Do Atheists live a more fulfilled life?

L31mr0d

This is a serious inquiry, but i'm wondering does the average atheist live a more meaningful and fulfilled life now as their understanding is that when they die their consciousness is gone forever. As with most religions the belief is if you live a life dedicated to a God you will gain another life/existence after death in some form or another. As Atheists believe that they are only given one period of consciousness in time for say 70-80 years then they will perish like an animal or plant does.

Does this mean that they will choose how to spend their limited time more wisely, and thus make educated decisions about how they can benefit humanity, and spend their best years (of which they will only get once) doing what they view as meaningful (i.e. traveling, writing, art...etc)

The reason I ask is because of my friends who profess Atheism, they seem to live a more lazy, unfulfilled life and seem to not have much direction. Which surprised me as I would of assumed every second of their lives would be precious to them.

Beruthiel

How can you define that?
What one man considers fullfilling, another would consider it a waste

Zillah

No. The question is flawed. How do you measure fulfillment?

Your friends who are lazy and unfulfilled are like that because they are lazy and unfufilled, they also happen to be atheists. I'm sure there are Christians who are more happy than me, and I have no doubt that I'm alot more satisfied with life than a lot of, say, Muslims.

You're implying a direct link between fulfillment and religious beliefs, which just isn't true. I have no doubt they are related, or at least appear to be related though.

L31mr0d

I am not talking on a world scale, I am talking personally for each individual, which is why I mentioned a few things as example which different people would find meaningfull.

Ok simple put. Is your life fulfilled, does the life afforded by your religion/spirtuality of atheism (i'm guessing thats why its in this section) move you to spend your time more wisely as you see fit, as it will be the only time you have in existence.

For example, some people waste a lot of their lives in jobs they are in just for money, but remain faithful to their religious beliefs in a hope for a better life after death. Would yous, as Atheists, waste years of your life working for money, living a monotonous life in full knowledge that the years you are wasting are gone forever.

My main reason for asking is that I tend to have a habit of putting things off on the long finger for one reason or another, but I remain faithful in the belief of an afterlife of some form. I'm wondering if there is a sudden shift in mindset once their is an acceptance that an afterlife doesn't exist and this is all there is.

robindch

None of the atheists who I know live anything like lazy or unfulfilled lives. On the contrary, I find that most of them lead productive, happy and fulfilled lives. My experience with religios people is the opposite.

Less appealingly, I find most of the religious people I know tend to be judgemental about other people, meaning that they're unhappy about other people, in addition to being unhappy or guilty about themselves. I also find the atheists I know far more open to reciprocal exchange (ie, I have a party in my place and I know that the invitation will be reciprocated fairly soon; doesn't happen as often with the religious).

> I'm wondering if there is a sudden shift in mindset once their is an
> acceptance that an afterlife doesn't exist and this is all there is.

In my own case, the biggest change was that I realised that I was the guy who was fully responsible for what I felt, and not other people or deities. Since then, I can honestly say that I've rarely been unhappy

And, of course, it also opened up religion as a source of all kinds of humor.

Other people's experience may differ, but that's my 2 cents.

L31mr0d

robindch wrote:

Less appealingly, I find religious people tend to be judgemental about other people, meaning that they're unhappy about other people, in addition to being unhappy or guilty about themselves. I also find the atheists I know far more open to reciprocal exchange (ie, I have a party in my place and I know that the invitation will be reciprocated fairly soon; doesn't happen as often with the religious).

I accept most of your reasoning, as it would make sense. But I don't think you are in any position to say anything about religious people, just as I am in no position to assume anything about Atheists, or any other religion that I am not, which is why I asked the question in the first place. You seem to be doing exactly what you find "less appealing" and being judgemental about religious people.

I bet you must have a great laugh at your parties about the humors of religion, like the drug addict who found god and quit, or the murderer in prison who learnt of the life of jesus and changed his life to emulate his.

I'd appreciate if my honest inquiry would not turn into a cheap outlet to take a shot at religion. I'm asking about how you view your life has changed not what you feel the lives of religious people is.

pH

I think you'll find that theists are 8% more fulfilled than atheists (and yes I know I'm reading the stat incorrectly - sue me).
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/happy.htm

L31mr0d wrote:

But I don't think you are in any position to say anything about religious people, just as I am in no position to assume anything about Atheists

That's rich coming from someone who said:
my friends who profess Atheism, they seem to live a more lazy, unfulfilled life and seem to not have much direction

Also it could be argued (and it has by Dennett) that only someone with no religious beliefs can look at religious beliefs objectively.

lostexpectation

we cut out the middleman atleast

robindch

Hold on, I think you're grabbing the wrong end of the stick here!

> I don't think you are in any position to say anything about religious people,

Well, having spent quite a few years being one and having spent six years in a monastic school, I would suggest that I perhaps am

Anyhow, you did ask about whether atheists felt they lived fulfilled lives. I should perhaps have been more clear in saying that the things which make me happy and fulfilled -- reciprocity, helping out, taking personal responsibility -- is something which I find that religious people tend to do rather less than atheists tend to do, in my own prior religious-leaning life, as well as others. This isn't a criticism of religion, just something that I've noticed. As I said above, the experiences of others may be different from mine.

> I'd appreciate if my honest inquiry would not turn into a cheap
> outlet to take a shot at religion.

