Why Did God Create Atheists?

[Miles]

.

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

—Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

So, reasonable or not. We atheists exist to set an example to the morally stunted of the world?


.

[Purple Knight]

So, reasonable or not. We atheists exist to set an example to the morally stunted of the world?

Nobody's morally stunted. But still I say yes, very reasonable.

It's more like each side has half of the truth.

Half #1: You should do the right thing for the right reason, and that right reason is not, "I'll get a reward."

Half #2: People who do the right thing should be rewarded, or at very least, not punished. They deserve to be treated kindly.

The religious half, alone, devalues life, overvalues blind obedience, and overvalues blind kindness. It is effectively empty of morality, since it exalts the reward, but it has people being kind to one another, despite the fact that it has them doing it for a dubious reason.

The atheist half, alone, overvalues blind morality as an end in itself, and can easily fall into a hateful and cruel dystopia of expecting people to do the right thing despite being punished for it. It is full of morality and empty of reciprocity and basic kindness.

[boatsnguitars]

.

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

—Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

So, reasonable or not. We atheists exist to set an example to the morally stunted of the world?


.

I suppose it's a clever way to show that Atheists are superior whether there is a God or not. Sadly, Theists would burn us at the stake if they have the chance instead of accepting this.

[Miles]

.

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

—Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

So, reasonable or not. We atheists exist to set an example to the morally stunted of the world?


.

I suppose it's a clever way to show that Atheists are superior whether there is a God or not. Sadly, Theists would burn us at the stake if they have the chance instead of accepting this.

I wouldn't say superior, but rather that they adhere to a more enlightened morality. But this is nothing new, theists have always been playing catch up to atheists.

.

[boatsnguitars]

.

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

—Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

So, reasonable or not. We atheists exist to set an example to the morally stunted of the world?


.

I suppose it's a clever way to show that Atheists are superior whether there is a God or not. Sadly, Theists would burn us at the stake if they have the chance instead of accepting this.

I wouldn't say superior, but rather that they adhere to a more enlightened morality. But this is nothing new, theists have always been playing catch up to atheists.

.

When I was a Theist I thought Theist morality was superior. When I became an Atheist I struggled to shed those old feelings - until I started looking into the issue.

I am now convinced, through years of reading about moral theory, that Theism is - by far - the poorest system of morality: whether or not a God exists. It simply does not work, and in fact, works to support bad things more than it supports good things. And, I've seen from the average Theist to WLC or other "Illuminati" that they have such a poor understanding of morality and really should not continue to poison people's minds.

For example, WLC trying to explain that it was Good that the Israelites committed genocide because God told them to - and who are we to question God, it is clearly a flawed system because it's a small step for someone to say Hitler or Stalin was used by God to murder millions. It is clearly not a workable system, and no religion makes the point that we need, as a species, to work it out.

Religion and religionists are the worst when it comes to moral values. Period.

[Purple Knight]

I am now convinced, through years of reading about moral theory, that Theism is - by far - the poorest system of morality: whether or not a God exists. It simply does not work, and in fact, works to support bad things more than it supports good things. And, I've seen from the average Theist to WLC or other "Illuminati" that they have such a poor understanding of morality and really should not continue to poison people's minds.

I agree that it's a poor understanding of morality.

You can't really argue with the fact that doing something on the basis of getting a reward is good. A dog will do that.

A dog will also risk its life for its pack, and when it does that, it seems much more good than it does when it sits for a treat.

Yet the clearly higher morality is also crueler. If people shouldn't be doing it for the reward, why should we reward them? Why should we even be kind to them? Aren't we helping them be moral by being nasty to them? Aren't we helping them achieve higher morality by punishing them for doing the right thing, so that when they do it anyway, it is more noble?

[boatsnguitars]

I am now convinced, through years of reading about moral theory, that Theism is - by far - the poorest system of morality: whether or not a God exists. It simply does not work, and in fact, works to support bad things more than it supports good things. And, I've seen from the average Theist to WLC or other "Illuminati" that they have such a poor understanding of morality and really should not continue to poison people's minds.

I agree that it's a poor understanding of morality.

You can't really argue with the fact that doing something on the basis of getting a reward is good. A dog will do that.

A dog will also risk its life for its pack, and when it does that, it seems much more good than it does when it sits for a treat.

Yet the clearly higher morality is also crueler. If people shouldn't be doing it for the reward, why should we reward them? Why should we even be kind to them? Aren't we helping them be moral by being nasty to them? Aren't we helping them achieve higher morality by punishing them for doing the right thing, so that when they do it anyway, it is more noble?

That's not my problem with it, though it's a valid point worth discussing.

