Could an Atheist be a believer.
-
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and vote 'no.' An atheist can be a great person and all but they're not a believer if they don't believe. Now, agnostics are a different story; if they believe there is a GOD but don't believe that we can know anything about that GOD. People who don't believe in a 'personal' GOD but who consider GOD as more transcendant than that, like an omnidimensional multiversal all-powerful entity, yeah, that's a believer. but people who believe in multiple gods or no dieties at all, I'm sure they can be great folks but I wouldn't consider them believers.
believing in things like 'truth' and 'justice' can be a little too subjective sometimes...
How can truth and justice be subjective? As huruf said, if someone serves these attributes of god selflessly, isn't he serving god?
The only other way of judging a believer is by their words. Actions speak a lot louder than words. -
But that's where you're mistaken. Morality IS based on reason. It is completely independent from religion. In fact, it is the standard by which religions are judged. That wouldn't be possible if religions defined morality.
You realize how contradictory that is? A person doesn't believe in God because God is invisible. Yet this same person believes in values that are also invisible? God defines morality, without God there can be no morality. There can be Social Contract theory but that does not equate to morality. In order to have clear right and wrong it requires intelligent design and not random chance.
-
How can truth and justice be subjective? As huruf said, if someone serves these attributes of god selflessly, isn't he serving god?
The only other way of judging a believer is by their words. Actions speak a lot louder than words.Truth and Justice are just values, they do not exist as independent phenomenon that can be observed. They are entirely subject to the individuals perception which means you cannot argue that they are objective. The only way for "Good" to exist is for the creator to define them and enforce it. On their own they are worthless.
-
You realize how contradictory that is? A person doesn't believe in God because God is invisible. Yet this same person believes in values that are also invisible? God defines morality, without God there can be no morality. There can be Social Contract theory but that does not equate to morality. In order to have clear right and wrong it requires intelligent design and not random chance.
Not contradictory at all.
What is right and wrong has nothing to do with out creation. You are getting into how we got here, but that's not important. We are here and what's important to morality is what's going on right now.
Every situation is different, and requires that reason is used to figure out the best option. I am not talking about a particular theory, here.Is something right because religion tells you to do it, or does religion tell you to do it because it's right?
Judging by how much people here on this forum like to use reason and science to back up islam, I'd say most people believe it is the latter. And that is the right answer.
Religion doesn't define morality at all.What religion attempts to do (at least when it is honest) is try to guide us to the right path so that we don't have to learn everything the hard way.
But like Abraham, we can take the hard way if we want...learn everything through experience and trial and error.God is invisible but his qualities aren't. In fact that is the only way we can see, god, it seems.
-
Truth and Justice are just values, they do not exist as independent phenomenon that can be observed. They are entirely subject to the individuals perception which means you cannot argue that they are objective. The only way for "Good" to exist is for the creator to define them and enforce it. On their own they are worthless.
No,these qualities are not subjective. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. It is clear (as the quran says).
Justice is justice. Yes people will disagree on how to get justice, but the idea is to strive toward that. -
-
Okay I realized we're going off topic and debating something (worthy but) irrelevant.
Let's start with this
How does the quran define justice?
Taking the quran's definition, what if an atheist person upholds the quran's definition perfectly? what then?2264 O you who believe, do not nullify your charities with insult and harm; like the one who spends his money in vanity to show the people, and he does not believe in God and the Last Day. His example is like a stone on which there is dust, then it is subjected to heavy rain which leaves it bare. They cannot do anything with what they earned; and God does not guide the rejecting people.
2265 And the example of those who spend their money seeking God?s grace, and to save their souls, is like the example of a garden that is on a high ground and is subjected to a heavy rain, and because of that it produces double its crop. And if no heavy rain comes, then light rain is enough. And God is Seer over all you do. -
Those verses are clearly talking about giving charity for show vs. doing it sincerely.
What we are talking about essentially is the definition of "believing in god." What does it mean to believe in god, and how do you know if a person believes in god.
What I'm saying is, your actions reflect your beliefs, exactly. What is inside you is manifested through your actions. So if your actions are right, then your beliefs must also be right, unless your actions are forced or insincere. -
The verse clearly indicate that deeds can be nullified when the foundation (belief in 1 God and the day of judgment) is not there.
your actions reflect your beliefs, exactly. What is inside you is manifested through your actions. So if your actions are right, then your beliefs must also be right, unless your actions are forced or insincere.
I just read "unless your actions are forced or insincere". Let me think about it more.
-
unless your actions are forced or insincere.
So you are saying the person is sincerely doing good. What do you mean by "sincere"? e.g.
Person B gives food to the hungry. Person A laughs at them. They are both atheists. Who is right, and Why? And how does sincerity come into it?
-
So you are saying the person is sincerely doing good. What do you mean by "sincere"? e.g.
Person B gives food to the hungry. Person A laughs at them. They are both atheists. Who is right, and Why? And how does sincerity come into it?
Person A is just an asshole, so he's not important.
Person B is giving food to the hungry. That's a good thing and person B deserves praise. But what if we find out Person B was only doing this so he could get that praise and feel good about himself? Then we wouldn't be so willing to heap praise on him. Your intentions have to be good as well.
