There is no justice if atheism is true

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Not saying it is negative, but if there has to be a penalty, man's law or otherwise on moral and ethical decisions, that is a weak human being.

I love silly theoreticals! I don't deal with them, I deal with life, or have for the past 65 years.

I have done wrong, I surely don't fool myself that I have not, nor do I believe
I should get any absolution for donating to my favorite charity, laying aawyer, or dancing the right jig of whatever religion.

If you think you need a metaphysical carrot , have at it, but take the log out before ya decide to pile on all humanity

Well bring bit closer to home. All the tyrants that mass murder their subjects while living in luxury. Same goes for those that undertook murder and atrocities in the name of faith. They one and all basically face no justice, if athiesim is true.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace

Where there is hatred, let me sow love
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
And where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek

To be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
To be loved as to love

For it is in giving that we receive
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
—St. Francis of Assisi

 

[badger]

You clearly believe in good and evil.

The above was sent to Wil, but it caught my attention.

What I need to know is, what is your definition of 'evil'?

A person can decide to do evil.

Can you tell me what that is?

Once that person decides to do evil to another person or a group of people, and then that person doesn't suffer any consequences in this life for the evil they have committed . . . would you agree that this is an injustice when they can get away scot-free with no consequences for their actions?

This reads like some kind of 'We are better because of who we are' or 'We are better because we fear a god'.
Sadly, history demonstrates that this isn't true.

Theoretically let's say one person from a spaceship is responsible for blowing up the planet and killing billions of human beings, countless wildlife, and so on. They feel no remorse for such an act. According to atheism, there are no consequences for that person. There is no rule of law to hold the perpetuator accountable. Nothing. After all, nature just is. Atoms continue to whirl around mindlessly. So, yes, no justice assuming atheism is true.

That sounds like somebody deciding that the world is so wicked that they would like to destroy all life and start again, like sending some kind of flood or something....... Oh, wait! Do you believe in that kind of thing?

 

[badger]

Well bring bit closer to home. All the tyrants that mass murder their subjects while living in luxury. Same goes for those that undertook murder and atrocities in the name of faith. They one and all basically face no justice, if athiesim is true.

Regards Tony

Does a killer whale pay later because it snatched a baby seal?
Does a hawk pay for its every stoop?
Does a virus pay for the death of its host?

Would a Bahai soldier (in a Bahai World) ordered to shoot somebody have a special dispensation from their god?

 

[Cino]

Well bring bit closer to home. All the tyrants that mass murder their subjects while living in luxury. Same goes for those that undertook murder and atrocities in the name of faith. They one and all basically face no justice, if athiesim is true.

Regards Tony

Let me put it bluntly:

Those murderous tyrants do not, for all practical purposes, face any justice here, in this world, in our societies. Our institutions are not able to provide this today.

Are you saying, in effect, that you can't bear this thought, and therefore, justice in a separate realm, which is unable to exert any influence on this one, must exist, and anyone who does not buy into such a concept, is a threat to what justice we do manage to enact here?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Let me put it bluntly:

No need to. It is just a logical analogy .

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Does a killer whale pay later because it snatched a baby seal?
Does a hawk pay for its every stoop?
Does a virus pay for the death of its host?

Would a Bahai soldier (in a Bahai World) ordered to shoot somebody have a special dispensation from their god?

Only man has been given a rational soul in this matrix and faces their choices.

It is just a logical analogy using justice as an example. There is no justice if atheism is true. The choice to do evil has no consequence.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

Only man has been given a rational soul in this matrix and faces their choices.

It is just a logical analogy using justice as an example. There is no justice if atheism is true. The choice to do evil has no consequence.

Regards Tony

Hi Tony
To follow that line: on what basis is man entitled to expect justice? Is it a reasonable expectation? Is it not based on the premise that a just higher power exists? Non-theists reject the premise as unproveable and so the argument fails ...

 

[badger]

Only man has been given a rational soul in this matrix and faces their choices.

Can you prove that?....... Humans having a rational soul?

There is no justice if atheism is true.

It's no good just repeating that, over and over.
But, anyway, where can I find justice amongst theists that does not exist amongst non-theists?
I once drove my late wife to a Bahai open meeting where I met with a Bahai who was later convicted and imprisoned for very serious crimes. How did theism make any difference to him?

The choice to do evil has no consequence.

Regards Tony

What is Evil?
Shoplifting? I've detained Nuns for shoplifting.......
Deceiving to obtain property? I've detained Christians for those crimes. (I used to take note of crucifixes etc, and words.)
Why can't anybody define 'Evil' ???

 

[RJM]

But, anyway, where can I find justice amongst theists that does not exist amongst non-theists

That's not the argument -- it is that monsters like Mao Tse Tung escape justice, unless they get it in the afterlife.

 

[Cino]

That's not the argument -- it is that monsters like Mao Tse Tung escape justice, unless they get it in the afterlife.

And ostensibly religious ones like Franco... his tomb is practically a religious shrine of pilgrimage.

Valley of the Fallen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Fear of God or an unpleasant afterlife didn't deter him, it seems.

 

[RJM]

And ostensibly religious ones like Franco... his tomb is practically a religious shrine of pilgrimage.

Valley of the Fallen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Fear of God or an unpleasant afterlife didn't deter him, it seems.

Yes, but it's not the point. The argument is supposed to be a logical one in favour of an afterlife. It fails because it assumes the premise that man is entitled to expect justice at some point down the line -- but there is no logical reason to suppose so?

As such it is not a good (logical) argument for God. Atheists easily tear it apart, as demonstrated by this thread.

 

[Cino]

No need to. It is just a logical analogy .

Regards Tony

No, I feel this is the heart of the matter.