...and I answered as requested, giving a comparison which I felt was useful in the context and I sincerely apologise if my honest answer offended you.

(BTW, referring to us as people who "will perish like an animal" isn't the nicest way to refer to the death of a human being).

lostexpectation

L31mr0d wrote:

I accept most of your reasoning, as it would make sense. But I don't think you are in any position to say anything about religious people, just as I am in no position to assume anything about Atheists, or any other religion that I am not, which is why I asked the question in the first place. You seem to be doing exactly what you find "less appealing" and being judgemental about religious people.

I bet you must have a great laugh at your parties about the humors of religion, like the drug addict who found god and quit, or the murderer in prison who learnt of the life of jesus and changed his life to emulate his.

I'd appreciate if my honest inquiry would not turn into a cheap outlet to take a shot at religion. I'm asking about how you view your life has changed not what you feel the lives of religious people is.

woh sensitive I thought robindh points were as valid as your if not more so.


I think you athiestici friends might a bit mor cynical of life, not as inspired by it. IHMO

Wibbs

L31mr0d wrote:

Does this mean that they will choose how to spend their limited time more wisely, and thus make educated decisions about how they can benefit humanity, and spend their best years (of which they will only get once) doing what they view as meaningful (i.e. traveling, writing, art...etc)

You would think so but laziness knows no boundaries.:D

The reason I ask is because of my friends who profess Atheism, they seem to live a more lazy, unfulfilled life and seem to not have much direction. Which surprised me as I would of assumed every second of their lives would be precious to them.

In fairness it depends on the person. Some are like that ou of some wierd nihilism, just as many religious are like that becuase they're too busy looking forward to the next life, not living this one.

I'd appreciate if my honest inquiry would not turn into a cheap outlet to take a shot at religion. I'm asking about how you view your life has changed not what you feel the lives of religious people is.

Posting this in an atheistic forum will likely get you more of the knee jerk "you deluded believer" guff in fairness. Think of the same kind of thing in a religious forum. That aside, most of the answers were OK IMHO and I honestly don't think robindch was trying to be insulting. Having read much of his stuff on here, he can be irritating, imformative and a smartass. Insulting? No.

BTW Many studies have found the devout religious appear to live longer than the less religious. I suppose for many who truly believe the thought of a guiding hand takes away some of the stress from life. I've seen that effect with my own eyes.

L31mr0d

pH wrote:

That's rich coming from someone who said:
my friends who profess Atheism, they seem to live a more lazy, unfulfilled life and seem to not have much direction

Thats exactly my point, I didn't want to draw a conclusion about Atheists based on my experiences with them which is why I asked this question. Just as how someone who might of had bad experiences in there original religion should not judge all of that religion under the same premise

robindch wrote:

... Well, having spent quite a few years being one and having spent six years in a monastic school, I would suggest that I perhaps am

This is my point, you have thrown out a blanket generalization about your view of religion, which encompasses mine, when you have experienced only one form of it, which is not mine. If you had replaced the use of the word "Religious" with say "Catholic" I would of had no problem. But to say things like "it doesn't happen so much with the religious" when refering to returning kindnesses to each other, is tarring all religions with the same brush as catholicism. My religion is based upon the returning of kindnesses and chooses to actually follow fully the bible teachings regarding this (luke 6:31) This is what I took offense at but appreciate your reply taking it under the application to Catholics.

(BTW, referring to us as people who "will perish like an animal" isn't the nicest way to refer to the death of a human being)

I'm kind of confused by this because I don't know how to rephrase it. If I had said "perish as an animal" I would understand. But as an atheist your belief is that your death holds the same weight as any other living creature on the planet. In that it begins and ends the same way and came about through the same set of circumstances that life initially came about on this planet, evolving from a primoridial soup of amino acids, and that we are still animals that have just taken an evolutionary leap and gained consciousness.

Schuhart

I think its an enquiry with a point. Religion can inspire people to Great Things. Even if I believe their outlook to be a delusion, and even a conscious suppression of disbelief, that belief in a God can indeed inspire people to do things they probably would not bother with otherwise.

For my own part, I probably would look lazy and directionless. Part of that I feel comes from a need, in one way or another, to develop that Buddhist concept of letting go (with apologies to our Buddhist friends if my view does their idea no justice). We are mortal, here for a set time. Get too fond of this material world, and you'll have trouble saying goodbye to it.

I think, as well, there is still a need to develop some atheist conception of what we want to achieve, based on our mortality. I find myself attracted to the outlook in Teilhard de Chardin's Phenomenon of Man. What it said to me was, essentially, we are the intelligence in the universe and what we do with that fact is really up to us.

He also anticipates that concern of how we might deal with the reality of the lack of a personal god keeping track of Schuhart and his doings with, I think, a courageous comment to the effect that we have to believe ourselves capable of facing reality.

Atheism does not come with a script. But I see the outlook as being a little like the story told about Diogenes. He sees one group of people ostentatiously showing their wealth and mutters 'affectation'. He sees another, pilgrims in sackcloth, and mutters 'more affectation'. So, yes, your idea that athiests are not frantically experiencing every sensation they can rings true to me.

