On Atheism vs. Christianity

[Atreus21]

Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

 

[yllus]

Earlier on, when the best chance for the species to propagate was to have as many kids as possible and hope one or two survive, incentivizing men and women to have intercourse was certainly important. Keep in mind how many women used to die in childbirth or shortly afterwards from complications.

In short, there are concrete evolutionary reasons for why sex is enjoyable. An in-depth explanation of this and other interesting topics can be found in Jared Diamond's Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: yllus
Earlier on, when the best chance for the species to propagate was to have as many kids as possible and hope one or two survive, incentivizing men and women to have intercourse was certainly important. Keep in mind how many women used to die in childbirth or shortly afterwards from complications.

In short, there are concrete evolutionary reasons for why sex is enjoyable. An in-depth explanation of this and other interesting topics can be found in Jared Diamond's Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality.

What about other pleasures apart from sex?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

Sex feels good so we do it and by that process propogate the species. Pleasure is not a prerequisite, but in the Blue Lagoon, the kids figure out sex (and thus procreation) without any instruction because they did what felt good. Seems more of an argument for nature ensuring continuation of species than for god. Ditto for eating. Looking at pretty things, sense of aethetics, whatever, I don't see how that's any argument for a god.

Your last sentence however plays some major strawman with atheist positions. You take their position of not believing an invisible all powerful deity gives a shit about their lives and restate that position as "life is meaningless." The opposite is true. BECAUSE there's no everlasting life in heaven this life is the only life we get, therefore its brevity has more value than if existence went on forever after death. I'm intentionally conflating god, religion and heaven btw.

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

Sex feels good so we do it and by that process propogate the species. Pleasure is not a prerequisite, but in the Blue Lagoon, the kids figure out sex (and thus procreation) without any instruction because they did what felt good. Seems more of an argument for nature ensuring continuation of species than for god. Ditto for eating. Looking at pretty things, sense of aethetics, whatever, I don't see how that's any argument for a god.

Your last sentence however plays some major strawman with atheist positions. You take their position of not believing an invisible all powerful deity gives a shit about their lives and restate that position as "life is meaningless." The opposite is true. BECAUSE there's no everlasting life in heaven this life is the only life we get, therefore its brevity has more value than if existence went on forever after death. I'm intentionally conflating god, religion and heaven btw.

How is it that pleasure is a part of evolution, and pain is not?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
How is it that pleasure is a part of evolution, and pain is not?

whose argument is that?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What about other pleasures apart from sex?

I think the answer to this is found by looking at the opposite of pleasure: Why do we feel pain when, say, we brush against a boiling hot pan on a stove? Nobody would argue against the fact that pain is a tool the human body employs to alert us to a harmful situation.

If pain keeps us clear of trouble, I imagine that pleasure results from behaviour the body is programmed to attract us towards.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

Humans evolved to prefer activities that insure their survival. However, in addition to that, humans evolved with an extremely flexible capacity to process information: the human brain. A side effect of the human brain evolving is the capacity to enjoy higher, more complex aesthetic stimuli. In this way human evolution 'overshot' the raw intelligence required to survive in the wild. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about this.

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

Epic fail on logic.

Atheists make no positive claims about the way the universe works outside of scientific discovery and as I explained above, there is nothing supernatural about humans evolving to enjoy higher order pleasures.

Christians on the other hand believe in supernatural events such as the ressurrection of Christ with 0 scientific evidence, but rather the Bible as their 'proof.' There is not a single shred of philosophical equivalence going on here.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

No, it doesn't, because Atheism is not a comprehensive theory of reality that should be able to explain things like pleasure.

You, in your apparently perpetual and impervious ignorance, seem to think that evolution and atheism are identical. They most certainly are not -- not that contiuing to repeat this to you has seemed to make any headway against the bottomless pit of misinformation you've crammed in your head.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

Humans evolved to prefer activities that insure their survival. However, in addition to that, humans evolved with an extremely flexible capacity to process information: the human brain. A side effect of the human brain evolving is the capacity to enjoy higher, more complex aesthetic stimuli. In this way human evolution 'overshot' the raw intelligence required to survive in the wild. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about this.

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

Epic fail on logic.