My problem with Theistic Morality is:
1. We can't know what it is - ever. As we can never know the mind of God, and God itself can't know if is actually omniscient. It's an infinite abyss to discover whether something is actually Objectively Good or Bad. The fact that something might be Objectively Good is lost to us. Even God's must doubt, as that is the sign of Wisdom...
2. How does God convey these moral values? Through Priests? Why them? They seem as ignorant and cruel as any despot at times. Through a book? Which one? Through a Prophet? Which one? Mohammad was a Pedo, Jesus thought it was moral to let a despot murder an innocent man (if we are to believe the story).
3. How does God enforce these moral values? No one knows what the stakes are.
4. How did God get his attributes? He didn't create them himself, so something other than God had to establish His Nature. Theists like to claim he wasn't created but that's a Red Herring. The point is that God is a distinct Being. He isn't Everything. He isn't Sin, Evil, etc. so if something didn't create God, it had to, at least, prune God of certain things. How was it decided God was Jealous, but All Good? Or, if they say he isn't Jealous, why not?
One has to explain why God isn't everything and a distinct Being without certain traits. If he chose those traits - then he created himself, like a person who has created themselves to be a priest after being a conman... OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.
5. What gives God the Authority to be Ruler of Moral Values? Himself? Again, Theists like to assert God simply is the ruler of morals, but see #4, but also, just because a Being says that, it might not be how moral values work. There is no Objective rule that morals are governed by God, or any authority. Morals may simply be rational actions we take to get along. God himself may be subject to morals - which means any genocide demanded by God is wrong. We can forgive him if we wish, but he may still have been wrong.
6. Going back to #1: Since we can't know what is ultimately Right or Wrong, we are left to the claims of Men. Men often claim they are killing for God. Religions teach that God often tells humans to kill each other - or, they say that anyone who does so is clearly not doing God's will. This gap in us knowing is a substantive and glaring error that any God would be morally bound to correct. Any Moral Being would make it very clear that it does not ask it's adherents to commit genocide, kill innocent children and livestock, marry 9 year olds, kill witches or gay people. Or, it would create very obvious rules for us to know.
7. Since all of this is a horror show for Divine Command Theory, and Theist moral values in general - and since the evidence is that God doesn't exist, I think it's safe to say that the biggest reason a Theistic Moral System is bad is because it is untrue. False.

[Purple Knight]

My problem with Theistic Morality is:
1. We can't know what it is - ever. As we can never know the mind of God, and God itself can't know if is actually omniscient. It's an infinite abyss to discover whether something is actually Objectively Good or Bad. The fact that something might be Objectively Good is lost to us. Even God's must doubt, as that is the sign of Wisdom...

Ultimately valid. We can't know what Aunt Ethyl's morality is either. If we go to her for all our moral questions, she can lie and then laugh at us, and then rightly punish us, because in doing so we admitted that she decides morality and not us. So she can decide that lying about morality is okay.

Since we've demonstrated now, how useless and futile it is for one being to have moral say over another, the Big Answer must be that actually, none is. Everyone is morally equal and nobody can impose. Not even onto Nazis. You can steal Jews from them, because you think that's right and they can't impose on you either, you can fight and kill them, if you think that's right, but you actually can't browbeat them and force them to think your way. You can't tell them they are evil and thus can't self-defend. If they see their way as valid, it is.

This is why I think there can't be a god. Not just, a specific powerful entity doesn't happen to exist... but a god cannot exist. Because a god is a moral imposer. A holder of moral privilege to morally impose. And I think the right answer has to be that nobody can do that. If somebody can, we can't know who it is. We have no way of knowing God didn't incarnate into Aunt Ethyl and not tell us.

2. How does God convey these moral values? Through Priests? Why them?

If I was to become a theist, I would have no choice but to believe that God gave everyone a working moral compass, because that's the only fair thing. But then you don't need any holy books, unless they track with that understanding and help you on the finer points. And then, everyone who disagrees with me... I have to believe not only that they are mistaken, but that they're wilful. They have a conscience too, and since mine says X and they say K, they must be lying.

And I don't think everyone is either lying or an NPC. I think we all have individual preferences as to what moral rules we live under, and we probably have those preferences to best suit our survival strategies. So Libertarians will think, wage slavery is fine, eliminate minimum wage because that is theft and force, but if the workers dare punch me, the government should (without taxing me, because that's wrong) tax the peasants and imprison them, because they broke a rule. Their survival strat is exploitation, but they don't want physical force to nuke that, and it can, so they hate it and want it illegal. And guess what? Nothing wrong with that. When you let all the Libertarians live together, whether the system flourishes or collapses will show the truth. If they're the great contributors to society they claim to be, they'll make a paradise and the rest of us starve without their generous influence. But if they're parasites who don't contribute, they will starve instead.

