Change our minds about the existence of God?

[bandit4god]

When discussing reality with the scientifically minded, the bible is useless as a supporting reference

Why is it improper to consider the books of Jeremiah and Matthew as independent texts when assessing prophesies?  Herodotus and Levy are hardly the same text, even if they are published in the same book?

[Inevitable Droid]

When discussing reality with the scientifically minded, the bible is useless as a supporting reference

Why is it improper to consider the books of Jeremiah and Matthew as independent texts when assessing prophesies?  Herodotus and Levy are hardly the same text, even if they are published in the same book?

Because Matthew is most coherently interpreted as a book of lies, given the fact that he portrays magic as fact in numerous spots.  To accept Matthew as a reference, one must first consider Matthew reliable, and no one but the faithful consider him reliable.

[Whitney]

I would add that another reason to not place much trust in the books of the bible is because they were all written by normal people.  These people could collaborate their stories, they could make things up, they could remember incorrectly (they weren't writing this stuff down as it happened...the first books are dated till no sooner than 60ad).

And you ask why would they make something up...I don't know, ask one of our modern cult leaders.

[bandit4god]

I would add that another reason to not place much trust in the books of the bible is because they were all written by normal people.

This is a miracle.  A real one.  

A normal person in the first century AD could not read or write, knew nothing of philosophy or art, and had enough headache trying to survive from meal to meal without trying to gin up a new religious sect whose innovation for the best way to expand was to get stoned while praying for the ones stoning you.  Herodotus, rich and one of the political/academic elite of his time, wrote a halting, self-oriented, tacky book that generated a cool movie starring Gerard Butler.  John, an ignorant fisherman, wrote five books of the bible.

"The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.  He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.  He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.  Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

A fisherman who couldn't read or write.

[Recusant]

I would add that another reason to not place much trust in the books of the bible is because they were all written by normal people.

This is a miracle.  A real one... John, an ignorant fisherman, wrote five books of the bible.

A fisherman who couldn't read or write.

You have chosen to believe this, but It would be very interesting if you could produce any evidence to back up your belief.  The majority of biblical scholars would disagree with your position, absent such evidence.

The following is a quote from a writer who would apparently agrees with your belief.  The reason I'm quoting it however, is to give evidence to show that the majority of biblical scholars don't agree with your position.

From Joyful Papist:

But, in any case, I don’t accept that biblical scholars have proved their case regarding provenance, misattribution and so on, because I question on of their base assumptions.

This assumption is a late dating for the books of the New Testament â€" that is, the idea that the books were largely written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. Below, I give five reasons for believing that the majority opinion on this is wrong.

(Emphasis mine)

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, “the beloved disciple” of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, in about ad 100 for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background.

While it's common for Christians and their pastors to attribute the books of John to the apostle John, that does not mean that that attribution is based on any real evidence.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

No.  So long as it remains hope and makes no pretentions at knowledge or insight and presents no one and nothing as an authority on the subject.

Very well....

Would you say the same about positive thinking where there is no overwhelming evidence to support a positive outcome?

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I am quite proud of the fact that my atheism, or, more precisely, my epistemology, forces me to seek justice on Earth or else let go of my anger; forces me to fear prison, because if I have only one life, spending the rest of it in prison would be tragic; forces me to fear getting myself killed, as I have more I'd like to do before I die.  My epistemology leads to the great virtues of caution, and stoicism*, and, when the first two cannot constrain it, heroism**.  

* Stoicism is accepting what I cannot, or choose not to, change or counterbalance.  It is peace in reality and peace in choice.

** Heroism is choosing to do my best to change or counterbalance what I cannot accept.  It is only folly if what I cannot accept is a law of nature, or if caution is overridden for the sake of something less valuable to me than what I'm risking, or if my methods are incompetent.

Why are you forced to let go of anger?

Why not hold onto it and let it dissipate along with the remainder of your consciousness?

Finally, how do you explain to those who will survive to continue to suffer the sting of the injustice committed against you, that they should not pick up the mantle and continue the fight since it no longer matters to you?

While your sentiment seems noble, I think you are waxing philosophic...Practically speaking, I think your position is untenable.  

