Has atheism been proved?

[ERCougar]

Here's the way I see it: Life is ultimately all about pursuit of self-interest, but a large component of that self-interest is the feeling/knowledge that you are helping other people, making the world a better place, treating others fairly, etc. I think that is true for almost everybody.

"Herd instinct" is tremendously powerful in humans -- the desire to help family members and others with whom we come into contact is really high for most people regardless of whether they ultimately believe that life has any "meaning" in a religious sense.

That works up until you ask someone to give their life for something.
Do atheists consider someone giving his life for his country admirable? or just stupid?

[Danimal]

That works up until you ask someone to give their life for something.
Do atheists consider someone giving his life for his country admirable? or just stupid?

A mother animal will fight to the death to protect it's young. It doesn't need to invoke God as an explanation or to provide meaning.

[CardiacCoug]

That works up until you ask someone to give their life for something.
Do atheists consider someone giving his life for his country admirable? or just stupid?

I don't know, but I can see why it would be a lot easier to get a religious person to sacrifice his life for God and/or country.

That's a negative in the religion column if you ask me.

[Non Sequitur]

That works up until you ask someone to give their life for something.
Do atheists consider someone giving his life for his country admirable? or just stupid?

Giving your life for your country has nothing to do with God. You're giving your life for your country. You don't have to believe in God to be a patriot. If you're just talking about people fearing the possibility of no afterlife, then what about people who believe in God but don't necessarily believe in an afterlife? Are their lives also without meaning?

[Flystripper]

Religion might say god is love but to me love is love and it is a personal emotion that cant necessarily be tied to a god. My love for my children and wife would easily lead me to sacrifice my life for them. My lack of faith and absence of a belief in god has not altered this for me even a little bit.

[RobinFinderson]

Or how about the time when someone was fishing for ideas on a sacrament talk on prayer and several suggestions were given and you went on for several pages mocking the concept of miracles and arguing that the whole concept of God answering some prayers and not others was offensive to you? That's one of several that immediately come to mind.

I have no recollection of the 'pages of mocking.' Is it possible that I wasn't 'mocking,' and that this is just your interpretation of what I wrote?

I do have the sincere belief that IF there existed a perfect being called God, and IF all humanity was beholden to God's will, and IF the attribute of Godly perfection included something similar to what we call 'fairness,' that such a God would not withhold miracles from some of his 'children' for want of their knowing how to ask for them. To me it seems reasonable that a perfect God would understand the language of his children's being, and would visit miracles upon all of his children according to their need.

Of course this isn't the God of Mormonism or the testaments. As an atheist, the sincere expression of my beliefs causes me to wonder here whether Christians' dependence on ancient scripture hasn't locked them into some primitive views about the nature of God. I mean, is it really surprising that a God rooted in the moral development of our species some 2000 years ago is so tribal in his being?

And if our God is tribal in the distribution of his blessings, then how can we ever hope to surmount our own tribal tendencies? If we can't tame our enmity toward one another, given an ever-increasing capacity to commit massive destruction, to me it seems that our eventual self-annihilation is inevitable. Personally, I think that taming our enmity toward each other is a pretty important goal, and I don't think that religion, especially religion in America, is getting us any closer to achieving that goal.

So here is what this has to do with people's spiritual experiences. I don't mock them. I believe they exist, and I believe that they can have great personal meaning in people's lives. I haven't and I won't mock people's spiritual experiences. What I don't like is how religions like Mormonism (the one I know best) project meaning onto these spiritual experiences. I think it is kind of sad how Mormonism tells you what your spiritual experiences mean. I hope you don't interpret that as mocking, because it is just a personal belief.

I think that religions like Christianity are built on primitive tribal notions of God that perpetuate the need for tribal divisions, between which enmity is inevitable, all the while convincing us that this is our true human nature. religion/tribalism + increasing capacity to self-destruct + enough time = boom.

I think spiritual experiences are important, but not in a religious way. I continue to have experiences that a Mormon would interpret to be spiritual in nature, and these experiences have great personal meaning to me. I don't mock other people's spiritual experiences, even if Mormonism has told them how to interpret them. If you can't separate the spiritual experience from the religion, then I can see how maybe someone could interpret my feelings about organized religion as mocking spiritual experiences.

You don't see how repeatedly mocking people's reluctance to share what they consider to be sacred would be offensive or intimidating to some people? Seriously?

