Question for atheists RE: 9/11

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread, and the others like it, makes me wonder why atheism is so hard for believers to comprehend. I can understand why someone would believe in god/gods, even if it's not a belief I hold. Are you really confused by it or is there a motive here I'm missing? This is an honest question.

This is the OP. I was asking an honest question. The context of the services for 9/11 made we wonder how atheists would speak words of comfort, when their beliefs contradicted the words of comfort that were being offered by the speakers that day. In their view, as several have stated here, there is no hope in eternity, no trust in perfect justice, no redemption in suffering, no virtue in laying down one's life for one's neighbor, no reason that one worldview should be seen as objectively better than another (terrorists versus Western freedom). Humans are ultimately cosmic dust, like the planes that went into the buildings. No difference on the fundamental level of matter and energy, as the quantum physics atheist said.

I appreciated the thoughtful replies, but my confusion remains right now. What would be an example of an atheist speech of comfort and consolation in the midst of such evil and loss--if the "evil" is just a point of view and the loss is not so great (humans=cats=matter+energy) and also permanent (no eternity)?

It's odd - the 911 ceremony bugged me because I couldn't help but wonder about the atheist, Muslim, pagan, and others who were victims and their families. It was very Christian slanted, imo. Reminded me of my grandfather's funeral where 4 people took to the chance to preach about accepting Christ so we can see him again (ugh).

There are plenty of secular words of comfort, and while theists may look for comfort/justice/etc in the afterlife atheists look for it in this life. Also as another poster explained, all atheists are different. Some are spiritual, some are not. Atheists can be humanists, Buddhists, non-affiliated, etc. Also morality, inner peace, justice, redemption, etc do not only exist in religions (in fact, morality really has nothing to do with religion).

Just because I believe when we die we go back to non existence (as I said before - like before we were conceived. Was it so bad then?) does not believe I think our lives or their lives are meaningless and empty. Our lives continue on in whatever legacy we leave behind, even after we are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread, and the others like it, makes me wonder why atheism is so hard for believers to comprehend. I can understand why someone would believe in god/gods, even if it's not a belief I hold. Are you really confused by it or is there a motive here I'm missing? This is an honest question.

This is the OP. I was asking an honest question. The context of the services for 9/11 made we wonder how atheists would speak words of comfort, when their beliefs contradicted the words of comfort that were being offered by the speakers that day. In their view, as several have stated here, there is no hope in eternity, no trust in perfect justice, no redemption in suffering, no virtue in laying down one's life for one's neighbor, no reason that one worldview should be seen as objectively better than another (terrorists versus Western freedom). Humans are ultimately cosmic dust, like the planes that went into the buildings. No difference on the fundamental level of matter and energy, as the quantum physics atheist said.

I appreciated the thoughtful replies, but my confusion remains right now. What would be an example of an atheist speech of comfort and consolation in the midst of such evil and loss--if the "evil" is just a point of view and the loss is not so great (humans=cats=matter+energy) and also permanent (no eternity)?

How can you live without believing in the comfort of the all-healing power of the unicorn horn? Obviously you're free to believe what you will, but it just seems kind of an impoverished existence to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I would describe myself as a "wavering" Christian. I was brought up to believe, and sometimes still want to believe... but come on... really? Most of the time I just don't think about it.

But in the last few days in reliving 9/11, I have had a bit of clarity on the subject. Here is how I reason it: There is no question in my mind that those 19 hijackers were living, breathing, human evil. Call it what you will -- Satananic, demonic, insane -- but they were taken over by a power greater than themselves that was a force of Not Good.

And if I can accept and believe that, then I have to accept the converse.... that there is also a force for Good that is alive in humanity, on the face of the earth. Even the laws of nature state that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That Good, I reason, is God. And I believe that we saw that on 9/11, too, in the faces and actions of the firefighters, the people on flight 93, and the countless others who put themselves in harms way to aid others.

I just don't see this. In a way, it takes the responsibility AWAY from the terrorists.