Atheists make no positive claims about the way the universe works outside of scientific discovery and as I explained above, there is nothing supernatural about humans evolving to enjoy higher order pleasures.

Christians on the other hand believe in supernatural events such as the ressurrection of Christ with 0 scientific evidence, but rather the Bible as their 'proof.' There is not a single shred of philosophical equivalence going on here.

The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

 

[StageLeft]

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.)

I have debated Christians on the the subject of a god's existence for years, and quite frankly, this is the first time I've seen anyone suggest that pain, per se, is essential to an argument against God's existence. In virtually every instance I can think of the argument is based on evil.

You're battling a strawman, in other words, which is absolutely no surprise to me.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

Whether or not I agree, I'm trying not to incite a flame war. I'm not arguing against Atheists, just one of their favored arguments.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

Explain your beliefs which keep you from shooting yourself in the head.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.)

I have debated Christians on the the subject of a god's existence for years, and quite frankly, this is the first time I've seen anyone suggest that pain, per se, is essential to an argument against God's existence. In virtually every instance I can think of the argument is based on evil.

You're battling a strawman, in other words, which is absolutely no surprise to me.

Ah, I don't think it's a strawman, except in the fact that no one in this thread has mentioned it. In that respect you're right. But haven't you ever seen an atheist bring up this point before in a debate with theists or Christians? I see it at almost every one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But haven't you ever seen an atheist bring up this point before in a debate with theists or Christians?

No. That's what I just told you.

I see it at almost every one.

Quite frankly, if you told me the sky was blue I would feel compelled to go outside and check.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

Not to be uncharitable, but whatever atheists you were speaking with to get this impression weren't the brightest people out there. Why would they ignore pleasure? It serves just as important a role in evolution and the propagation of the species as pain.

It strikes me as much more likely that you've made this argument up and attributed it to athiests.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But haven't you ever seen an atheist bring up this point before in a debate with theists or Christians?

No. That's what I just told you.

I see it at almost every one.

Quite frankly, if you told me the sky was blue I would feel compelled to go outside and check.

Well, that's just been my experience.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

I do not see how it debunks the 'pain argument.' But in any event what you have stumbled upon is something called non falsifiability. All religions are non falsifiable, because whenever someone comes up with a problem with the religion's narrative (i.e. a logical inconsistency), the religion can just explain it away with more non-scientific, faith based arguments.

Hence, the mountains of texts attempting to explain how a loving Judeo-Christian God can allow pain and suffering on Earth.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Skoorb
For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

Explain your beliefs which keep you from shooting yourself in the head.

I am not an atheist.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

You're missing the point. Why would pain and pleasure play by the same rules in front of a BENEVOLENT god? The word benevolent is one sided. If you want to claim god is indifferent, then I'd be more inclined to humour your thought experiment (which is what I consider religion).

Pain/pleasure cannot be used to establish anything conclusive with relation to an existence of a god. It can be used to debunk the dogma which surrounds the belief that if a god exists they are all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I am not an atheist.

I don't see how not being an atheist should prevent one from shooting oneself in the head. Especially since it is highly probable that an atheist would believe in permanent everlasting death, while a theist would probably believe in some ascension to heaven.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

And to come full circle, children in Sudan are captured, forced to rape their parents, watch their parents be killed or be forced to kill them, and sometimes eat their parents dead bodies and that of their siblings. I don't think a pretty sunset makes up for that.

For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs.

Who says that we believe that nothing we do matters? We just don't believe in all powerful all knowing God/entities.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But haven't you ever seen an atheist bring up this point before in a debate with theists or Christians?

No. That's what I just told you.

I see it at almost every one.

Quite frankly, if you told me the sky was blue I would feel compelled to go outside and check.

Well, that's just been my experience.

I have reason to believe that I have considerably greater experience with this subject than you.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I am not an atheist.

I don't see how not being an atheist should prevent one from shooting oneself in the head. Especially since it is highly probable that an atheist would believe in permanent everlasting death, while a theist would probably believe in some ascension to heaven.

The point being, why not, it doesn't matter anyway, it's all just chemicals. A true atheist would never bother with life because it holds no meaning for them. When they are gone their family may cry but their family will die eventually and they will be forgotten and meaningless, as meaningless as an ant in a hill.