe it away one day if inclined to. No real plan just a whim. Would you suddenly become an amoral lunatic? Doubt it.

[QED]

Okay. The creationist says, "but I've just read [QED's post] and it gave me a great sense of meaning. I could relate to the content and see [my views in his writings] in a different and more useful light. It had a message about [creationism] that I could take away and [use to argue against evolutionists] should I wish to. That it was all sourced from [QED's unimagined intentions] is irrelevant. The content has it's own meaning. The [real] meaning behind [the post] might be as [atheistic] as [Richard Dawkin's] next [prayer]."

Does the creationist here have any foundation in reality? I don't think so. The creationist here is just gone off mis-reading you and taking some kind of misguided delight from your prose. You didn't write what the creationist thinks of your writings. It is the creationist's own self-deception. You are an atheist. You reject creationism. There is no creationist meaning in anything you write. The creationist needs to come to grips with the meaningless of your posts with regard to their creationist beliefs. Don't you agree?

Good, we've now got a clear insight into the role of interpretation. The theist and atheist are both interpreting the universe and that exercise can be subject to misinterpretation. Interpreting a metauniverse is likewise subject to misinterpretation. Just as we might switch our attention from the play to the intentions of it's author, while we might assume Shakespeare was writing out of a noble concern for the betterment of humanity, I have shown that it might be just as likely that he was short of cash.

So what business do we have in making assumptions of such great magnitude? I'm afraid that the only meat in your argument comes down to an appeal to consequences. Even If you can successfully argue that a belief in God is beneficial to humanity then it matters not one bit if God actually exists or not. And that is the overarching subject of every debate like this.

This business about "atheists spitting in the face of God" is all very amusing. Surely you must realize what a logical absurdity this is. If there is any unrighteousness towards God it can only come from those who make false claims about properties of his existence.

[harvey1]

...what business do we have in making assumptions of such great magnitude? I'm afraid that the only meat in your argument comes down to an appeal to consequences.

Which argument are you referring to? The impossibility of material causation? An unreasonable amount of complexity needed for your brute fact (meta)universe? etc... etc... I think since I came to this site I've pointed out problem after problem with the atheist view, and I have long ago come to the conclusion that atheism is a psychological phenomena given the scant number of responses to theistic arguments. Soo... let's address the psychological attraction of atheism (i.e., the meaning that atheism provides). My argument here is that atheism leads to nihilism, and therefore that removes the last reason as to why an atheist should be content with their beliefs.

Even If you can successfully argue that a belief in God is beneficial to humanity then it matters not one bit if God actually exists or not. And that is the overarching subject of every debate like this.

Well, most truths, I think, eventually reduce to pragmatic reasons. We know because we are tremendously benefitted by those beliefs. If we believed in enough irrational beliefs, especially critical ones, humans would cease to exist. So, there is a tie between pragmatism and truth.

This business about "atheists spitting in the face of God" is all very amusing. Surely you must realize what a logical absurdity this is. If there is any unrighteousness towards God it can only come from those who make false claims about properties of his existence.

Why is it absurd? Denying God is a horrible thing to do. And, for what? Why do most atheists reject God? My experience is because they are a rebellious lot that feed on their own egos. I'm often astonished how atheists are all about themselves. I must admit, you appear to be outside that mold, and appear to be more concerned about truth like me, but you have a deep prejudice against any kind of God belief. I have not figured out exactly the reason. When we first began our talk, you had not the least objection to platonism, you even gave hints that you were favorable to this interpretation. However, when I began chipping away at the atheist image using a platonist cosmology, you immediately backed away from platonism completely. I conclude from that action that you are prejudiced against a belief in God. As this platonist re-shifting of position indicates, it cannot be solely because God doesn't strike you as reasonable. You've even stayed clear of agnosticism when at times you've given strong arguments for agnosticism. For example, the argument above ("So what business do we have in making assumptions of such great magnitude?) is a type of agnostic argument. It's as if you feel that you owe it to others to be an atheist.

[QED]

...what business do we have in making assumptions of such great magnitude? I'm afraid that the only meat in your argument comes down to an appeal to consequences.

Which argument are you referring to?

