Why Did God Create Atheists?

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Why Did God Create Atheists?

G-d created humans beings as believers, some of them fell from that original position and became non-believers, and they like to be called Atheist/s belonging to Atheism or many of its shades/sects/denominations, I understand, please. Right?

All humans are born atheist. Most are also born with a propensity for superstition. That superstition can be filled with religion.

Is one superstitious, please? Right?
One's "none" is not supported by the Religious Method, please. Right?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Is one superstitious, please? Right?
One's "none" is not supported by the Religious Method, please. Right?

Regards

What validation has the "religious method" got?

For that matter, what is the "religious method"

 

[Sheldon]

Is one superstitious, please? Right?
One's "none" is not supported by the Religious Method, please. Right?

Regards

I've read that post several times, and it's still gibberish?

Superstition anyway is defined as an overly credulous belief in the supernatural. So from an atheist perspective theism would be superstition by definition. Obviously theists wouldn't agree, that's a given. The word simply encapsulates the difference between theism and atheism.

 

[paarsurrey]

What validation has the "religious method" got?

For that matter, what is the "religious method"

Is one's "none" supported by the "Scientific Method", please? Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I've read that post several times, and it's still gibberish?

Superstition anyway is defined as an overly credulous belief in the supernatural. So from an atheist perspective theism would be superstition by definition. Obviously theists wouldn't agree, that's a given. The word simply encapsulates the difference between theism and atheism.

#44, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Sheldon]

Is one's "none" supported by the "Scientific Method", please? Right?

Regards

What is one's "none"? Can you speak English please.

 

[Sheldon]

#44, please. Right?

Regards

Polly put the kettle on, Polly put the kettle one, right, please....

 

[ChristineM]

Is one's "none" supported by the "Scientific Method", please? Right?

Regards

That did not answer either of the questions so i assume you cannot give a valid reply.

 

[Heyo]

Is one's "none" supported by the "Scientific Method", please? Right?

Regards

Yes and no.
Yes, if there is an suggestion that a real god exists. Then we'd ask for scientific evidence.
No, if the suggestion is a philosophical god. Science doesn't deal with that question.

 

[PureX]

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks "What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?"

The Master responds "God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all - the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you.'"

ETA source: Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 by Martin Bube

To anyone interested in this kind of thinking, I would recommend the short stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer. Your story put me in mind of one of them, specifically (though I don't recall the title). It is about a very devout man who, in a moment of great stress, commits adultery. And in his mind, then, loses his access to heaven. And he is devastated by this. Depressed and humiliated and miserable. Finally he goes on a journey to see a great Rabbi hoping for some means of atonement. But when he meets with the Rabbi, the Rabbi confesses and ever greater sin, to him! So, shocked, the man asks the Rabbi why he continues to act as this great Rabbi when he has clearly fallen from the path to God and heaven even further than those he would guide? And the Rabbi explains that it's just who he is, and what he does. That his transgression does not define him as a person. So now he does good just for the sake of doing good, because he has lost any hope of being rewarded for it in heaven. And this made sense to the man, because he felt the same way. So he went home and continued to live a pious life in spite of his past transgression.

Singer was a great writer of these kinds of stories, and he wrote many of them. He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1978 for a short form novel called "Gimpol the Fool".

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, if the suggestion is a philosophical god. Science doesn't deal with that question.

Why do we need an imaginary philosophical God?

 

[ChristineM]

Why do we need an imaginary philosophical God?

We don't, though some are needy for such dreams

 

[Heyo]

Why do we need an imaginary philosophical God?

I don't but some people do. And they have a right to create one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God must truly love atheists, because they never stop talking about Him.

One will find it easiest to communicate using language familiar to one's audience. In fact, this doesn't talk about God at all -- it's actually about how to be a better human.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or atheists are obsessed with God.

Read deeper.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Except God did not create atheists. God created humans to exist in loving relationship with Himself the Creator. Atheists choose to reject the love and purpose they were created for.

You were born atheist, you know. You had no choice in that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well I don't think your question solves it. Because we know some people have done bad things, lets just go with the burn people at the stake thing. But if what he is saying is that religious people gets their morality from God or their religion, then clearly these should not be capable of doing such thing and therefore I assume that those that burn people at the stake must therefore be atheists, or religious people which doesn't follow the morality of God?
Do you see the issue then?

Either the atheists for some reason are burning people at the stakes or religious people don't really get their morality from God, or are simply able to not follow it whenever they chooses, but then what is the difference between them and atheists?
Except based on what he write, is that atheists are able to show true compassion. But atheists do whatever they will regardless of their religious belief, both if its good or bad. So what is the difference, between religious people and atheists? What is the point of talking about a lesson and pointing out that atheists in particular can do kindness etc. without a believe in God, when religious people can do the exact same thing.