These were bad guys, agreed. I think there are reasons that people do terrible things -- sometimes it's mental illness, abuse, living in a pathological society, "brainwashing" by twisted views of religion or nationality, human weakness, selfishness ... and usually a combination of many of these things. But do I think the hijackers were taken over by some evil power other than themselves? No.

OK, maybe I didn't state this very well... I believe that they chose to follow the path of evil, rather than "taken over by it." But that still means that evil exists as an option.

\

How do you know the terrorists were following the "path of evil". They may have been fulfilling God's plan. After all, it's religious folks who are always saying how mysterious His ways are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anyone who had the misfortune of responding to the "Why Don't You Believe In God?" thread is familiar with the parade of egocentrism masquerading as religiosity this thread is trending towards.

Please, ditch the thesaurus. And do us a favor and ditch this thread so the adults can have a conversation.

It's hilarious that there are people who think this is an "adult" conversation...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread, and the others like it, makes me wonder why atheism is so hard for believers to comprehend. I can understand why someone would believe in god/gods, even if it's not a belief I hold. Are you really confused by it or is there a motive here I'm missing? This is an honest question.

It's funny, because many view atheism as a "belief" itself. That is, atheists can't prove God doesn't exist. Dawkins among others say they are agnostic, not atheist.

I'm not out to disprove the existence of any gods. Given the current evidence, I am of the opinion that there are no gods. I'll be happy to revisit my position when there's evidence that leads me another direction. So, in the sense that I've looked at the evidence for both and came to a conclusion, I suppose you could call it a belief. But, it's not a faith or a religion.

And, I don't care what Dawkins has to say. He's not my leader and doesn't speak for me. I question anyone who claims to have all the answers to something that can't be proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread, and the others like it, makes me wonder why atheism is so hard for believers to comprehend. I can understand why someone would believe in god/gods, even if it's not a belief I hold. Are you really confused by it or is there a motive here I'm missing? This is an honest question.

This is the OP. I was asking an honest question. The context of the services for 9/11 made we wonder how atheists would speak words of comfort, when their beliefs contradicted the words of comfort that were being offered by the speakers that day. In their view, as several have stated here, there is no hope in eternity, no trust in perfect justice, no redemption in suffering, no virtue in laying down one's life for one's neighbor, no reason that one worldview should be seen as objectively better than another (terrorists versus Western freedom). Humans are ultimately cosmic dust, like the planes that went into the buildings. No difference on the fundamental level of matter and energy, as the quantum physics atheist said.

I appreciated the thoughtful replies, but my confusion remains right now. What would be an example of an atheist speech of comfort and consolation in the midst of such evil and loss--if the "evil" is just a point of view and the loss is not so great (humans=cats=matter+energy) and also permanent (no eternity)?

I really think you are misunderstanding atheists here. A lot of atheists in this thread have supported your misconceptions but atheism is not a belief system in and of itself. It only means that you don't believe in a god. It certainly doesn't mean that you are morally bankrupt. An atheist is not necessarily someone who has no spirituality either. I don't want to go into my particular spiritual/moral belief system here but please understand that atheists are all different and while some might believe that we only rot and turn into dust when we die, others might have completely different concepts of death and the soul. As an atheist (who claims to be agnostic but who really is incapable of entertaining the idea of a supreme being in any form), I definitely don't see virtue in suffering but I certainly see virtue in saving a life, being kind, loving one another, etc. It's just that virtuous acts are done without any kind of reward or punishment in mind. You do them because you believe that they are right and good and that's enough for me. I do think that you are asking a sincere question and that you sincerely misunderstand what being a non-religious person is all about.

It's kind of you to give the benefit of the doubt, but I think you'll change your tune after you clarify for OP for the 1,000th time, and OP still feigns ignorance. At least that's what happened last time she started a thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I heard the audio clips that were played at the only trial for a co-conspirator for 9/11. They were so haunting, and chilling.