With divine justice not making any noticeable difference in this world, in our day-to-day lives, we're stuck with human justice, for what it's worth. Atheists and believers alike participate in our legal systems, in our institutions.

So no matter how I turn it, the "no justice" claim is a false one. You could say, "no perfect justice...", that would reflect the current state of affairs of some really terrible people escaping our justice, I would have no issue with that. But to deny unbelievers any sense of justice or to claim that atheists who work to bring criminals to justice are acting out of the wrong motivation, is rather crass, and I do take issue with that.

I have yet to read an acknowledgement by you that unbelievers are capable of a sense of justice and a motivation to increase the justice in this world.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, but it's not the point. The argument is supposed to be a logical one in favour of an afterlife.

..it is not really an argument in favour of God's existence.
It also isn't an argument to suggest that believers will be treated differently to disbelievers.

It merely states the obvious .. that some people believe in Divine justice and an afterlife .. and some don't.
It doesn't say that those that don't are automatically worse than believers in behaviour.

It is what it is.
A believer believes that everybody will be fairly treated, in the long run.

 

[rocala]

I am a little curious about this whole thing. If atheism is not true, then is it reasonable to assume that we are here for a purpose. In the absence of a universal declaration of that purpose, how do we know that experiencing the pains of injustice is not part of the deal.

If at this moment Adolf, Pol Pot and the rest are having large red-hot objects brutally inserted, what do we gain? Deterrence, reform? Revenge looks a bit more likely, but for who, the dead? How do we reconcile this with loving kindness, forgiveness etc.

So, I am very puzzled by the nature of this celestial justice system. So far karma has my vote. Interestingly it has both theist and atheist believers.

 

[RJM]

I am a little curious about this whole thing. If atheism is not true, then is it reasonable to assume that we are here for a purpose. In the absence of a universal declaration of that purpose, how do we know that experiencing the pains of injustice is not part of the deal.

If at this moment Adolf, Pol Pot and the rest are having large red-hot objects brutally inserted, what do we gain? Deterrence, reform? Revenge looks a bit more likely, but for who, the dead? How do we reconcile this with loving kindness, forgiveness etc.

So, I am very puzzled by the nature of this celestial justice system. So far karma has my vote. Interestingly it has both theist and atheist believers.

Good observation, imo.

The death penalty or permanent life imprisonment serve to protect society from severe evildoers. The threat of capture and justice is designed to deter potential criminals from offending. But if the threat of punishment in the next world does not deter a person from doing evil in this one, it's actual enactment achieves nothing useful?*

*Will Hitler's tortured soul learn by pain to change and become a good soul in the continuing eternity?

 

[Ahanu]

I love silly theoreticals! I don't deal with them, I deal with life, or have for the past 65 years.

I have done wrong, I surely don't fool myself that I have not, nor do I believe
I should get any absolution for donating to my favorite charity, laying aawyer, or dancing the right jig of whatever religion.

If you think you need a metaphysical carrot , have at it, but take the log out before ya decide to pile on all humanity

The entire post was not theoretical.

Here is a real scenario . . .

Do you recall the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people. Twenty of the victims were children between six and seven years old, and six were adult staff members. Earlier that day, before driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the school, Lanza died by suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

The shooter committed suicide after committing unspeakable evil.

Now can you please share your opinion about the question below with that in mind?

A person can decide to do evil. Once that person decides to do evil to another person or a group of people, and then that person doesn't suffer any consequences in this life for the evil they have committed . . . would you agree that this is an injustice when they can get away scot-free with no consequences for their actions?

 

[Ahanu]

If at this moment Adolf, Pol Pot and the rest are having large red-hot objects brutally inserted, what do we gain? Deterrence, reform? Revenge looks a bit more likely, but for who, the dead? How do we reconcile this with loving kindness, forgiveness etc.

Who said punishment has to be a red-hot object?

Perhaps Adolf Hitler could reenact the lives of those he brutally put down in order to broaden his understanding. Loving kindness cannot begin when no understanding is present. The aim of such punishment would be to transform evil into good.

 

[RJM]

Perhaps Adolf Hitler could reenact the lives of those he brutally put down in order to broaden his understanding.

I believe this is purgatory, and it can happen in this world -- I begin to understand the hurt I have caused -- often inadvertantly, and often to those who most loved me. I mostly can't repair it, which causes me terrible pain of regret, but it makes me a better person?

 

[Ahanu]

No, I feel this is the heart of the matter.

With divine justice not making any noticeable difference in this world, in our day-to-day lives, we're stuck with human justice, for what it's worth. Atheists and believers alike participate in our legal systems, in our institutions.

So no matter how I turn it, the "no justice" claim is a false one. You could say, "no perfect justice...", that would reflect the current state of affairs of some really terrible people escaping our justice, I would have no issue with that. But to deny unbelievers any sense of justice or to claim that atheists who work to bring criminals to justice are acting out of the wrong motivation, is rather crass, and I do take issue with that.

I have yet to read an acknowledgement by you that unbelievers are capable of a sense of justice and a motivation to increase the justice in this world.

Yes, atheists are capable of a sense of justice. Good point. I'm more concerned with the idea of atheism.

@Cino makes a claim: Divine justice makes no noticeable difference in this world. Cino claims it makes no noticeable difference, but how can he dive into the depths of humanity's heart to know for sure the idea itself doesn't have a strong influence on populations?

@wil makes a different claim: Weak souls require a metaphysical carrot; however, it does work to deter weak souls from committing evil.

I think @wil is closer to the truth. That metaphysical carrot has some strength - especially for uneducated populations. It speaks in a language everybody can understand. Take away the metaphysical carrot and establish atheism . . . and you might have more chaos.