This becomes very messy quickly, if we are to go down that route I think.

I see it differently, I'm afraid.

What is the merit in doing good only because you think "God will approve," or avoid doing evil so that you don't **** God off? How much better is it, for your own soul, to help another person for no other reason than that you want to, or don't hurt another person simply because you would rather not?

Think about the over-religious United States, where millions upon millions of self-proclaimed Christians hate the notion of universal health care because their taxes will go up a bit. They would much prefer that many of their fellows will go broke trying to fight an illness, or have no medical care at all, rather than pay a few more dollars in tax. Compare that to the many, far less religious nations that have managed to put universal health care in place because their citizens wanted to, and so what if we pay a bit more each?

What makes a person good or bad? I'll tell you this -- it isn't belief in God, no lack of belief, either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Why Did God Create Atheists?

G-d created humans beings as believers, some of them fell from that original position and became non-believers, and they like to be called Atheist/s belonging to Atheism or many of its shades/sects/denominations, I understand, please. Right?

Regards

Wrong. Parents are usually the ones who instill a belief in God, although the very young might be prone to believe almost anything given the right (or wrong) tuition, and we do seem to have tendencies towards believing all sorts of things anyway, unless we do some reasonable analysis as to such.

And you are wrong also it seems as to why people become atheists, but no doubt that hardly bothers you, so you will just continue on, as many do even when others contradict these apparent beliefs.

 

[blü 2]

God created atheists because God was fed up with creating so many different religious beliefs, or just was bored and had a day off.

Yes, of course. [He]'s only human.

 

[Nimos]

I see it differently, I'm afraid.

What is the merit in doing good only because you think "God will approve," or avoid doing evil so that you don't **** God off? How much better is it, for your own soul, to help another person for no other reason than that you want to, or don't hurt another person simply because you would rather not?

Think about the over-religious United States, where millions upon millions of self-proclaimed Christians hate the notion of universal health care because their taxes will go up a bit. They would much prefer that many of their fellows will go broke trying to fight an illness, or have no medical care at all, rather than pay a few more dollars in tax. Compare that to the many, far less religious nations that have managed to put universal health care in place because their citizens wanted to, and so what if we pay a bit more each?

What makes a person good or bad? I'll tell you this -- it isn't belief in God, no lack of belief, either.

We might be talking a bit past each other.

"What makes a person good or bad? I'll tell you this -- it isn't belief in God, no lack of belief, either."

I agree with that and I assume all atheists would, but that is not what im addressing with what I wrote, but rather that I don't think this is the point the guy is trying to make, and if it is, then it is poorly argued. As I said, there is no need to make this distinction between religious people and atheists to begin with, if that were the case.

In my first reply, to me it seems like this guy tries to close a gap between atheists and religious people, which in my opinion as an atheist and from my point of view doesn't even exist to begin with, due to the mere fact that I don't believe God exist in the first place. Therefore this explanation or argument seems to be one made from a religious point of view and for religious people. Trying to justify to them why God made atheism possible in the first place and that this is due to some lesson God is trying to teach them.

However the way he does this, ends up making religious people seem lesser than atheists in my opinion. Because clearly this lesson is not meant for us the atheists, we are beyond that point. We have figured out how to be kind and show "TRUE" compassion, whereas he seem to imply that religious people haven't and they need the guidance of God or their religion to figure this out. If religious people think this is a good lesson, I have no issues with it, but as an atheist, I would call bull**** on it. Because it makes no sense and I wouldn't even acknowledge the difference between the two groups in regards to this in the first place, its not an argument I would make, because if I did, I might as well agree that God exist. And therefore, I think we can exclude all atheists from getting anything out of this "lesson" and purely focus on the religious people.

So putting ourselves in the religious shoes for just a second, and we think what he wrote is correct, that would make me wonder, how atheists are able to do this? There doesn't seem to be any consequences to it and it clearly doesn't sound like God find atheists doing anything wrong, in fact he seems to praise them for their "true" compassion, kindness, morality and independence and for being able to figure this out on their own.
I would associate these things with something God think is good. So why would anyone reach the conclusion that atheists are in the wrong here? Clearly we are aligned so much with what God believe is good that he needs us or raise us up in order to teach the religious people the "most important lesson of them all", that can't be a small thing right? And therefore, I wouldn't get the impression that God think there is anything wrong with being an atheist at all, but maybe that he wants religious people to learn from it.

Again that is me looking at it, from a religious point of view, were I religious and thought he were right about it.