Ok, I admit, I can see how it might be considered offensive (though it is different than mocking spiritual experiences). But you know how old grumpy people get worked up about how young people sag their pants down and expose their boxers? That is how I feel about Mormons who won't share their testimony of meaningful spiritual experiences. You are like sagging teenagers. Maybe my views about you are offensive, but I also kind of think they are for your own good. Mormons, stop being afraid to share your freaking testimonies. If you blame me, or other nonbelievers, that is seriously weak sauce. Now pull up your pants.

[RobinFinderson]

That works up until you ask someone to give their life for something.
Do atheists consider someone giving his life for his country admirable? or just stupid?

I can feel, deep in my bones, that I would take huge personal risks to protect my son. I think it is a primal thing written into our DNA.

[ERCougar]

A mother animal will fight to the death to protect it's young. It doesn't need to invoke God as an explanation or to provide meaning.

That seems an instinctual behavior, much like sex among animals who aren't getting pleasure from it. Moral decisions or acts have a different feel to them, at least from my experience. I'll have to think about how to explain that better--they just seem different.

I don't know, but I can see why it would be a lot easier to get a religious person to sacrifice his life for God and/or country.

That's a negative in the religion column if you ask me.

Always a negative? I doubt you really think that. I'll assume that you believe that at least some who died at the cliffs of Normandy weren't merely being foolish. If in some cases, their religion offered them the bravery or the wherewithal to do it, is the religion really a negative? It's at least neutral.

Giving your life for your country has nothing to do with God. You're giving your life for your country. You don't have to believe in God to be a patriot. If you're just talking about people fearing the possibility of no afterlife, then what about people who believe in God but don't necessarily believe in an afterlife? Are their lives also without meaning?

I don't think an afterlife is necessary to give a life meaning. I do think that sacrificing your life to an ideal that has no real significance outside of your life is irrational.

Don't take this personally. I'm not arguing that anyone's life doesn't have meaning. I think most people are good, and that that very goodness implies something.

Religion might say god is love but to me love is love and it is a personal emotion that cant necessarily be tied to a god. My love for my children and wife would easily lead me to sacrifice my life for them. My lack of faith and absence of a belief in god has not altered this for me even a little bit.

OK...
So say you're in a position to save a child who's fallen into a swift river, but in doing so, you risk your own life. You don't know the child. Do you do it? Or do you let him/her drown, because you don't have a personal emotion for the child?

[ERCougar]

Here's the way I see it: Life is ultimately all about pursuit of self-interest, but a large component of that self-interest is the feeling/knowledge that you are helping other people, making the world a better place, treating others fairly, etc. I think that is true for almost everybody.

"Herd instinct" is tremendously powerful in humans -- the desire to help family members and others with whom we come into contact is really high for most people regardless of whether they ultimately believe that life has any "meaning" in a religious sense.

Sorry to come back to this but I think it's a really fascinating concept. I do think there are certain principles that we all readily accept as "good", but I'm not sure it comes from a herd instinct. I think most people would view a good act performed for a stranger as morally equal or even better than one for a friend or close associate, as there is little chance of personal payback. "Love your enemies" transcends nearly all religions and cultures and has nothing to do with herd instinct (and really sort of counters it).

[ERCougar]

I can feel, deep in my bones, that I would take huge personal risks to protect my son. I think it is a primal thing written into our DNA.

What about someone else's child? Or your country?

This goes back to Danimal's argument about animals defending their young and even Flystripper's about emotion for wife and child. I'd have a hard time calling it moral, because it's so instinctual--even bad people will do it, and if I came across someone who wouldn't, I'd call them inhuman or unnatural more than immoral. Also, I can buy it as being completely a product of evolution (which doesn't necessarily take a God out of the equation, incidentally) because you're passing on your DNA.

[RobinFinderson]

What about someone else's child? Or your country?

This goes back to Danimal's argument about animals defending their young and even Flystripper's about emotion for wife and child. I'd have a hard time calling it moral, because it's so instinctual--even bad people will do it, and if I came across someone who wouldn't, I'd call them inhuman or unnatural more than immoral. Also, I can buy it as being completely a product of evolution (which doesn't necessarily take a God out of the equation, incidentally) because you're passing on your DNA.

I think that people have evolved socially. We have pro-social instincts, and I think that it is legitimate to build moral culture around these pro-social instincts.

[RobinFinderson]

BTW, Jeff, I just did a search for my use of the word 'miracle' on CUF. Before this post, there were 18 other times when I used the word 'miracle' in a post. Of those, here are the ones that seem closest to 'mocking':

The Miracle of Not Paying Tithing.

Commentary on Fiyero's miracle intensity scale.