L31mr0d

Thank you Schuhart, you explanation is exactly what I was trying to get at but couldn't really phrase it right. I was just looking for an answer of what an Atheist feels they get out of life, as the benefits of a faith to any religion can clearly be stated. I was wondering, like you said, what truths about Atheism change the moral, ethical and principle decisions you make. You've addressed my question perfectly.

pH

L31mr0d wrote:

But as an atheist your belief is that your death holds the same weight as any other living creature on the planet.

It's great to tell people what they think and then demolish the straw man with your intellect isn't it?

Do you honestly believe that because an atheist doesn't believe in a Sky God they would equate the death of a human being with that of an animal?

This is what I took offense at but appreciate your reply taking it under the application

Based on this feedback thread I'd say you came here looking to be offended to gather a little ammunition for your 'complaint'. Looking to play some sort of 'double-standards' card or 'Look what happens when you abuse the atheists' type nonsense.

Crucifix

That extra hour on Sundays lets me play computer games for one more hour. So I would say, yes, my life is more fufilled than it would've been had I stuck with the family religion at least.

L31mr0d

pH wrote:

It's great to tell people what they think and then demolish the straw man with your intellect isn't it?

Do you honestly believe that because an atheist doesn't believe in a Sky God they would equate the death of a human being with that of an animal?



Based on this feedback thread I'd say you came here looking to be offended to gather a little ammunition for your 'complaint'. Looking to play some sort of 'double-standards' card or 'Look what happens when you abuse the atheists' type nonsense.

What? Did you not read my last post above yours. How can Schuhart understand what I am asking but you have to misconstrue it as an attempt to abuse some atheists. I haven't posted anything dogmatic or abusive and am completely accepting of your opinions.

Please then explain to me what death is to you, because one of the greatest things that scares me away from Atheism is the idea that in the end we all die alone and that there is nothing after it but nonexistance. In my mind, the only thing that seperates us from the animals is our position with god and his purpose for us on this planet. You take that away and we are just living out our lives, accomplishing what we can until we die. I'd actually really appreciate to understand your viewpoint on it as it would help mine.

The feedback thread was posted because there is a lot of questions that are being posed to Christians in the Christianity forum that are being addressed by atheists. I was actually thinking of proposing a forum for Religious Debates solely, which would leave each respective religious section open to discussion about there beliefs and not the discrediting of them. Which is why I have not attempted to voice my beliefs against Atheism, I am only asking for yours.

Scofflaw

L31mr0d wrote:

What? Did you not read my last post above yours. How can Schuhart understand what I am asking but you have to misconstrue it as an attempt to abuse some atheists. I haven't posted anything dogmatic or abusive and am completely accepting of your opinions.

I would agree - I don't think L31mr0d has been abusive of atheists, although some of his friends might object to being dissed online!

L31mr0d wrote:

Please then explain to me what death is to you, because one of the greatest things that scares me away from Atheism is the idea that in the end we all die alone and that there is nothing after it but nonexistance.

It's not difficult to comprehend - death is the end of life, full stop. As you say, nothing after it but non-existence. It is scary. Particularly when you roll it out a bit more and realise it applies to everyone you love, will love, have loved. They say Xerxes wept at the Hellespont when he realised that every single man in his million strong army would inevitably die.

L31mr0d wrote:

In my mind, the only thing that seperates us from the animals is our position with god and his purpose for us on this planet. You take that away and we are just living out our lives, accomplishing what we can until we die. I'd actually really appreciate to understand your viewpoint on it as it would help mine.

Well, I can't see anything wrong with not being separated from the animals. We are just living out our lives, accomplishing what we can until we die, like insects. We face the Universe with no greater backing than our own resources, and no greater purpose than bearing the next generation, same as everything else on the planet. Personally, I find that quite pleasing.

L31mr0d wrote:

The feedback thread was posted because there is a lot of questions that are being posed to Christians in the Christianity forum that are being addressed by atheists. I was actually thinking of proposing a forum for Religious Debates solely, which would leave each respective religious section open to discussion about there beliefs and not the discrediting of them. Which is why I have not attempted to voice my beliefs against Atheism, I am only asking for yours.

Hmm...as one of said atheists, I'd make the point that I don't have any disagreement with Christians (or any other theists), but that I do have a disagreement with Biblical literalists/inerrantists. The point of irritation is the claims that Biblical literalists have to make - as a trained geologist, I find it enormously difficult to let someone make claims that the evidence supports a global flood without saying something.

Other than that, I'll refer you to what my brother's priest said when asked if I could attend my niece's baptism - "sure he probably spends more time thinking about God than anyone else does".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

L31mr0d wrote:

I bet you must have a great laugh at your parties about the humors of religion, like the drug addict who found god and quit, or the murderer in prison who learnt of the life of jesus and changed his life to emulate his.

Frankly? Yes. I think it is fascinating and often hilarious to see the effects religion can have on people's brains. The murderer who changed his life did so because he used discipline and dedication, its quite amusing to me that he thinks the magic sky daddy had anything to do with it.

People are wonderful. Making them the ego-toys of a petulant God its a ghastly illusion.

L31mr0d

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm...as one of said atheists, I'd make the point that I don't have any disagreement with Christians (or any other theists), but that I do have a disagreement with Biblical literalists/inerrantists. The point of irritation is the claims that Biblical literalists have to make - as a trained geologist, I find it enormously difficult to let someone make claims that the evidence supports a global flood without saying something.