This one will do:

Soo... let's address the psychological attraction of atheism (i.e., the meaning that atheism provides). My argument here is that atheism leads to nihilism, and therefore that removes the last reason as to why an atheist should be content with their beliefs.

It looks to me as if your fear of this nihilism is a consequence that you are appealing against. That the world might truly be nihilistic is inadmissible to you no matter what the evidence.

This business about "atheists spitting in the face of God" is all very amusing. Surely you must realize what a logical absurdity this is. If there is any unrighteousness towards God it can only come from those who make false claims about properties of his existence.

Why is it absurd? Denying God is a horrible thing to do.

Horrible only to those who assume his existence. The atheist is simply disagreeing with that assumption.

And, for what? Why do most atheists reject God? My experience is because they are a rebellious lot that feed on their own egos. I'm often astonished how atheists are all about themselves.

Then I would suggest that you haven't been concentrating on their arguments. I disagree with your assumption about the existence of God for all the standard reasons offered by atheists. I may have presented them with more or less grace, but the essential message is the same. I see a world which at first glance looks planned and designed but understand that is only an appearance. You must concede that there are a number of levels on which this ambiguity exists. Religious fundamentalists cannot see past this basic illusion, and you know that the atheist is right when they point to our provenance through the principles of evolution. But your brand of theisms steps up a level and assumes that evolution itself is a tool created by God to implement his plan. That's where the semantics come in and we find ourselves playing with words.

The argument then falls upon observations which might reveal a distinction between a mechanistic, autonomous world running precisely and unswervingly to the principles of evolution versus one in which a divine hand guides the world along certain paths. I can do no better than report that the world has all the appearance of the former. You insist that this is an illusion, yet unlike the evidence for evolution which shows ID to be an illusion, you have yet to provide evidence that the hand of God is on the tiller.

I must admit, you appear to be outside that mold, and appear to be more concerned about truth like me, but you have a deep prejudice against any kind of God belief.

I simply can't see God operating at any level Harvey. If you can point me to something unambiguously divine I'll be only too glad to change my outlook. But it doesn't help that there are so many human motives to invent a God and so much compulsion for people to distort the world in such a way as to admit him. You are left with a paradox when you turn this round and point it back at the atheist. For it to work you have to cast significant numbers of people like me in a light that simply isn't compatible with what you understand of peoples character.

I have not figured out exactly the reason. When we first began our talk, you had not the least objection to platonism, you even gave hints that you were favorable to this interpretation. However, when I began chipping away at the atheist image using a platonist cosmology, you immediately backed away from platonism completely. I conclude from that action that you are prejudiced against a belief in God. As this platonist re-shifting of position indicates, it cannot be solely because God doesn't strike you as reasonable. You've even stayed clear of agnosticism when at times you've given strong arguments for agnosticism. For example, the argument above ("So what business do we have in making assumptions of such great magnitude?) is a type of agnostic argument. It's as if you feel that you owe it to others to be an atheist.

I think it is fair to say that you are not as comfortable with uncertainty as I am. I am open to any number of theories concerning the properties of a metauniverse. The only thing that I am certain of (and this is why I am not agnostic) is that the resulting world is unplanned. This is all it takes to be an atheist.

[harvey1]

It looks to me as if your fear of this nihilism is a consequence that you are appealing against. That the world might truly be nihilistic is inadmissible to you no matter what the evidence.

No, I can accept whatever is the fact of the matter. I don't see nihilism as beneficial though, so if there are more optimistic beliefs that are consistent with the evidence, I would be apt to gravitate toward those optimistic beliefs. For example, human civilization doesn't look like it will survive the threats facing it over the next few centuries, but I'm optimistic that it will. I don't think that's an irrational belief, but it is definitely holding out for the more optimistic consequence.

Horrible only to those who assume his existence. The atheist is simply disagreeing with that assumption.

Well, in the process of disagreeing with that assumption the atheist is making assumptions, and this is what is horrible. They would reject a commonsense assumption for an assumption that doesn't make any sense at all. And for what purpose? Ego? In most cases that appears to be the reason.

Then I would suggest that you haven't been concentrating on their arguments.

Oh, I concentrate very hard on the arguments. But, they leave their arguments without ever reconciling them with the counterarguments made against their views. What am I supposed to do, just imagine that they came up with an answer to the counterarguments?