Do Atheists live a more fulfilled life?

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?

MrB

Schuhart wrote:

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.

Just popped into the Mathematics forum and I can confirm that it does actually exist!
Now please excuse me while I go lie down in a darkened room with a bag of ice on my head

condra

Im glad Im an atheist but Im constantly stressed out about religion and hypocracy and all the sh1t thats tied to all these people who believe they are right and that they are contributing to world peace. all the delusions, the irony, the cynicism, the hypocracy, it gets to me.

Ignorance IS bliss, unfortunatly.