Agreed, i've since stopped any argument over the seperation between the sections, as, due to the large circular thread, the discussion is contained in one area and not really overtaking the Christianity section, and I suppose, regardless of its outcome, a Christian should be informed about evolution.

Zillah wrote:

Frankly? Yes. I think it is fascinating and often hilarious to see the effects religion can have on people's brains. The murderer who changed his life did so because he used discipline and dedication, its quite amusing to me that he thinks the magic sky daddy had anything to do with it.

People are wonderful. Making them the ego-toys of a petulant God its a ghastly illusion.

Regardless, and i'm not one to preach "the end justifies the means" but if a fear of God moves someone to change their ways away from being a detrement to society to being a support of it, i'm not going to tell them otherwise.

One question, in consideration of Schuharts post. Would an Atheist ever consider practicing "Humanism", it seems to hold the morals of most present day religions but accepts that humans only have one life, doesn't believe in the supernatural, and its main aim is making the best of life now.

Scofflaw

L31mr0d wrote:

Agreed, i've since stopped any argument over the seperation between the sections, as, due to the large circular thread, the discussion is contained in one area and not really overtaking the Christianity section, and I suppose, regardless of its outcome, a Christian should be informed about evolution.

It's why we were so keen to not have it spill over into the "A Silly Question" thread...

L31mr0d wrote:

Regardless, and i'm not one to preach "the end justifies the means" but if a fear of God moves someone to change their ways away from being a detrement to society to being a support of it, i'm not going to tell them otherwise.

Fair enough.

L31mr0d wrote:

One question, in consideration of Schuharts post. Would an Atheist ever consider practicing "Humanism", it seems to hold the morals of most present day religions but accepts that humans only have one life, doesn't believe in the supernatural, and its main aim is making the best of life now.

A lot of atheists do, but not the majority - a lot of atheists are also against almost any form of group spirituality/philosophy, although usually more for temperamental reasons than logical ones.

I would sympathise with Humanism myself, and would describe myself as a humanist (small 'h'), but I'm highly unlikely to ever become a Humanist in any formal sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> one of the greatest things that scares me away from Atheism is the idea
> that in the end we all die alone and that there is nothing after it but nonexistance.

This is one of the reasons, imho, why religion is so widespread -- it simply promises exactly what people want to hear which is that they're not going to die and that there's some meaning to life. People don't seem to worry too much that all the evidence that can be produced to support this is a set of old stories in an old book written by people we don't know, together with thousands of years of wishful thinking and an attitude in society which says that you should never question religion, especially if it's somebody else's. Somebody once said that you should never trust a company who promises you a payout in the event of your death...

And anyway, even if you're an atheist, and life after death is a fact, then won't you remain alive anyway after you die?

> Would an Atheist ever consider practicing "Humanism"

I'm sure a lot of atheists would say that they stick to humanist guidelines for behaviour, but then again, I'd say that almost all decent people -- religious and atheist alike -- would do the same, whether or not religious people would realise (or admit) that they are.

Schuhart

L31mr0d wrote:

Please then explain to me what death is to you, because one of the greatest things that scares me away from Atheism is the idea that in the end we all die alone and that there is nothing after it but nonexistance.

I think of that idea in Teilhard de Chardin – we have to believe ourselves capable of dealing with reality. (How’s that for an example of an atheist leap of faith.)

I honestly do not see how it is possible to obtain comfort from subscribing to a religion as a result of a conscious decision not to contemplate an end to this awareness.

For what its worth, my picture of death is simply that, just as there was a time when before I was born when there was no Schuhart, there will be a time in the future when there is no Schuhart again. When you consider the massive improbability of Schuhart coming into existence in the first place, and all the millions of his potential brothers and sisters that didn’t get the chance, its actually not such a bad gig.

L31mr0d wrote:

Would an Atheist ever consider practicing "Humanism"

The way I would put it is clearly there is no atheist messiah, and no definite book of writings that we all hold to be the source of truth. But, at the same time, we’re all people looking at essentially the same issues with a similar outlook, so it’s not surprising that sometimes we say much the same thing.

For example, I think you’ll generally find atheists have a level of hostility towards anything that looks like bull. That’s one of the reasons you’ll find many of us chomping at the bit to get a dig in if someone mentions some folderol like apparitions at Knock.

So, indeed, up to a point humanists probably say the kinds of things I would say in many situations. But they aren’t writing the script, and I’m not reading from it, if that makes sense.

L31mr0d

L31mr0d wrote:

I'm kind of confused by this because I don't know how to rephrase it. If I had said "perish as an animal" I would understand. But as an atheist your belief is that your death holds the same weight as any other living creature on the planet.

Is it such a bad thing to regard life as precious?

Schuhart

bluewolf wrote:

Is it such a bad thing to regard life as precious?

I'm not sure that's really the point that L31mr0d is missing. Humans can reason, which does put us in my mind in a higher category than animals. Its not that any higher being has put us in this position. Its just how things worked out. We are the consciousness in the universe. Before us, probably nothing was self aware.

On the other side, as we know, not all religions preach eternal life. Hence, athiests don't have a monopoly of the idea that this is it.

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

I'm not sure that's really the point that L31mr0d is missing. Humans can reason, which does put us in my mind in a higher category than animals. Its not that any higher being has put us in this position. Its just how things worked out. We are the consciousness in the universe. Before us, probably nothing was self aware.

