Justice in atheistic understanding

[May Ayob]

Alas, it's not great everywhere or for everyone. But if you look across a swathe of countries in the first world and now China, Brazil etc, the standard of living has improved immeasurably.

And think of medicine. I personally would have been dead twice over, if it weren't for modern medicine. Once at 3 months and again at 13. I have to believe things are better now!

Yep, Gratitude and hope is all we have.But I'm not an atheist, so I do believe that someway and somehow there will always be justice that is served and mercy that is granted.

Peace be to you.

 

[Independent]

From what I can see, atheists have no binding moral duties or responsibility to uphold truth or justice in the way children of Adam who acknlowledge themselves to be such do,
It is as they choose, just as any other animal might choose - either personal or collective anarchy.
There is an old satanist saying: do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, and satanism is of course an extreme form of atheism - as acknowledged even by leaders of satanic cults.

The only law I can think of for an atheist who follows his own desires is: its ok do anything you feel like doing as long as you don't get caught even if it's murder or rape.
"do as thou wilt shall be most of the law, thou shalt not get caught shall be the remainder of the law".

For a believer decisions are a lot more difficult because it isn't about not getting caught, it's about answering for deeds and it usually makes them feel bad about and give up bad habits.

And please let's leave off that old argument about ones definition of good and bad because there is no atheist definition.
The Quran forbids incest, unjustly exploiting the poor or weak, stealing etc.
The atheist book doesn't...........exist.
There are just desires and laws made by another atheist between oneself and evil, but no fixed boundaries.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You never spoke a truer last two words.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I decided to post a new thread because Independent suggested to do so. So, I'm hoping my questions will be addressed here.

An overview of what I understood so far in reading a prior thread- I don't understand this about the atheists:
In the OP the member posting states that he is surprised,dazzled or rather let's say confused as to why an atheist would adhere to or follow any rules when he/she doesn't believe in a god or in hell and heaven because there is no retirbution in atheist's point of view, then he goes on and takes it a step further and says that if he didn't have faith he wouldn't have followed any moral rule but because of his fear of hell fire and his eagerness to obey the commands of his creator he will patiently discipline himself. Then the following post states that-- from the experience of the atheists whom she (sister Glo) knows of --atheists follow moral laws for their own good,because it feels right and fair to do so,and not because of fear of punishment or anticipation for reward or because the need to obey a higher authority,thus the atheist here is gaining satisfaction in doing good things for their own sake.

The thread thereon proceeds and escelates into religious vs. non-religious morality. The points that I understood --though I may be wrong or missing something-- not all atheists are bitter sociopaths, a sociopath is just as likely to be religious than non religious it all depends on circumstances and opportunities given at the particular moment. An atheist believes that an offender must, first and most importantly, seek forgiveness from the offended or victim rather than asking it from the god they worship. Atheists believe that non religious morality is more justifiable and validated because; if the book or scripture the religious follow orders them to kill their family or do something against their moral judgement, there would be 'no option' but to serve the orders. The thread also diverts into a disscussion of whether or not morals are hardwired in humans and is gained through genetic inheretince. Atheists also believe that empathy and culture are what shape an individual's perception of morality,religious or non religious. Which makes it subjective mainly and may broadly vary.

The thread is really good I read it a couple of times but sadly,it almost has nothing to do with my question which I stated in another thread:Answering atheism in one paragraph, the thread mentioned above mainly deals with how an atheist chooses to deal with moral issues that he or she carries out or acts upon in life. The question for which I seek an answer is not why or why not they follows rule--though incase that was an issue maybe because they feel better following their conscience?--but my question was *How does an atheist come about the henious crimes and injustices that happen in this world that were left unpunished and inthe case where punishment is strongly called for* regardless of whether the one individual here responsible for them has a religious or a non religious background. My guess here is that the atheist would be indifferent,maybe? since he/she does not recognize a high just supreme entity that will account all those who are evidently responsible and serves justice on which. Or maybe they believe in karma? I don't know making safe assumptions isn't very helpful. Also is this why atheists are more prone to commiting suicide?. I'm just wondering what does the average atheist think about the likes of Hitler and Genghis khan.

All participation is welcome and appreciated.

If you are asking what assurance do atheists have that good people will be rewarded and bad people will be punished, the answer is not very much. Some may believe in karma (you don't have to believe in God to believe in Karma) but most simply think that we humans ourselves and the societies we build are the only mechanisms for justice that we have. So we put a lot of effort into making them as good as we can.