Criticism of 'preachers' selling miracle items on late-night BET.

The same stupid tithing joke, variant.

A comment on SoonerCoug's mission in life.

Where I share a personal 'miracle,' but preface it with, "You wussy Mormons, afraid to share miracles because you might get mocked..."

My musings about the nonessential nature of Christ's miracles -- not mocking, but not from the vantage of faith.

My thoughts that COB might be spying on CUF as an internet contributor to Mormonism's declining magical world view.

So Jeff, it would appear to me that either your search browser or your memory is failing you. Which of these posts represents your recollection of 'pages of mocking?"

[Flystripper]

I don't think an afterlife is necessary to give a life meaning. I do think that sacrificing your life to an ideal that has no real significance outside of your life is irrational.


OK...
So say you're in a position to save a child who's fallen into a swift river, but in doing so, you risk your own life. You don't know the child. Do you do it? Or do you let him/her drown, because you don't have a personal emotion for the child?

I don't know what I would do for sure until faced with your hypothetical scenario; however, I can imagine myself risking my life for a stranger. Risking my life to save a stranger may be seem irrational to a purely logical being, but humans are not purely logical beings. We are complex beings possessing strong emotional feelings which influence our actions. Our behavior is driven by a mix of varying degrees of emotional responses combined with reason. Emotional responses are not necessarily irrational when you consider that emotion is by in large what brings believers and non-believers happiness and contentment in this life. Risking your life for another creates an emotional response which can lead to happiness. I don't see that as irrational at all.

If it was certain that I would lose my life to save that of a complete stranger then I would likely decide to live. My emotional love for my family coupled with my logical responsibilities for their welfare would prevent me from choosing a strangers life over my own. I don't think this choice would be unique to non-believers.

[lambdacoug]

OK...
So say you're in a position to save a child who's fallen into a swift river, but in doing so, you risk your own life. You don't know the child. Do you do it? Or do you let him/her drown, because you don't have a personal emotion for the child?

In a scenario that requires a flash decision such as this, I find it hard to believe that a believer's response would be different than a non-believer's response. Reasoning and logical thinking wouldn't really come into play until after the fact. After the child is saved the justifications for the action would certainly be flavored by a belief system, or lack thereof, but in the moment, with a child drowning I think there is a strong instinct to save the child.

[UtahDan]

Interesting thread. Here are a few random thoughts based on the discussion:

1. Everyone chooses their own purpose in life. Everyone. Religion is a vehicle for that but not the only vehicle.

2. Morality often overlaps with purpose (for example if your purpose is to be moral as you understand that word) but these are distinct concepts.

3. In the little l liberal tradition morality involves concepts of what creates the most happiness for the most people or is the most fair, or both. These ideas appeal to us because they are adaptations. A combination of genetic and cultural evolution. As social critters we feel good when we create happiness for others. Religiously oriented people have named this "the spirit" but it is a universal human experience that people have with or without God and in every religious tradition.

4. As to the question of what value is added by being non-religious: my answer is that one is unfettered by dogma. What I mean is that religious people have all the same good instincts everyone else does and many religious teachings encourage people to act on these good instincts. Religions are very universal in most of their basic teachings on how to interact with others.

However, they are also loaded down with numerous outdated and less enlightened ideas that inhibit the most religious people from doing what they otherwise might in some cases and into doing things that they might otherwise not, which are harmful. For example, a study that came out this week:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/religious-compassion-atheists-agnostics_n_1468006.html

What is holding them back is deference to group thinking. This is not some caricature of blind obedience to the group by any means, and of course religious people think for themselves. Also, this clearly does not apply to many people who are consciously approaching their faith buffet style. But many very religious people seriously consider what their religion tells them and will sometimes defer to it against their better judgment. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. There is an appreciable effect there. I have never seen a better example of this than Prop 8. So the value that is added here, intending no disrespect, is that when confronted with an new issue, a person, a situation, a non-religious person has the opportunity to take all of the best most modern ideas and apply them and is not in any way restricted by texts which represent the best thinking of the first century, or the 19th, or even the 1950s. They can mine those texts for what is good and leave the rest.

While many religious people see it as a good thing that they can look to leaders or texts for wisdom and feel it is appropriate to do so. Non-religious people in general feel that they can get the benefit of that wisdom, combined with other non-religious thought, and that it is better for them. For example I don't think any of my religious friends know right from wrong or feel prompted to do good because anyone has told them they should. Religion is comforting and appealing, among many other reasons, because it accords in many cases with what is innate.

Sorry for the long post.