Atheist´s Nice behaviour

[Guest guest]

I am always surprised by one thing which I've encountered many times and that is there are people who don't believe in God at all, but who follow the philosophy of being good to everyone and seeing everyone with equal vision and having compassion for the poor etc.

 

The question is Why this contradiction occurs i.e., why does the person not believe in God even though he has all the qualities of being a devotee????

 

Sometimes I feel that the person might have done some Vaishnava apraadha due to which He's been cursed not to remember God!

 

Any views in this matter will be appreciated!

[Avinash 0]

There are many who believe in God and are not good. So, why is it not possible for there to be people who do not believe in God but are good?

[Guest guest]

This is the contradiction I was talking about - When you're a theist then you're supposed to be good and behave good because that's what God teaches us!

 

So the contradiction is some people though they don't believe in God but follow His teachings!

 

Any good views on what could be the reason for this???

[Guest guest]

I feel this to be an interesting issue and would like comments from the senior devotees who give their comments here. Probably J.N.Das or some other senior devotee!

[Guest guest]

 

 

The question is Why this contradiction occurs i.e., why does the person not believe in God even though he has all the qualities of being a devotee????

 

 

Lack of satisfactory evidence.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

This is a good explanation. But the evidence can be evident only when there is faith! And the question again comes back as to why some of the nice people don't have faith in God??

[Gauracandra 1]

There are a couple of ways to approach this question. First let me quote a statement by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in his “Stages and Varieties of Faith” found here:

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/bhaktivinoda-thakur-stages-faith1.htm

 

 

Worldly Rules are Morality

Those unfortunate persons who do not believe in God also formulate rules for maintaining their lives. Such rules are called niti, morality. Even though presented skillfully, those moral codes that do not include thought of God cannot accomplish any good for mankind. They are atheistic.

 

 

One way to read this is to understand that in the ultimate sense, a civilization without God misses the point of human life. Thus morality does not lead one to God in and of itself. An atheist may be moral, but lacks love for God. As such, one misses his true calling in this human form of life. But such an argument wouldn’t be very convincing to an atheist or agnostic.

 

But another angle to read this is to also understand that atheistic morality does not have the power to transform the world into a better place. This is a point that is made in a book I have quoted before called “The Everlasting Man” by G.K. Chesterton. In a post I made in these forums a few weeks back I pointed out that atheism is fundamentally individualistic. There is nothing that unites one atheist with another atheist. An atheist really is all alone in the world. I called this aspect of religion the “motivating principle” or “organizing principle”.

 

From “The Everlasting Man”:

 

For instance, all real scholars who have studied the Greek and Roman culture say one thing about it. They agree that in the ancient world religion was one thing and philosophy quite another.

 

 

One of the points he makes is that Christianity united religion with philosophy to create a living movement. The Greek philosophers could come up with all sorts of ethical codes and theoretical notions of justice and ethics. But they couldn’t put it into practice but within their own minds. This is why tens of millions of people in the United States go to church every Sunday, but you only study Plato for one quarter in college and hope just to pass with a C-.

 

All the Greek philosophers might have had theoretical models of morality, but they couldn’t transform the world. They couldn’t make it into a living philosophy. Put yourself back 2000 years ago in Europe. At a place that G.K. Chesterton called the lunatic asylum. The whole continent was filled with all sorts of practices. Sex cults, goddess cults, Druids, worship of Hercules, worship of Thor and Odin, various speculative philosophies etc….

 

Now enter as an atheist with your ideas of morality. How do you transform this world of confusion into a world of moral order? Try it. You have no organizing principle. You are all alone in this world. Atheism is individualistic. It doesn’t have any transformative powers.

 

Atheistic morality in such a situation would quickly be swallowed up by the prevailing lunatic asylum. And that assumes an atheist would come up with moral principles to follow. Many atheists would come to very different conclusions (it is individualistic) and decide on hedonism. Who says sex with one’s neighbors wife is wrong?

 

The truth is atheistic morality in today’s culture is due to theistic morality. I as an individual did not come up with my moral values. The culture did. The culture has told me what it considers to be right and wrong. It’s the same thing for atheists. I guarantee you, most atheists (if not all) did not sit around and decide what is good and bad. They were inculcated with it from the prevailing Christian culture (speaking of the United States). Put those same atheists into the lunatic asylum of 2000 years ago, and they won’t have the same values or notions. And even if they had the same values and notions they wouldn’t be able to make a dent in the world. They are all alone in the world. When they die, their philosophy dies. Its not a living philosophy.