On the other side, as we know, not all religions preach eternal life. Hence, athiests don't have a monopoly of the idea that this is it.

And not all atheists believe that this is it, either.

As for the first paragraph... I suppose so

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I'm not sure that's really the point that L31mr0d is missing. Humans can reason, which does put us in my mind in a higher category than animals. Its not that any higher being has put us in this position. Its just how things worked out. We are the consciousness in the universe. Before us, probably nothing was self aware.

I have to disagree, on both points - we are not the only animal that can reason, a point for which there's a wealth of recent scientific reports (apes, birds, etc), and we therefore are not in a different category. Further, the ability to reason is something that we put a high value on - an ant would likely place a different value on it, so "higher" is not in any sense an objective judgement.

firmly but regretfully,
Scofflaw

samb

L31mr0d wrote:

In that it begins and ends the same way and came about through the same set of circumstances that life initially came about on this planet, evolving from a primoridial soup of amino acids, and that we are still animals that have just taken an evolutionary leap and gained consciousness.

So are you saying that God used some different technique to create humans? I suppose we know very little about these techniques so who knows?

With regard whether this is all that there is- I would point out that IT is quite vast and perplexing and quite enough for me to be grappling with. Perhaps if you meet you maker and are living in heaven or where ever you might turn to him after a time and ask- ''so is this all there is?''........and God might reply- ''ye depressing isn't it, this is it...or maybe God2 created me and will one day reveal himself, perhaps it is a test of some kind'' Ad infintum

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I have to disagree, on both points - we are not the only animal that can reason, a point for which there's a wealth of recent scientific reports (apes, birds, etc), and we therefore are not in a different category.

Fair point - but I suppose when I said 'reason' what I should really have included is that concept of being self aware.

Until you can show me an ape that appreciates it is a product of evolution and envisage realities other than those it has experienced, I'm still running with the idea that we are something different. I'm not saying anyone gave us the master franchise for the planet. Simply that the happy accident is we are the smartest thing around here by a distance that does mean we are something else.

Scofflaw wrote:

Further, the ability to reason is something that we put a high value on - an ant would likely place a different value on it, so "higher" is not in any sense an objective judgement.

With respect, I do think this is equality gone over the edge. I doubt that an ant is able to make abstract judgements. We can. That is a considerable difference.

I'm open to the idea - while I'm not sponsoring it myself - that some few animals say dolphins, gorillas, and maybe even Yeti, are capable of some kind of rudimentary reasoning. But there's no member of any other species that would be capable of following this discussion between us.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Fair point - but I suppose when I said 'reason' what I should really have included is that concept of being self aware.

Until you can show me an ape that appreciates it is a product of evolution and envisage realities other than those it has experienced, I'm still running with the idea that we are something different. I'm not saying anyone gave us the master franchise for the planet. Simply that the happy accident is we are the smartest thing around here by a distance that does mean we are something else.

Well, I'd go for quantitatively different rather than qualitatively - I'm not expecting monkey scientists any time today....the suggestion of a qualitative difference due to the quantitative one can lead down a rather nasty little alley which starts with the point that, say, science, is largely a European invention - from where we swiftly find ourselves saying that this or that group of people is qualitatively different (better/worse) because of a quantitative difference.

Schuhart wrote:

With respect, I do think this is equality gone over the edge. I doubt that an ant is able to make abstract judgements. We can. That is a considerable difference.

I'm open to the idea - while I'm not sponsoring it myself - that some few animals say dolphins, gorillas, and maybe even Yeti, are capable of some kind of rudimentary reasoning. But there's no member of any other species that would be capable of following this discussion between us.

True, but, like I say, they might consider our inability to crack nuts with our beaks to mark us as hopelessly deficient. As to the equality - I probably am well over almost all the edges on that one. I would consider a human life morally equivalent to any other, but my sympathies usually lie with the human (and so on down a scale of diminishing empathy).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

the suggestion of a qualitative difference due to the quantitative one can lead down a rather nasty little alley which starts with the point that, say, science, is largely a European invention - from where we swiftly find ourselves saying that this or that group of people is qualitatively different (better/worse) because of a quantitative difference.

As I see it, eventually something becomes something else. Clearly, if we go back far enough, we're all just some kind of carbon gloop. Now, stand far enough back and I'm sure you could still describe us all as carbon gloop. But the point remains that anyone - picking whatever person you might deem to be least 'European' in outlook - is capable of understanding abstract concepts. Animals cannot. I would not describe that as a quantative difference. Its not that I can, say, add longer numbers together in my head than a monkey (I probably can't - where's that calculator). Its that you and I can hold concepts in our head that the monkey cannot. Its not a matter of comparing cultures or their norms. Its about assessing the typical features of species.

Scofflaw wrote:

True, but, like I say, they might consider our inability to crack nuts with our beaks to mark us as hopelessly deficient.

I'm not confident they would form judgements of us at all.

Scofflaw wrote:

As to the equality - I probably am well over almost all the edges on that one. I would consider a human life morally equivalent to any other, but my sympathies usually lie with the human (and so on down a scale of diminishing empathy).