But any sustainable nonparasitic strategy should be supported by a government, made up of likeminded individuals. If they're hurting or killing people unjustly, you have every right to smuggle them out, but then leave the society the heck alone.

4. How did God get his attributes? He didn't create them himself, so something other than God had to establish His Nature. Theists like to claim he wasn't created but that's a Red Herring. The point is that God is a distinct Being. He isn't Everything. He isn't Sin, Evil, etc. so if something didn't create God, it had to, at least, prune God of certain things. How was it decided God was Jealous, but All Good? Or, if they say he isn't Jealous, why not?
One has to explain why God isn't everything and a distinct Being without certain traits. If he chose those traits - then he created himself, like a person who has created themselves to be a priest after being a conman... OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.

Sometimes I like to examine questions like that. I imagine a universe where entropy runs backwards, it is very rare for anything to come into being, but once it does, it only becomes grander rather than decaying into dust. Something with attributes like that would simply be from our sister universe. Or even worse, we live in that universe ourselves, we came about, started to grow, and something that had already grown... intentionally stunted us.

5. What gives God the Authority to be Ruler of Moral Values? Himself? Again, Theists like to assert God simply is the ruler of morals, but see #4, but also, just because a Being says that, it might not be how moral values work. There is no Objective rule that morals are governed by God, or any authority. Morals may simply be rational actions we take to get along. God himself may be subject to morals - which means any genocide demanded by God is wrong. We can forgive him if we wish, but he may still have been wrong.

Right. If there was such a rule, morals being governed by some Authority, they could write themselves the ability to lie and deceive, making morality unknowable. We have no way to know which being it is, even so. Maybe God has all the other powers and Aunt Ethyl actually always had the power to determine right and wrong.

I agree with most of these objections because they are very reasoned and I've thought along similar lines.

6. Going back to #1: Since we can't know what is ultimately Right or Wrong, we are left to the claims of Men. Men often claim they are killing for God. Religions teach that God often tells humans to kill each other - or, they say that anyone who does so is clearly not doing God's will. This gap in us knowing is a substantive and glaring error that any God would be morally bound to correct. Any Moral Being would make it very clear that it does not ask it's adherents to commit genocide, kill innocent children and livestock, marry 9 year olds, kill witches or gay people. Or, it would create very obvious rules for us to know.
7. Since all of this is a horror show for Divine Command Theory, and Theist moral values in general - and since the evidence is that God doesn't exist, I think it's safe to say that the biggest reason a Theistic Moral System is bad is because it is untrue. False.

I mean, the only very obvious rule to follow... is that no one can morally impose.

I still say a group of atheists who have it right about morality... they are going to be cruel to one another, and they ought to. That other guy ought to be beaten and tortured, for doing the right thing, not given a cookie. The more you make him suffer, the nobler he is for doing the right thing... which I guess is to make people suffer lol.

[boatsnguitars]

My problem with Theistic Morality is:
1. We can't know what it is - ever. As we can never know the mind of God, and God itself can't know if is actually omniscient. It's an infinite abyss to discover whether something is actually Objectively Good or Bad. The fact that something might be Objectively Good is lost to us. Even God's must doubt, as that is the sign of Wisdom...

Ultimately valid. We can't know what Aunt Ethyl's morality is either. If we go to her for all our moral questions, she can lie and then laugh at us, and then rightly punish us, because in doing so we admitted that she decides morality and not us. So she can decide that lying about morality is okay.

Since we've demonstrated now, how useless and futile it is for one being to have moral say over another, the Big Answer must be that actually, none is. Everyone is morally equal and nobody can impose. Not even onto Nazis. You can steal Jews from them, because you think that's right and they can't impose on you either, you can fight and kill them, if you think that's right, but you actually can't browbeat them and force them to think your way. You can't tell them they are evil and thus can't self-defend. If they see their way as valid, it is.

This is why I think there can't be a god. Not just, a specific powerful entity doesn't happen to exist... but a god cannot exist. Because a god is a moral imposer. A holder of moral privilege to morally impose. And I think the right answer has to be that nobody can do that. If somebody can, we can't know who it is. We have no way of knowing God didn't incarnate into Aunt Ethyl and not tell us.

2. How does God convey these moral values? Through Priests? Why them?

If I was to become a theist, I would have no choice but to believe that God gave everyone a working moral compass, because that's the only fair thing. But then you don't need any holy books, unless they track with that understanding and help you on the finer points. And then, everyone who disagrees with me... I have to believe not only that they are mistaken, but that they're wilful. They have a conscience too, and since mine says X and they say K, they must be lying.