[Guest guest]

This was a really nice analysis by Gauracandra Ji! So, do you mean to say that the atheist got the morality and decent behaviour from the religion itself, of which he's unaware of!

 

Also, one good point you told about sex is the thing I've also noted and that is an atheist may have very nice ideas and probably compassionate nature as well. But, when it comes to sex he more or less tends to become loose!

 

Probably this is the place where a real theist would differ from an atheist, if the theist did really minimize his/her sexual urge!

[Guest guest]

 

 

The truth is atheistic morality in today’s culture is due to theistic morality. I as an individual did not come up with my moral values. The culture did.

 

 

On what basis can one say that culture comes up with moral values based on theistic morality? I don't see any link.

 

IMO, the moral values we adopt are not something that we learn from others. If that was the case, why do we have millions of theists who are selfish and corrupt? That is not what they are taught. Nor can culture be blamed, for there are moral people who are also part of the same culture. It is ultimately the individual who decides for himself.

 

As an atheist, I must say that any moral values I may have are something I determined for myself. When someone needs help and I am in a position to help out, I help because I feel like helping. Not because a religious book said so or for a good_person image that is appreciated by society. Similarly not troubling others, is something that comes thru common sense and natural concern for our fellow beings. It has *nothing* to do with theism.

 

Yes, there are some who are moral because they are scared of punishment by a hidden god or because they believe they will advance spiritually. But this is only one section.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

I agree with Shvu - morality does not have it's origin in religiousity.

 

A person who is an atheist has the same basic feelings and experiences in life that the theist has. For example it is evident that he or she doesn't appreciate it when others trample on them or their individual rights, that there are consequences to behaviors that are immediate or near immediate in that they are experienced in the term of one's life. Basic moral principles can and have been arrived at by thinking people throughout the ages regardless of faith affiliation.

 

Regardless of moral conviction people will act outside of their professed belief based on the level of their own level or lack thereof of control over their senses and their desires. Arjuna asked the question of Krsna 'why people act even against their own convictions?' and his answer was that it is lust alone that causes one to act against one's convictions. Whether one be and athiest or a theist this is true.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

 

Arjuna asked the question of Krsna 'why people act even against their own convictions?' and his answer was that it is lust alone that causes one to act against one's convictions. Whether one be and athiest or a theist this is true.

 

 

Then how does the shloka

Harav abhaktasya kuto mahad gunad.... (What good does a non devotee have ...) has meaning???

 

Can anyone kindly explain this shloka in this context???

[Guest guest]

Where is that verse from? At any rate, the context is that 'good' in the sense of suddha-sattva - beyond the goodness of the material world is really what the verse is talking about. So what may appear to be good - philanthropy, generousity, mercy - whatever - when done without connection to Krsna is ultimately not (suddha sattva). O.K.?

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Gauracandra 1]

 

So, do you mean to say that the atheist got the morality and decent behaviour from the religion itself, of which he's unaware of!

 

 

Very likely. It is entirely possible an atheist can formulate his own notions of good and bad. We all have creativity. Though I would argue the atheist will not change much from the prevailing culture’s morality if at all (else he’d end up in the insane asylum). But we, as individuals, do not determine what is good and bad. Society determines if what we have done is good or bad (note I’m not invoking God into the equation). Virtues are learned, and each society has different notions of virtues that are learned.

 

Lets take an example. In the past in South America there were tribes that performed human sacrifice. Within that society, it was morally acceptable to kill another human being. Some tribes even engaged in cannibalism. I’m not taking an extreme example to be controversial. Rather I believe we need to go back to the original state as much as possible. Otherwise, we end up projecting our existing moral culture, and assume we came to those conclusions on our own. Now if you were born in that culture I can almost guarantee you that 99.9999% of the time you would also agree that human sacrifice was morally acceptable.

 

Note that nowhere did I say that theism (belief in a God) in and of itself is what makes people moral. I don’t believe that Thor was a shining example of morality that society should emulate. I don’t believe that Greek sex cults that worshipped goddesses were examples society should follow. And I don’t believe human sacrifice to appease the Gods is a practice that society should accept. I would argue that Christianity was a religion that had good values to follow and that what Western culture deems to be good has been derived from the Christian ethic. You cannot separate that from the Western views of what is good and bad behavior. I didn’t preach the Sermon on the Mount, but what was said there was weaved into the Western culture over centuries, such that you cannot separate it out. Its like trying to identify exactly where the threads in the social fabric were brought together. Certainly they were brought together. They are not just self-manifested, springing up in a morally neutral environment birth after birth.