I wonder...how do atheists process the tragedy? Those victims who screamed "Oh God" as they died...did they just cease to exist? All those innocent lives lost...were they just snuffed out, no justice, no peace?

The problem with you Christians is that you don't understand that religion and belief in god is the CAUSE of 9/11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I heard the audio clips that were played at the only trial for a co-conspirator for 9/11. They were so haunting, and chilling.

I wonder...how do atheists process the tragedy? Those victims who screamed "Oh God" as they died...did they just cease to exist? All those innocent lives lost...were they just snuffed out, no justice, no peace?

The problem with you Christians is that you don't understand that religion and belief in god is the CAUSE of 9/11.

That's kind of a simplistic view, no? You're ignoring the step of political fights being spun into a religious fight to motivate people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I heard the audio clips that were played at the only trial for a co-conspirator for 9/11. They were so haunting, and chilling.

I wonder...how do atheists process the tragedy? Those victims who screamed "Oh God" as they died...did they just cease to exist? All those innocent lives lost...were they just snuffed out, no justice, no peace?

The problem with you Christians is that you don't understand that religion and belief in god is the CAUSE of 9/11.

That's kind of a simplistic view, no? You're ignoring the step of political fights being spun into a religious fight to motivate people.

But without the religious motivation and the promise of heaven, the terrorists never would have carried out the atrocities of 9-11. I'm not the PP though and I would never say "the problem with you Christians." It is a fact, nevertheless, that religion has been a powerful motivating factor in most of the world's atrocities. Which brings a certain irony to the OP's question on coping with tragedy without religion. My question is: how much genocide and terrorism and war would occur if religion did not motivate people? My guess is that atheists are far less inclined to get involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I heard the audio clips that were played at the only trial for a co-conspirator for 9/11. They were so haunting, and chilling.

I wonder...how do atheists process the tragedy? Those victims who screamed "Oh God" as they died...did they just cease to exist? All those innocent lives lost...were they just snuffed out, no justice, no peace?

The problem with you Christians is that you don't understand that religion and belief in god is the CAUSE of 9/11.

That's kind of a simplistic view, no? You're ignoring the step of political fights being spun into a religious fight to motivate people.

But without the religious motivation and the promise of heaven, the terrorists never would have carried out the atrocities of 9-11. I'm not the PP though and I would never say "the problem with you Christians." It is a fact, nevertheless, that religion has been a powerful motivating factor in most of the world's atrocities. Which brings a certain irony to the OP's question on coping with tragedy without religion. My question is: how much genocide and terrorism and war would occur if religion did not motivate people? My guess is that atheists are far less inclined to get involved.

If you don't understand that religion *is* politics, you're hopelessly naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I heard the audio clips that were played at the only trial for a co-conspirator for 9/11. They were so haunting, and chilling.

I wonder...how do atheists process the tragedy? Those victims who screamed "Oh God" as they died...did they just cease to exist? All those innocent lives lost...were they just snuffed out, no justice, no peace?

The problem with you Christians is that you don't understand that religion and belief in god is the CAUSE of 9/11.

That's kind of a simplistic view, no? You're ignoring the step of political fights being spun into a religious fight to motivate people.

But without the religious motivation and the promise of heaven, the terrorists never would have carried out the atrocities of 9-11. I'm not the PP though and I would never say "the problem with you Christians." It is a fact, nevertheless, that religion has been a powerful motivating factor in most of the world's atrocities. Which brings a certain irony to the OP's question on coping with tragedy without religion. My question is: how much genocide and terrorism and war would occur if religion did not motivate people? My guess is that atheists are far less inclined to get involved.

Cue the rather stupid claim that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot committed atrocities "in the name of Atheism". Of course, you might as well argue that six million Jews were killed in the name of vegetarianism. But don't let that stop you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I heard the audio clips that were played at the only trial for a co-conspirator for 9/11. They were so haunting, and chilling.