Clearly, such an ethic is possible. I don't share it - I feel ethics largely start and end with how we treat each other.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

As I see it, eventually something becomes something else. Clearly, if we go back far enough, we're all just some kind of carbon gloop. Now, stand far enough back and I'm sure you could still describe us all as carbon gloop. But the point remains that anyone - picking whatever person you might deem to be least 'European' in outlook - is capable of understanding abstract concepts. Animals cannot. I would not describe that as a quantative difference. Its not that I can, say, add longer numbers together in my head than a monkey (I probably can't - where's that calculator). Its that you and I can hold concepts in our head that the monkey cannot. Its not a matter of comparing cultures or their norms. Its about assessing the typical features of species.

I take your point, but it would depend on what you consider to be an abstract concept. Is language abstract? Tool use? Planning? All of these are documented in various animals. I suspect that we have to push the definition (such as it is) of "abstract concept" quite a long way before we can get qualitative here.

Schuhart wrote:

I'm not confident they would form judgements of us at all.Clearly, such an ethic is possible. I don't share it - I feel ethics largely start and end with how we treat each other.

Generally, it earns me raised eyebrows, I find...particularly since I'm not a vegetarian, and am therefore immoral by my own lights...ah well. I would look at it, I think, as simply being a wider definition of "each other".

contradictorily,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I take your point, but it would depend on what you consider to be an abstract concept. Is language abstract? Tool use? Planning? All of these are documented in various animals. I suspect that we have to push the definition (such as it is) of "abstract concept" quite a long way before we can get qualitative here.

Indeed, animals do show all of those features. What you said reminded me of some of the comments the time that Deep Blue beat the world chess champion. At one time, people used to say chess required all kinds of quality intellectual wattage, in addition to the ability to see through walls and communicate with the dead. Then we discover that if you turn the handle on a big enough barrel organ, it can beat our best.

I agree it is not easy to capture the exact threshold that we’ve crossed that makes us such thoroughly high class life forms that wouldn’t be seen cavorting with riff-raff like Possums and Iguanas. But I’m not sure the full picture is caught by saying ‘Language? These species here do language’. We go places with language that they cannot follow. Its where we go with it that marks the difference.

The extent to which our lives are based on a world our species has shaped is unmatched by any other to such an extent that I do think we’ve made ourselves into something different. Yes, we could probably draw some parallel for many individual human features and hence describe the difference as purely quantative. But, for me, there is a vast qualitative difference between all the physical and social stuff that goes on in a city and a couple of beavers building a dam.

pbsuxok1znja4r

robindch wrote:

None of the atheists who I know live anything like lazy or unfulfilled lives. On the contrary, I find that most of them lead productive, happy and fulfilled lives. My experience with religios people is the opposite.

*Says exactly the opposite and tags on that all-important "in my experience" disclaimer*
I was an atheist for 5 years, so, I'm somehow consequently more qualified to say this, too.

wrote:

Less appealingly, I find most of the religious people I know tend to be judgemental about other people,

You'll have to forgive me for pointing out the irony of your judging religious people (horrible generalisations FTW BTW) as being judgemental and 'less appealing'.

wrote:

meaning that they're unhappy about other people, in addition to being unhappy or guilty about themselves. I also find the atheists I know far more open to reciprocal exchange (ie, I have a party in my place and I know that the invitation will be reciprocated fairly soon; doesn't happen as often with the religious).

Well, TBH, it's no small wonder. It seems logical that atheists would be far more attracted to other Atheists in this way and it's possible that at your party you made no secret of the fact that you view religious people as 'less appealing'. You've just got more in common with them. It's no mystery anti-social behaviour on the part of religious people like you're making it out to be. What do you expect, like? To make a Tao Te Ching-esque statement, if I may; When you view people as lacking in appeal, they will soon become unappealing. I'm sure it's nothing personal

wrote:

In my own case, the biggest change was that I realised that I was the guy who was fully responsible for what I felt, and not other people or deities.

TBH, if you were deluded into thinking deities had influence over how you feel, that doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with religion. There's no reason religious people wouldn't be aware of the same thing. When I converted to Atheism I realised that drinking babies' blood is wrong, like. :rolleyes:

wrote:

Other people's experience may differ, but that's my 2 cents.

Well, I can certainly say my experience does differ; mine's more balanced, re: atheist vs religious. I'm not going to go making any specific generalisations about it, though.
My two cents, etc

Zillah

scouser.tommy wrote:

You'll have to forgive me for pointing out the irony of your judging religious people (horrible generalisations FTW BTW) as being judgemental and 'less appealing'.

1 - He made no generalisation, he stated a fact. If you contest that fact* and have evidence to back it up, then please do.

*The majority of religious people that he knows are quite judgemental.

2 - Forming an opinion of someone is not akin to being judgmental. To be judgmental one must be prone to making judgements, not just one instance. Not ironic. Fallaciously ironic on a superficial level that ignores the crux of the point, sure.

UU

Well, that's quite a tricky question indeed.

Most religions (notably Abrahamic ones) are seriously flawed in that they have little focus on the Here and Now but rather the present moment is simply seen as a means to an end, like an obstacle. Like something that is unimportant as there exists some fantasy paradise waiting in the distant future. Here the cracks form. In this, there arises a strong sense of separation, nearly a non-acceptance to what Is. There is no surrender to the Now but an egoic-mind driven state that is on fast forward to going to some place with a mental idol called God. A disconnectivity with what is, with Being, the very essence of life itself.