 

Now lets look at the moral atheist. An atheist can be moral. But what I’m looking at is the religious mechanism, which I call the organizing principle, that does not exist in atheism. Thus an atheist may very well live a life of good moral conduct but will lack the mechanism to bring about change. To remake the world according to his moral vision. This is no big deal if the world already exists in moral clarity. Then the atheist can just mirror society and claim to have come to the conclusions on his own. But this is why I stress the need to go back to the original state. Go back to a time before Christianity, before Western Civilization (I’m focusing on Western Civilization, though an analysis could be made for other cultures as well separate from the Christian God or religion). Go back to the lunatic asylum before our current notions of good and bad, before our culture. Go to a time when there were all sorts of different moralities, not what we call moral today, but what each individual cult deemed to be moral in itself. Now be an atheist within that moral morass of conflicting values, and try to bring the lunatic asylum into sanity. I would argue that you couldn’t do it. And that it wasn’t any old religion that did it, but a particular religion that did it. Thus Western culture is based on Christian morality, and not on atheistic morality. An atheist could have come up with good values but could never have (and didn’t) create a living movement to reshape the world according to those values. Christianity did, that’s why Western civilization is based on a Christian culture.

 

We all want to believe we came to our own conclusions. But we are a product of our cultures. It is a fact that the Western culture has been shaped by a particular religion – Christianity. We may not even realize where certain ideas come from, and because we can’t trace it out, we assume they sprung up internal to our own character. There is no doubt in my mind, the Christian culture in the Western world has influenced Christian and atheist alike, in ways we can’t even trace out.

[Guest guest]

This is very good answer. I agree with you fully here. So, if anything good is done without dedicating it to Krishna/God then it does not have any meaning!

 

Nice explanation indeed!!!

[Guest guest]

An atheist could indeed change the world by selectively removing those who were pushing the world in what the atheist perceived as the wrong direction.

 

Theists of various kinds allow themselves to be used as instruments of war in order to achieve what they perceive of as a higher or greater good.

 

Most political organizations require the charisma of a leader to continue on effectively. Perhaps the atheists are picking the path the world is following by removing those charismatic people whose ideas are destructive for humanity as a whole.

 

One could build an argument that only atheists affect change in the world as all change is violent and only atheists would be free to pursue violent solutions.

 

You might say that what I have said is unlikely. I would say that your argument that atheists are loose in the sexual sense is unlikely.

 

Sexual activity requires a partner. You just got done saying that atheists are individuals that can not act as a group. Therefore, which individuals are more likely to find an illicit sexual partner? The individualist atheist or the theists with their large groupings of people?

 

I personally have found that sexual promiscuity makes me unhappy. I am what you would consider a atheist. I will be faithful to my wife, not because a god says for me to, but because it is a logical thing to do for me to remain happy.

 

I do not know if there is a consciousness that survives the physical death of a person or animal. Evidence on this seems to be faint. There was also little evidence of quarks until only a few decades ago. I will just say that lack of evidence of a thing does not make it untrue. It just makes it unknown.

 

Theists purport to know that which is unknown. Some atheists tend to do this also by declaring what is unknown to be untrue. I think that many atheists are really just theists in denial.

 

I have been working on a theory that organized religions purpose is to train young humans in the ability to self deceive. A person who does not have the learned ability to self deceive is more able to make rational decisions. Rational thought is the death of most religions.

 

My theory equates faith with the individuals ability to self deceive. If you look at faith from a rational viewpoint then how else would you define it?

 

Gods and religions require the propagation of self deception in order to exist. Self deception is something that has to be learned at an early age in order for it to be effective. I lack that training.

 

I am glad of the circumstances that led my presbyterian father and my catholic mother to marry. My father and mother could not agree on which church to raise their children in. They chose to not raise them in any church. I never had to any religious training. I feel very lucky in this regard. I am able to look at religions from the outside rather than from the inside.

 

There may come a time when we can bottle consciousness in a vessel that is not flesh and blood. There may come a time when flesh and blood can become more permanent.