I wonder...how do atheists process the tragedy? Those victims who screamed "Oh God" as they died...did they just cease to exist? All those innocent lives lost...were they just snuffed out, no justice, no peace?

The problem with you Christians is that you don't understand that religion and belief in god is the CAUSE of 9/11.

That's kind of a simplistic view, no? You're ignoring the step of political fights being spun into a religious fight to motivate people.

But without the religious motivation and the promise of heaven, the terrorists never would have carried out the atrocities of 9-11. I'm not the PP though and I would never say "the problem with you Christians." It is a fact, nevertheless, that religion has been a powerful motivating factor in most of the world's atrocities. Which brings a certain irony to the OP's question on coping with tragedy without religion. My question is: how much genocide and terrorism and war would occur if religion did not motivate people? My guess is that atheists are far less inclined to get involved.

Cue the rather stupid claim that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot committed atrocities "in the name of Atheism". Of course, you might as well argue that six million Jews were killed in the name of vegetarianism. But don't let that stop you.

Not the pp. But it isn't what those people were, it's what their motivation was and what caused it.

BTW - Hitler wasn't an atheist. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stalin and Pol Pot killed people because they didn't believe in a god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread, and the others like it, makes me wonder why atheism is so hard for believers to comprehend. I can understand why someone would believe in god/gods, even if it's not a belief I hold. Are you really confused by it or is there a motive here I'm missing? This is an honest question.

This is the OP. I was asking an honest question. The context of the services for 9/11 made we wonder how atheists would speak words of comfort, when their beliefs contradicted the words of comfort that were being offered by the speakers that day. In their view, as several have stated here, there is no hope in eternity, no trust in perfect justice, no redemption in suffering, no virtue in laying down one's life for one's neighbor, no reason that one worldview should be seen as objectively better than another (terrorists versus Western freedom). Humans are ultimately cosmic dust, like the planes that went into the buildings. No difference on the fundamental level of matter and energy, as the quantum physics atheist said.

I appreciated the thoughtful replies, but my confusion remains right now. What would be an example of an atheist speech of comfort and consolation in the midst of such evil and loss--if the "evil" is just a point of view and the loss is not so great (humans=cats=matter+energy) and also permanent (no eternity)?

Have not read the entire thread, but here's my two cents. I am not an atheist (or agnostic), but OP, I am curious about how you came to believe these things about atheists? Do you really think that you have to believe in God to be comforting or supportive? To offer sincere condolences? To have meaning in life? Atheists don't necessarily believe that loss of life is "not so great." I find it odd that you can't imagine how an atheist might offer comfort or consolation. For starters: "I'm so sorry for your loss." "I'm thinking of you during this time."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not out to disprove the existence of any gods. Given the current evidence, I am of the opinion that there are no gods. I'll be happy to revisit my position when there's evidence that leads me another direction. So, in the sense that I've looked at the evidence for both and came to a conclusion, I suppose you could call it a belief. But, it's not a faith or a religion.

And, I don't care what Dawkins has to say. He's not my leader and doesn't speak for me. I question anyone who claims to have all the answers to something that can't be proven.

I agree, in no sense is atheism a "religion." But it is a belief. Just like I believe in my kids, without having proof they won't grow up to be druggies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Cue the rather stupid claim that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot committed atrocities "in the name of Atheism". Of course, you might as well argue that six million Jews were killed in the name of vegetarianism. But don't let that stop you.

Not the pp. But it isn't what those people were, it's what their motivation was and what caused it.

BTW - Hitler wasn't an atheist. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stalin and Pol Pot killed people because they didn't believe in a god.

OK, I get that this post is a defensive move. But it doesn't make sense.

The point is, being atheist didn't prevent Stalin and Pol Pot from killing anybody. So it doesn't make any sense to set atheists on a higher moral plane than people do believe in a god.

(Hitler persecuted the church as well as using it for political needs, but if we get into the weeds of history we may never get out, so maybe we can agree to leave him there and focus on the simpler cases of Stalin and Pol Pot.)