Atheism in a wider sense can be often more fulfilling in terms of life-fulfillment as if there is nothing greater to look forward to than life itself, so why bother worrying about death, about hell or heaven or reincarnation, if one disbelieves in these. If there is little anticipation, then the Now is all one ever has so why bother wasting it?

If you have seen Richard Dawkin's "Root Of All Evil", he says something highly enlightening at the end of the documentary:

To an atheist, there is no all-loving, all-seeing god who keeps us free from harm. But atheism is not a recipe for despair - I think the opposite. By disclaiming the idea of a next life, we can take more excitement in this one. The Here and Now is not something to be enduredbefore eternal bliss or damnation. The Here and Now is all we have. an ispiration to make the most of it. So atheism is life-affirming in a way religion can never be.

Look around you: Nature demands our attention. It begs us to explore, to question. Religion can provide only facile, untimately unsatisfying answers.

Science in constantly seeking real explanations reveals the true majesty of out world in all its complexity.

People sometimes say "There must be more than just this world, just this life?" But how much more do you want?

We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The number of people eho could be here, in my place, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. If you think of all the different ways in which our genes could be permuted. You and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here. The number of events that had to happen in order for you to exist, in order for me to exist. We are privileged to be alive and we should make the most of our time on this world.

robindch

> Most religions (notably Abrahamic ones) are seriously flawed in that they
> have little focus on the Here and Now but rather the present moment is
> simply seen as a means to an end, like an obstacle.

If you take the evolutionary view of religions, you'll see that far from being seriously flawed in what they say is true or false, their meaningless assertions actually form part the most elegantly evolved cultural artifacts around, up there with language and music. Makes them all the more fascinating to study and understand.

UU

robindch wrote:

If you take the evolutionary view of religions, you'll see that far from being seriously flawed in what they say is true or false, their meaningless assertions actually form part the most elegantly evolved cultural artifacts around, up there with language and music. Makes them all the more fascinating to study and understand.

Well maybe so but I do think perhaps in theory they may seem enlighening but in practise, they're a different story. I do think they are seriously flawed in that the "holy" texts continuously contradict themselves and that is not a judgement, that is a fact. How can one claim to kill in the name of their religion, their god when it says in the flipping ten commandments "Thou shalt not kill"! In saying that, I do not mean to deny the benefits of religion. They give hope to people, they give a sense of unity and something meaningful and eternal outside the boundaries of life. In fact, these religion are extremely clever how they work. But of course, religion is created by humans for humans. People are not perfect nor will they ever be so corruption occurs and the message of truth they try to spead is overshadowed by a disease, a virus. I firmly believe that religion can become a virus that keeps infecting the minds of people.

Of course, there exists religions that work very well. Buddhism is one such example. Of course, people claim Buddhism to be a philosphy rather than a religion. How come one hears of Muslims, Christians and Jews killing each other and others and yet, one rarely here's of Buddhists starting wars (should I say never)? It's all food for thought.

abetarrush

My life lack's many things, but "god" isnt one of them

I think Athiest live better live as they dont worry about "then" [the afterlife]and concentrate on NOW

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

How come one hears of Muslims, Christians and Jews killing each other and others and yet, one rarely here's of Buddhists starting wars (should I say never)? It's all food for thought.

No time to start wars, we are always too busy meditating on our navels:)

Beruthiel

Asiaprod wrote:

No time to start wars, we are always too busy meditating on our navels:)

And looking for an explaination on why belly button fluff is always blue

Asiaprod

Beruthiel wrote:

And looking for an explaination on why belly button fluff is always blue

How did you know that? That is a Buddhist secret.
It is even chronicled in the "Journeys of Lobsang the Dim" that only the enlightened can understand the Blueness of Belly Button Fluff for the seat of power lies behind the humble Belly Button. He also said a lot of other thing equally ridiculous.

<Just received my copy of Spring, Summer Autumn, Winter, Spring that you recommended. Will let you know how it goes.>

Beruthiel

Asiaprod wrote:

How did you know that? That is a Buddhist secret.

Through drink and drugs, I reached nirvana the lazy way, it's amazing what will capture your mind at five in the morning while staring at your partners belly

Just received my copy of Spring, Summer Autumn, Winter, Spring that you recommended. Will let you know how it goes.

I hope you enjoy it

aidan24326

<Schuhart>
Humans can reason, which does put us in my mind in a higher category than animals. Its not that any higher being has put us in this position. Its just how things worked out. We are the consciousness in the universe. Before us, probably nothing was self aware.

Other animals are also 'conscious', not just us. We just happen to have higher mental faculties, and are perhaps conscious in a different way to other creatures, while a non-human creature may be conscious in a way that's appropriate to it's own mental capacity.

As for the universe, we are the only intelligent technological lifeforms we know of right now, that doesn't mean we are the only ones now or at any time in the past or future. The universe is a big place. We've no idea what (or who) else is out there. It would be a little disappointing to me if we humans were the best this vast universe had to offer.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Oh yeah, my apologies to robindch whom I incorrectly accused of generalising. Like I said, I'll read more carefully next time. I've certainly found my experience with religious folk to differ from yours. TBH I don't, on the whole, see any real difference in 'life fulfillment' etc between Atheists vs Religious. I would say that the balanced view is more correct here, but TBH I think it's more accurate to say merely that the imbalanced view is less correct.