I have sometimes wondered this about theists. If you think God will sort it out in the end, then why bother building a just and fair society?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well like I said. Both atheists and theists have a superego. Even sociopaths have one. The only diffrence will be the premisses on which rationality is based. For example, atheists will often hold the optimalisation of personal freedom as one of the most fundamental premises. Sometihng among the lines of, my freedom ends where yours begins. Theists on the other hand will more often have the optimalisation of personal wellbeing as one of the most fundamental presmises. Meaning, my freedom can even be limited, if it would lower your wellbeing. As to which premise is most moral, that's a whole diffrent discussion obviously. and obviously the existence of God is an important issue there as well. If you believe God exist, obviously his rationality would trumph ours.

I don't see why atheists could not agree with the statement "my freedom can even be limited, if it would lower your wellbeing" that you attribute to theists.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As much it inspires us to be more just (atleast those of us who have a conscience and a beating heart),it's still sadly dissapointing. A tyrant comes and till his heart's content kills an unkown of number of people and gets away with it and then another one comes along and repeats history and gets away with it as well, no punishment, no retribution and the victims and sufferers should just 'shut up and deal with it' because it was their tragic fate. Also it's only a fraction amount of people who really are having it better- infact very privilaged people -than it was in the past. I'm not denying that things have gotten better but again for some selected fraction few, the rest still have to suffer in many forms for most of them their only hope is God, then again if that really was the case (no existance of God) we live in a selectively very unjust bundle of chaos called planet earth.

Yes. And I think this very thing you point at here is one of the major comforts that religion brings people in with, along with the comfort of having answers for where there really are none, and the comfort of promised immortality. I can definitely see why religion may be attractive, especially to the downtrodden. Religion truly can be an opiate for the masses. Doesn't make it true of course.

 

[Pygoscelis]

That's a scary way of life.But apparently not all athesits follow the above mentioned

I've never met one that did, and I know a lot of them. Trying to brand atheism with satanism is even less honest than trying to brand Islam with terrorism.

And that said, the quote from Abz is misleading even of Satanists. Here is a good explanation of why: http://altreligion.about.com/od/satanism/f/satanic_rules.htm

though they do have their own understanding of good and evil,I'm not sure though but all I can think of is that they think that things should be okay as long as all parties involved indulge in a certain action consentually and whether the action in itself doesn't hold any harm to anyone in concern- take for example incest marriage, some approve and see 'no problem as long as both sides are consentually involved' others may disapprove and they will never say because it's just wrong and disgusting, I suppose they take a more secular approach in saying that incest marriage may give the risk of child defeciences and may cause life threatning problems for the health of the child.

Yes, I know atheists who take each of those positions. Please keep in mind that atheism itself is nothing but a lack of belief in Gods. The rest varies from atheist to atheist.

But yeah, it's pretty embarassing to think that an atheist would only refrain from doing something immoral just because they fear being caught and exposed

That would be a sociopathic atheist. Those people are rare (maybe even more so than satanists), but yes they do exist.

So do sociopathic theists (who have no sense of empathy or right and wrong aside from obedience to their perceived God). You may expect that they'd be better for society than sociopathic atheists, because God's rules should keep them in line, but that doesn't usually turn out to be so. They just change what they perceive their God to demand, to suit what they want. Statements as clear as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" have found plenty of contorted exceptions over the years.

I have the sense that I'll get a counter arguement of how it's just as dismaying how a religious person is only refraining from immoral acts just because they fear the god that they worship.But anyway I think that particularily was addressed some time ago in a previous thread.

I hope that you are not refraining from immoral acts just for that. I hope you have a sense of personal empathy. So do I, independent of any authority figure or surveillance.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

I have sometimes wondered this about theists. If you think God will sort it out in the end, then why bother building a just and fair society?

Because the very God has given them laws to abide by in this world and prescribed punishments for those who break those laws. He takes care of them who escape punishment in this life.

 

[Abz2000]

I've never met one that did, and I know a lot of them. Trying to brand atheism with satanism is even less honest than trying to brand Islam with terrorism.

I got this one from the church of satan's website pygo:

You don't have to start with metaphysics to create your ethics.
Satanism does not assert that the fundamental truth of the nature of reality (metaphysics) is known. (ring a bell pygo?)
In fact, Satanists utilize two different metaphysical assumptions regarding reality as evidenced in Satanic ritual as opposed to the rest of life. In effect, Satanists are pragmatic regarding their beliefs concerning reality. Thus, as Satanists do not claim to know the absolute “truth” regarding what is real they are, by definition, not “Objectivists” who hold that reality is totally objective.
Satanists proclaim that doubt is vital in the absence of proof. At this fundamental level there is division between the two views of reality.