Good intentions without actions or wrong actions is bad. And good actions based on wrong intentions is bad, as well. -
Person A is just an asshole, so he's not important.
Person B is giving food to the hungry. That's a good thing and person B deserves praise. But what if we find out Person B was only doing this so he could get that praise and feel good about himself? Then we wouldn't be so willing to heap praise on him. Your intentions have to be good as well.
Good intentions without actions or wrong actions is bad. And good actions based on wrong intentions is bad, as well.Well I wouldn't say Person A is an asshole. Just lacks incentive to do good. Person B however is being illogical because feeding poor people does not fit into the materialistic view of "survival of of the fittest".
I would go so far as to say that Person A is being more rationale then Person B. Anyway if this doesn't show that atheism is not compatible with universal morality then I don't know what will. You need to differentiate between social contract and morals. The first can be defined by humans, the latter must be defined by God.
-
Well I wouldn't say Person A is an asshole. Just lacks incentive to do good. Person B however is being illogical because feeding poor people does not fit into the materialistic view of "survival of of the fittest".
I would go so far as to say that Person A is being more rationale then Person B. Anyway if this doesn't show that atheism is not compatible with universal morality then I don't know what will. You need to differentiate between social contract and morals. The first can be defined by humans, the latter must be defined by God.
I really don't understand what you're getting at. What does survival of the fittest have to do with this?
Atheists can be moral. I don't get how your analogy shows otherwise.
-
Person A is just an asshole, so he's not important.
Person B is giving food to the hungry. That's a good thing and person B deserves praise. But what if we find out Person B was only doing this so he could get that praise and feel good about himself? Then we wouldn't be so willing to heap praise on him. Your intentions have to be good as well.
Good intentions without actions or wrong actions is bad. And good actions based on wrong intentions is bad, as well.What do you think would be a good intention?
The way I see it, every good action that someone does has a personal incentive behind it, and often it's to make themselves feel good about themselves, or to relieve some of the guilt that they feel from seeing someone less fortunate. -
Well I wouldn't say Person A is an asshole. Just lacks incentive to do good. Person B however is being illogical because feeding poor people does not fit into the materialistic view of "survival of of the fittest".
Person B through getting praise gets satisfaction and happiness from feeding the poor, so it is perfectly logical that he feed them.
-
What do you think would be a good intention?
The way I see it, every good action that someone does has a personal incentive behind it, and often it's to make themselves feel good about themselves, or to relieve some of the guilt that they feel from seeing someone less fortunate.It is not guilt when we feel bad about others less fortunate than us. It is more like sympathy.
I would say something good should be done for the sake of it. We should do the right thing because it is right, not because it benefits us. Although it does end up benefiting is more often than not.
When we do things for our own good (like most people do), we end up sacrificing our principles when the going gets tough. People are only moral as long as it is easy. That's not how it should be.If someone helps the poor for the sake of helping the poor, he is not serving himself but serving something higher than himself. I'd say he is a believer.
-
Peace to all,
I have to say, this is a good post, some of the best arguments ive seen in awhile on the forum. My opinions are actually closer to bro aalmaktos, though Lobster makes many good points. For the sake of argument though, LObster, just doing things that one coniders good is really not enough, and does not make a believer, what would you say of a satanist who actually believes in doing good things to others but only based on an ethic of reciprocity, not becvause its inherently good itself, they actually will say they reject God and worship satan and then openly do good things in order to furhter their cause, many are confused by the satanist creed when they see satanists arent out killing pweople and committing crimes, they believe in doing good but only because it will advance their own interests on earth, they deny an eternal punishment or power of Gods judgement, so are they doing good and living by GOds ethic, though they openly reject and deny, they still go therough all the motions if it benefits them personaly and temporily. Are they still believers then?
Kurt
-
It is not guilt when we feel bad about others less fortunate than us. It is more like sympathy.
I would say something good should be done for the sake of it. We should do the right thing because it is right, not because it benefits us. Although it does end up benefiting is more often than not.
When we do things for our own good (like most people do), we end up sacrificing our principles when the going gets tough. People are only moral as long as it is easy. That's not how it should be.If someone helps the poor for the sake of helping the poor, he is not serving himself but serving something higher than himself. I'd say he is a believer.
Reasons for when someone helps another person consciously are always going to be selfish in someway. When someone helps the poor, it may be that they feel bad for them, and as a result they have a sort of lust to help them. If they do not satisfy this lust, they won't be able to relieve themselves of the guilt and of feeling bad for the less fortunate person. They are therefore not doing the good deed for the sake of it.
For example, I often help others, not for the sake of it, but because seeing a smile on their face as a result of what I've done for them makes me feel happy. The goal for me is that feeling of satisfaction and happiness.
-
I really don't understand what you're getting at. What does survival of the fittest have to do with this?
Let me put it this way. For an atheist the only action they should be concerned with is improving their personal chances of survival. Would you agree with this?
The only logical reason they would do "good" is in order to feel better, earn peoples respect etc. Please explain if you believe otherwise.
-
Person B through getting praise gets satisfaction and happiness from feeding the poor, so it is perfectly logical that he feed them.
Yes but Lobster has already ruled out those people as "believers"
But what if we find out Person B was only doing this so he could get that praise and feel good about himself? Then we wouldn't be so willing to heap praise on him. Your intentions have to be good as well.