 

My thought for a future where all mankind can be saved.

 

1.) Develop physical immortality.

 

2.) Develop cloning

 

4.) Develop a time traveling machine that can journey to the past and back to the future.

 

5.) Intercept all people who have died in the past and substitute a non aware clone in place of the persons almost dead body.

 

6.) Take that almost dead body to the future and revive it and treat it so it is immortal.

 

7.) Place unstable individuals in places where they can not hurt others who do not wish to be hurt. I am referring to folks such as Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Idi Amen, etc. I am thinking give them a whole separate planet to play on.

 

8:) Only after a person has been made immortal and they fully understand their situation will they be given the choice of ceasing to exist.

 

I do not know if we can ever get to the situation where such things are possible. I do know it will not be theists who would work to make such things happen. I would guess that theists would oppose such a thing coming to be. If immortality was something you took for granted, how long would any religion or god last?

 

dzimmerm

[sinimat 0]

Dzimmerm,

The material body can never become immortal- that is against the laws of nature. The more you try to make it, the more nature will fight back and the more you will suffer. Chant Hare Krishna and you will indeed become immortal.

[dzimmerm 0]

There is no nature. There is only that which is. How can that which is fight that which is?

 

dzimmerm

[Guest guest]

no body is born an atheist ( well.. not the majority at least) .

So, I would suppose that most of them have adequate direct exposure to religion ( when they are brought up) and all religions preach basic tenets that can be easily understood and agreed upon.

On the other hand, what one learns from daily interactions with the other people might have been from no direct relations to any religion.

So, even when one does not believe in the whole dogma and decides to be an atheist, he/she follows the set of believes that they agree with .

 

[kailasa 0]

***I am always surprised by one thing which I've encountered many times and that is there are people who don't believe in God at all, but who follow the philosophy of being good to everyone and seeing everyone with equal vision and having compassion for the poor etc.

 

For animals?

 

The question is Why this contradiction occurs i.e., why does the person not believe in God even though he has all the qualities of being a devotee????

 

It is not nice behaviour. Nice behaviour it is attempt do devotee devotee Lord.

[Guest guest]

The best explanation seems to be his/her massive ego, which comes in the way of accepting God as the most superior being. Some rationalists say, "why should I accept something, for which there is no concrete evidence?". Again this rationalistic behavious is an outcome of ego that makes a rationalist think, "I am special or I am different". The possibility of these atheists deeply hurting a good and true devotee of God also cannot be ruled out. By being an atheist, a whole human birth is totally wasted, what punishment can be more severe than this? Most of the Sadhakas do have ego, but not to the extent of denying the presence of God. Their nice behaviour towards others would be due to the fact that they might be thinking why should they hurt someone's feeling? and what happiness could they derive from doing so? The other reason could be, if an atheist is good to others, he/she might be expecting similar behaviour from them. Who knows, how many more births they have to take in order to start to believe God.

[yasodanandana 0]

"There are many who believe in God and are not good. So, why is it not possible for there to be people who do not believe in God but are good? "

 

the problem is that we put too much attention on the word BELIEVE

 

"believe" is sentimental... i wake up this morning and i believe in god, tomorrow, having eaten too much pasta and pizza, i wake up with a big congestion and thinking that it is an injustice, i stop to believe that god exists and protects me

 

the real and steady change of the behaviour is in true and authentic spiritual practitioners not in "believers"

 

or better..

 

very often the "believers", having not a real inner consciousness and experience of god, they are very fanatic and aggressive because they have to hide (also to temselves) their serious lack of real confidence

[Govindaram 1]

Hare Krishna

 

In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna says that he dwelling as the super-soul in everyone's heart makes the faith of a person, increase so that they can pray to a particular God (mode of worship), so in the beginning an atheist has to have at least a little bit of faith otherwise, his progress is checked, of-cource if he/she if has some association with a Pure Devotee then that person can grow in the spiritual path.

 

And how does it all START, by chanting the names of God.

 

Haribol!

[yasodanandana 0]

" in the beginning an atheist has to have at least a little bit of faith otherwise, his progress is checked"

 

yes, right, but this is a normal student behaviour... you cannot go in the university, listening to the professors thinking at any moment that they are false and cheaters!! one has to risk a little

 

but very soon you have to build something more thick and solid ... SHRADDHA (faith + science... in a sense.. bakti + vedanta .... )