Second, Satanism does not hold that “a life appropriate to a rational being” is the sole standard of ethical right as does Objectivism. If anything, Satanism holds that indulgence in life or “fun” as perceived by the individual is the highest standard of ethics. Satanists see that Objectivism has enthroned reason above the individual as opposed to utilizing this sole means to knowledge as a tool to achieve a purpose.
Satanism enthrones the individual as a whole, not reason, as the supreme standard to determine the value of actions (Ethics).
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html


As I talk to Christians, I find that most assume that people who belong to the Church of Satan worship the devil. *That assumption is natural, based on how Satanists portray themselves. *It is also wrong. *Satanists are atheists who believe in neither God nor Satan. *You can find a good article on Satanism on CNN here:

One of the main tenets of the faith is atheism. Not just a disbelief in God but also in the devil or Satan. Satanists believe God is an invention of man and instead deify themselves.


According to the official website of the Church of Satan: “We Satanists are thus our own ‘Gods,’ and as beneficent ‘deities’ we can offer love to those who deserve it and deliver our wrath (within reasonable limits) upon those who seek to cause us—or that which we cherish—harm.”
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/04/how-to-bury-a-satanist/

 

[Independent]

Satanists are atheists who believe in neither God nor Satan.

This tells us that, in defiance of all logic, there are some Satanists who also claim to be atheists. I'm not sure how they can still call themselves Satanists, since apparently they don't believe in Satan either.

Who cares?

An atheist, who is a person that fundamentally does not believe in the existence of Satan (or he isn't an atheist), cannot possibly be any closer to Satanism than a Muslim or Christian, who do at least believe in the existence of Shaytan/the Devil - although not as a figure of worship obviously.

If you want to attack Satanism, find a Satanist. Wrong thread.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't see why atheists could not agree with the statement "my freedom can even be limited, if it would lower your wellbeing" that you attribute to theists.

Yes I don't see why they wouldn't either. I wasn't trying to argue that this view and atheisms are mutually exclusive. Howevre the two principles I described are mutually exclusive. And my point was that when push comes to shove, most atheists prefer the first principle over the second.

Consider this example:
Every rational person would have to agree that if a society forbids alcohol-consumption (and is able to enforce this law efficiently) that this would benefit allot of people. Of course on the other hand there are people who have the ability to drink with limitation, without causing harm to others nor themselves.
According to the first prinicple, my freedom ends where yours begins, in the case of alcohol it's the wrongdoers who should leanr their limit. And the rest shouldn't "suffer" a limitation for the sake of society.
According to the second principle, the sacrafice of personal freedom does not compare to the overall wellbeing of a society, and thus a prohibition would be the ethical correct rule.
I hope this practical example demostrates how one has to chose one over the other, and that we cannot hold both principles as fundamental premise for justifying laws. And I think you'll agree that indeed most atheist will go for the first principle rather than the second, right?

 

[Independent]

Every rational person would have to agree that if a society forbids alcohol-consumption (and is able to enforce this law efficiently) that this would benefit allot of people.

Yet, in history it hasn't always turned out that way. One of the main effects of Prohibition in the US was, ironically, to create a huge criminal industry of bootleggers and secret bars. Because the law didn't really have true consent, it turned ordinary people into a nation of lawbreakers. By the time the law was repealed it was too late. The criminal organisation that had been created and the funds they had acquired were turned to other criminal enterprises which persist to this day.

So while I agree that excess alcohol is plainly a bad thing, simply banning it may not have the result you want. The new problems are partly caused by other changes in society (relatively cheaper alcohol and greater disposal income amongst young consumers).

 

[tearose]

I 'believe' it was reported that he had claimed to have experienced some kind of 'divine inspiration', but is that even something Islam accedes with? to claim that you were inspired by a powerfull spiritual being ( and no I don't recall them mentioning the name of God or Allah, they said some kind of spirituall force or something) that gives you orders to murder and slaughter people --sounds more like another self-deluded ancient 'Jim Jones' and besides he never really actually contributed to the Islamic state in anyway he rather launched a very un-Islamic position and lead a very very un-islamic way of life.

According to wikipedia: The Secret History of the Mongols chronicles Genghis praying to the Burhan Haldun mountain.
He was religiously tolerant and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji.

 

[May Ayob]

According to wikipedia: The Secret History of the Mongols chronicles Genghis praying to the Burhan Haldun mountain.
He was religiously tolerant and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji.

Thank you for participating. ^ I take the above to mean that Genghis khan was a very tolerant man whom 'consulted Buddhist monks,Muslims,Christian missionaries and the Taoist monk Qui Chuji' before he took any military measures and they inturn(despite their religious beliefs) all agreed on advising him to pursue his dream of conquering the world even if its at the expense of killing innocent souls. Or is this not getting across to me properly?.

