is atheism better than believing in a god who doesnt care? (page 3)

kid-A

For most (not all) religious individuals I know, belief in god and the supernatural is such an ingrained template in their understanding of the universe, I have no doubt they would be psychologically worse off, living as atheists, than living as religionists and accepting the obvious moral inferiority of the Christian-Judaeo god. It requires an active suppression of what your logical mind is telling you, in favour of allowing your emotions, paranoia and fear overtake your reasoning.

I would guess that the majority of humanity simply cannot tolerate the notion that mortal existence is ephemeral, that they will simply live a brief time, then die, and that will be it. Simply put, most cannot accept the finality of death. Thus, if transcending this "fear and trembling" (as Kierkegaard so eloquently described it) means worshipping a ridiculous goat-herders god conceived in the desert 2000 years ago by wandering nomads, than so be it. They are happy with this choice, and it provides the necessary amount of psychological anesthesia to allow them to live day after day. I have basically described my JW relatives in the preceding paragraph.

GetBusyLiving

It wasn't a choice for me. I definitely prefer being an atheist to trying to believe in God.

GBL

theinfamousone

i think it can be kind of a stretch either way... but atheism makes me feel that i am not chasing after something that is possibly non existant and definitely inactive... whats the point...

the infamous one

Narkissos

I would guess that the majority of humanity simply cannot tolerate the notion that mortal existence is ephemeral, that they will simply live a brief time, then die, and that will be it. Simply put, most cannot accept the finality of death. Thus, if transcending this "fear and trembling" (as Kierkegaard so eloquently described it) means worshipping a ridiculous goat-herders god conceived in the desert 2000 years ago by wandering nomads,

Ironically Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (1843) describes, precisely, not the terror of living (and dying) without God or meaning, but that of believing and obeying God against what morals would require, illustrated by the story of Abraham. In Kierkegaardian terms it is the leap from the ethical stage (the general precept, "Thou shalt not kill") to the religious stage (the particular order, "Sacrifice your son"). Something close to what is being discussed Dave(AA)'s thread about a potential encounter with God.

sinis

What if we are looking for god in vain, when in fact we are all a little bit of god himself? Why is it so far fetched to believe we are actually pieces of the whole, and each individual experience builds upon the other? What if we are only one department of god, known as morality, whereas, other aspects exist outside of our realm or space. At the basic level perhaps we are only biological "probes".

yaddayadda

Like you said in your first post, God is 'inactive' at the moment. Whether he is justified in doing nothing about wickedness and suffering or not at the moment depends entirely on what his reasons are for doing that. I trust that a being as powerful enough to make the universe, earth, and everything in it must have some grand purpose behind it all if he bothered to go to such incredible lengths to create so much beauty etc. Some purpose that our puny little minds have trouble comprehending. So I don't see that he is a God who doesn't care, rather he is a God who has left us alone for a while to make a mess in our little playpen but will eventually return before we kill ourselves off entirely. My response to your question also depends on whether there is any evidence I can see that indicates whether God plans to take measures to remedy all the harm we have inflicted on ourselves. I think the answer to that is found in the ministry and actions of Jesus Christ. But if you are a person without faith then of course that is just foolishness.

Madame Quixote

If there is a god who cares about us all, and even if it doesn't, I've got a whole bunch of questions for him, like:

Why create the suffering of predation in the animal kingdom?

Why not something less painful than having so many blood-thirtsy meat-eating carnivores? After all, the sentient beings being eaten all the time have nervous systems, unlike plants. Couldn't you have made us all vegetarians and eliminated all the pain and suffering of all the animals in the animal kingdom, since you're supposed to be a loving, compassionate, merciful being?

Why allow a poor caterpillar to be eaten from the inside out by the larvae of the digger wasp, implanted in its body after it is very carefully stung, so as to keep the catepillar meat fresh and alive (and probably in pain) for the newly hatching baby wasps? YUCK! Isn't that a bit sadomasochistic for a creator to do that to any sentient being - even a catepillar?

Why did you allow the skin on my upper arms to be so icky from some kind of allergy no one can figure out?

Why can't we all have health care and adequate health insurance coverage?

Why are we born right next to our mother's butt holes instead of in a more sanitary way?

Why did you allow the human infant's head to be so gigantic in comparison to a woman's vagina, through which it must come?

Why do you let earthquakes hurt and kill people?

And tidal waves?

And volcanoes?

Why do I have to breathe through the same hole I eat with? It is dangerous and inefficient.

Why did you create or allow nematocysts and mosquitoes?

Why are you playing all these games with us, you sado-masochistic bastard?

Madame Quixote

Fortunately, I have been getting educated for a number of years on a number of topics related to the above questions, and I don't have to ask these things of god because I know that blind evolution and geological and atmospheric issues created most of these challenges to our existence - except for the health insurance problem. Although, I am sure if I search through the annals of evolutionary social psychology or sociology of medicine, I'll be able to find some interesting theories on the topic of lack of health care . . .

Narkissos

Then the woman said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a god as his partner."

So the woman called every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man named every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a god as his partner. So the woman caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then she took one of the words in his mind and closed up its place.

And the word that the woman had taken from the man she made into a mirror and brought it to the man.
Then the man said,
"This at last is the Word of my words
and Thought of my thoughts;
This one shall be called God,
for out of Man this one was not taken."

valkyrie

" Nothing can shake my belief that this world is the fruit of a dark god whose shadow I extend [and that it is incumbent upon me to exhaust the consequences of the curse hanging over him and his creation]." {Brackets and emphasis added} - E.M. Cioran

If such a summation is the inevitable consequence of belief in a "[G]od" and of an ensuing examination of that one's dealings (or absences), would it not rather be evidence of graciousness to presume the non-existence of "[G]od"?

What better excuse to forgive [G]od's appparent shortcomings - when one attempts to reconcile God-ness (surpassing the iconic sterility of the concept of divinity) and an oeuvre riddled with incompleteness - than an incapacitating failure to exist?

is atheism better than believing in a god who doesnt care?

Share this