Schuhart

aidan24326 wrote:

Other animals are also 'conscious', not just us. We just happen to have higher mental faculties, and are perhaps conscious in a different way to other creatures, while a non-human creature may be conscious in a way that's appropriate to it's own mental capacity.

I've no essential problem with what you say. The idea I'm trying (and failing) to get across is indeed that idea that we are conscious in a different way. The only quibble I'd have is your use of the word 'appropriate'. It might not be your intention, but it seems to suggest a moral element to this. I would not say that a mouse has a 'correct' level of consciousness. It simply has whatever it has, just as we have whatever we have.

However, we simply do have a capacity for abstract thought that outstrips anything else we have knowledge of. This seems self evident to me, and I take it you are not really disputing that. The essence of what I'm saying is illustrated by the example that no member of any other species that we are aware of could read or understand this thread.

aidan24326 wrote:

As for the universe, we are the only intelligent technological lifeforms we know of right now, that doesn't mean we are the only ones now or at any time in the past or future. The universe is a big place. We've no idea what (or who) else is out there.

Absolutely, but as far as we know for practical purposes we are the smartest thing you are ever likely to meet.

aidan24326 wrote:

It would be a little disappointing to me if we humans were the best this vast universe had to offer.

I'm not about to replace an idea of one kind of higher being with another. The great are only great because we are on our knees. I am happy to work on the assumption that for all practical purposes we are as good as it gets.

Dades

Schuhart wrote:

Absolutely, but as far as we know for practical purposes we are the smartest thing you are ever likely to meet.

Oh, I don't know about that.

I hear they're pretty brainy in the Mathematics forum.

Schuhart

But how do we know the Mathematics Forum exists? Maybe that link under 'Sci' is just a reflection of our desire that some greater Forum exists where all things will become clear.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I've no essential problem with what you say. The idea I'm trying (and failing) to get across is indeed that idea that we are conscious in a different way. The only quibble I'd have is your use of the word 'appropriate'. It might not be your intention, but it seems to suggest a moral element to this. I would not say that a mouse has a 'correct' level of consciousness. It simply has whatever it has, just as we have whatever we have.

However, we simply do have a capacity for abstract thought that outstrips anything else we have knowledge of. This seems self evident to me, and I take it you are not really disputing that.

I, on the other hand, am disputing that (well, more quibbling, really).

Schuhart wrote:

The essence of what I'm saying is illustrated by the example that no member of any other species that we are aware of could read or understand this thread.

That we are unable to communicate with other life through this specific medium means very little. An illiterate would not be able to read this forum, and I can think of people offhand who wouldn't understand it (some of them also post, although not in this thread!).

I understand what you're saying. However, I am uncertain, given our inability to communicate with other life, how we would test your hypothesis that we possess a capacity for abstract thought so much larger than any other life form that it is qualitatively different.

If we are unable to test the capacity of other species for abstract thought, we are left judging them by their failure to produce concrete examples of specifically human outcomes of abstract thought - in other words, we have to assume that they, like us, would produce architecture if they were capable of abstract thought to our degree, and that they would actually build visible examples of their architecture.

In short, what you suggest, while it seems self-evident, on closer examination is actually unproven and unprovable at present, except by making the same kind of assumptions that so recently allowed people to classify negroes as subhuman.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

examination is actually unproven and unprovable at present, except by making the same kind of assumptions that so recently allowed people to classify negroes as subhuman.

Firstly, looking for some kind of common basis, I take it we can both accept that the world does not come with an instruction manual. Its here, we’re here and there is no particular reason why we should have the wherewithal to be able to explain any of it. Looking at it another way, when we were all carbon gloop there would have been no life, no awareness of any kind and nothing with the capability to recognise or describe the process going on around it.

Fast forward to today, and we do have some kind of reasonable awareness. The question of whether that awareness is shared by every member of our species is frankly a red herring. The key point is whether the human species generally has a certain trait – not whether 1. certain individuals have missed out on the innate trait 2. have no interest in using that trait 3. have, for one or other reason, been socially excluded from the exercise of that trait. Anticipating a possible misdirection, I’m not suggesting that possession or exercise of the trait is essential to claim membership of our species.

That leaves the question of whether other species have an intellectual life that either we are unaware of, or which they have not had the opportunity to express. Clearly this is possible, but only in the same sense as it is possible that god put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. If someone decides to take a stand on such an absurd premise, indeed language cannot be found that would coax them out. But I don’t see the point of replacing one absurd premise with another. We’re here. Nothing else shows the same capacity for reason, so we are the awareness in this reality.

If we work on the basis that anything that can be envisaged has to be given equal weight to what we can reasonably work out to be true, then we’re accepting that Creationists are right in principle to say their beliefs should be give equal time to evolution in school science classes.

robindch

> my apologies to robindch whom I incorrectly accused of generalising.

Thanks for your apology -- no hard feelings!

> I would say that the balanced view is more correct here, but TBH I think
> it's more accurate to say merely that the imbalanced view is less correct.

In your case, that's probably quite true. One of the functions of religion is to provide a trust-framework within communities of people who don't know each other (and therefore may not trust each other) -- meaning that if you're a member of a religion, you can expect in general to be treated better by fellow-members than non-members can expect to be treated. That would tie in with the facts as we've both experienced them?