And I don't think everyone is either lying or an NPC. I think we all have individual preferences as to what moral rules we live under, and we probably have those preferences to best suit our survival strategies. So Libertarians will think, wage slavery is fine, eliminate minimum wage because that is theft and force, but if the workers dare punch me, the government should (without taxing me, because that's wrong) tax the peasants and imprison them, because they broke a rule. Their survival strat is exploitation, but they don't want physical force to nuke that, and it can, so they hate it and want it illegal. And guess what? Nothing wrong with that. When you let all the Libertarians live together, whether the system flourishes or collapses will show the truth. If they're the great contributors to society they claim to be, they'll make a paradise and the rest of us starve without their generous influence. But if they're parasites who don't contribute, they will starve instead.

But any sustainable nonparasitic strategy should be supported by a government, made up of likeminded individuals. If they're hurting or killing people unjustly, you have every right to smuggle them out, but then leave the society the heck alone.

4. How did God get his attributes? He didn't create them himself, so something other than God had to establish His Nature. Theists like to claim he wasn't created but that's a Red Herring. The point is that God is a distinct Being. He isn't Everything. He isn't Sin, Evil, etc. so if something didn't create God, it had to, at least, prune God of certain things. How was it decided God was Jealous, but All Good? Or, if they say he isn't Jealous, why not?
One has to explain why God isn't everything and a distinct Being without certain traits. If he chose those traits - then he created himself, like a person who has created themselves to be a priest after being a conman... OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.

Sometimes I like to examine questions like that. I imagine a universe where entropy runs backwards, it is very rare for anything to come into being, but once it does, it only becomes grander rather than decaying into dust. Something with attributes like that would simply be from our sister universe. Or even worse, we live in that universe ourselves, we came about, started to grow, and something that had already grown... intentionally stunted us.

5. What gives God the Authority to be Ruler of Moral Values? Himself? Again, Theists like to assert God simply is the ruler of morals, but see #4, but also, just because a Being says that, it might not be how moral values work. There is no Objective rule that morals are governed by God, or any authority. Morals may simply be rational actions we take to get along. God himself may be subject to morals - which means any genocide demanded by God is wrong. We can forgive him if we wish, but he may still have been wrong.

Right. If there was such a rule, morals being governed by some Authority, they could write themselves the ability to lie and deceive, making morality unknowable. We have no way to know which being it is, even so. Maybe God has all the other powers and Aunt Ethyl actually always had the power to determine right and wrong.

I agree with most of these objections because they are very reasoned and I've thought along similar lines.

6. Going back to #1: Since we can't know what is ultimately Right or Wrong, we are left to the claims of Men. Men often claim they are killing for God. Religions teach that God often tells humans to kill each other - or, they say that anyone who does so is clearly not doing God's will. This gap in us knowing is a substantive and glaring error that any God would be morally bound to correct. Any Moral Being would make it very clear that it does not ask it's adherents to commit genocide, kill innocent children and livestock, marry 9 year olds, kill witches or gay people. Or, it would create very obvious rules for us to know.
7. Since all of this is a horror show for Divine Command Theory, and Theist moral values in general - and since the evidence is that God doesn't exist, I think it's safe to say that the biggest reason a Theistic Moral System is bad is because it is untrue. False.

I mean, the only very obvious rule to follow... is that no one can morally impose.

I still say a group of atheists who have it right about morality... they are going to be cruel to one another, and they ought to. That other guy ought to be beaten and tortured, for doing the right thing, not given a cookie. The more you make him suffer, the nobler he is for doing the right thing... which I guess is to make people suffer lol.

The only Ought I have been able to derive is something like this: If you don't wish to killed by someone, you OUGHT NOT try to harm something they don't want harmed. Or, If this outcome is preferred, one OUGHT TO do x. Otherwise, I don't see any Oughts that are imposed upon us in a moral sense.

To me, Shelly Kagan in his trouncing of WLC makes a basic framework, but powerful case, for how morals operate.

You are right, it appears there are no moral values one can impose, but we can elevate reasonable actions to achieve certain Goods to the status of what we call "moral". (For example, it is moral to not cheat when playing Monopoly with your family. It's not really of any consequence in the borad scope of things, but if we don't want society to cheat against us, or them, we "Ought" to model this behavior. Of course, another person might feel they Ought to teach their children to cheat because it's the best way for them to get ahead.... This is why it's a larger discussion with society, and why In-Groups begin to form. etc...)

[The Nice Centurion]

.

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

—Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

So, reasonable or not. We atheists exist to set an example to the morally stunted of the world?


.

I suppose it's a clever way to show that Atheists are superior whether there is a God or not. Sadly, Theists would burn us at the stake if they have the chance instead of accepting this.

I wouldn't say superior, but rather that they adhere to a more enlightened morality. But this is nothing new, theists have always been playing catch up to atheists.

.

" CATCH UP! "
Makes me imagine Big Bad Wolf as a theist and three little pigs as three atheists