 

[tearose]

I take the above to mean that Genghis khan was a very tolerant man whom 'consulted Buddhist monks,Muslims,Christian missionaries and the Taoist monk Qui Chuji' before he took any military measures and they inturn(despite their religious beliefs) all agreed on advising him to pursue his dream of conquering the world even if its at the expense of killing innocent souls. Or is this not getting across to me properly?.

Possibly, or maybe he just consulted them about their beliefs at various points in his life? I posted this info because I think it shows we don't have any evidence that he followed Islamic belief and therefore if he killed Muslims shouldn't he be considered as an enemy of Islam, not a great man? I don't know whether any of those people approved of his ambitions or not. I agree with you, I was under the impression that the idea of a human being directly inspired had no place in Islam at all? But I don't know if Genghis Khan claimed that. Allah knows best.

 

[Independent]

I take the above to mean that Genghis khan was a very tolerant man whom 'consulted Buddhist monks,Muslims,Christian missionaries and the Taoist monk Qui Chuji' before he took any military measures and they inturn(despite their religious beliefs) all agreed on advising him to pursue his dream of conquering the world even if its at the expense of killing innocent souls.

Er - not quite. Other way around. He only came into meaningful contact with those religions as a result of his conquests. And whether or not he converted to any religion, it made not the slightest difference to his behaviour and added zero to his capacity for mercy.

He was tolerant of other religions because the Mongol Empire wasn't built in the name of any religion, and it had no part in the state structure. It was more like the early Roman Empire before Constantine - quite happy to let people believe whatever they wanted, so long as they didn't challenge the state.

 

[Al-Mufarridun]

I'm bit confused. Who said Genghis Khan was Muslim?

The Mongols who embraced Islam did so many many years after the death of Genghis.

 

[Al-Mufarridun]

Wikipedia gives this with regard to the Khans and Islam: In 1222 he, on his way back to Mongolia, visited Bukhara in Transoxiana. It was believed he inquired about Islam, and subsequently approved of Muslim tenets except the Hajj, considering it unnecessary. Nevertheless, he continued his worship of Tengri as his ancestors had done. Genghis Khan's grandson Berke converted to Islam due to the efforts of Saif ud-Din Dervish, a dervish from Khorazm, thus Berke became one of the first Mongol rulers to convert.

It is during the time of his grandsons that the majority of the mongols who entered into Islamic territories embraced Islam. The turning point being the battle of Ain-Jalut in Palestine. It is one of the most fascinating parts of the Mongols. Going from building towers of human heads to building some of most beautiful Mosques.

The Mongols conquered the Muslims, but Islam conquered the Mongols.

 

[May Ayob]

What he is referring to might be what is mentioned in the Islamic sources. That, once Genghis learned about the Islamic faith, not that he accepted it, he used to address the Muslim populations by saying, "I'm send by your God to destroy you, for your wickedness". This was more of a psychological war than him sincerely claiming to be Inspired.

I guess from that angle, you could say that Allah swt sent him as a trial for the people, but that does not in any way clear him of his evilness.

Allah swt knows best.

If that was his arguement,okay then as he likes it. God sent Genghis Khan to punish the 'corrupt' muslims in Baghdad. What about the ones who weren't corrupt. Besides Genghis Khan targeted any one who "came in his way" muslim or not. Thanks for the response now I think I'm starting to understand where CosmicPathos is coming from.
*off topic*

 

[Independent]

God sent Genghis Khan to punish the 'corrupt' muslims in Baghdad.

Strangely enough this ties back into your original question! Which is, whether an atheist believes in the possibility oif natural justice.

The notion that Genghis's disastrous descent on the Muslims of Kwharezmia might have been a 'trial' for lack of virtue or spirituality seems wrong at every level. Partly because what kind of 'trial' is it to face mass extermination? But also because the Mongols spent at least as much time invading China and Russia/eastern Europe as they did Muslim territory.

Really, he just attacked everybody.

 

[May Ayob]

The notion that Genghis's disastrous descent on the Muslims of Kwharezmia might have been a 'trial' for lack of virtue or spirituality seems wrong at every level

Yes it does seem wrong at every level. But I don't think it's accurate, I think what brother Al-Mufarridun was saying that Genghis Khan being percieved as 'sent from God' in CosmicPathos post means that he was more a test and trial not necessarily for a lack of virtue-that would be punishment- but to test the patience of the people. I don't know somehow this arguement is becoming less and less coherent.

Really, he just attacked everybody.

True.