Why?

Why would social order break down if people did not believe in a post life judgement?  Because revenge is a human compulsion which is most often tempered by the belief that a higher power, or arbiter will make right those injustices committed on Earth.  This is why religion and the thought of heaven has consistently been fed to the profane masses by those it power...It softens the blow of misery and contempt.  Many people are satisfied with the notion that they will recieve Heaven for their suffering and that those who are responsible for the suffering will be punished.  

Revolutions are incited when groups decide to take matters into their own hands....

Karl Marx was correct when he said "religion is the opiate of the masses" ...It is what keeps them at bay...

If takes no more than to look at Slavery in America for the point to be demonstrated.  When slave rebellions began to become more sophisticated, and frequent, the Bible and Christianity was implemented by the slave holders.  The same is true if the history if England is examined.  

Then they are necessary evils, for self-deceit is a great evil.  But I dispute the necessity.  All that's needed for social stability is legislation and enforcement.  All that's needed for happiness is achievable goals.

Heres the thing...I am not as passionate about lying to people as I let on, nor do I believe that folks should wait till the afterlife for justice..

I put that out there to raise another question which I will present later.




Whirling Moat

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

There is no reason to accept anything as true without empirical evidence. There are lots of reasons to not accept things without empirical evidence.

So can you or anyone prove empirically  that a black hole has an interior deeper than 1cm? Or that Dark Matter exists?

Both of these determinations are the result of reasoning and mathematics coupled with empirical data. No one has actually seen or tested either of the two.





Whirling Moat

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

I saw all the back and forth on this discussion point. Let me just say that today, December 2010, among physicists currently at work, the answer to the question as to what was going on before the Big Bang will be an immediate unanimous shrug.

Of course...Because part of the idea is that physics break down at the singularity..There is no such meaningful concept as before since the advent of time resulted with the Big Bang.

What occured was beyond Nature as we understand it..The Shrug of physicists will persist unless they completely discard the model.  Which wouldn't surprise me because while it is elegant..it becomes very troublesome at the end.  The funny thing is that reductionist thinking cannot escape the idea that the solution may be outside of physical explanation.  

But let's pretend otherwise. Let's pretend we knew for sure that before the Big Bang there was a period of nothingness, and then suddenly, bang. Would this suggest the existence of God? No. Because God would still be, as postulated, a non-empirical source of empirical causation, and that proposition is impossible to assess. Empirical causation can only be assessed by logical empiricism, which cannot assess non-empirical propositions; meanwhile, non-empirical propositions can only be assessed by logic alone, which cannot assess empirical causation; and the two modalities cannot be brought together to assess a single proposition, because that would negate logic alone as a modality

How would God be non empirical?

If we decide to define God as the empirical source of empirical causation, then at most what we're saying is that God is whatever existed before the Big Bang, and the question of what that was is already being investigated, to the extent it can be, by the only people qualified to investigate it, namely, physicists and astronomers. Alternatively, we might be saying that God is the laws of nature - not their author, but literally them and nothing more.

So can't we reduce your statement above to Physicists and Astronomers are investigating God?

OK, now I know you're all right. Anybody who can name Barry Allen gets a high five, which we'll imagine this fellow to be doing.

If i ever want to find my Comic Book Kin I go to atheist boards or science forums...But I have to admit I am more of a Marvel kinda guy...

If the imperatives are validly logical then they will describe what must be true, and they will be correct always, to the extent our premises are complete and accurate. Error as to what must be true is impossible, given complete and accurate data and valid logic. The only reason scientists debate scientific questions is this: data at the current time is incomplete.

Droid...I know this seems correct but it isn't.  Logic and mathematics is simply our way of explaining the order of the past...There is nothing that we know of stopping 4+ 5 = french fries.  Or, " All cars are purple" Jim drives a car..Jim's car is green."  Yes it would defy logic, but not necessarily reality.  Reality is what it has been, however there is nothing we know of preventing it from changing. All of our rules apply to the future if the systems of mathematics and science remain consistent.  There are many physicists who will agree that the universe could run backwards where effects happen prior to the cause.  

My point is that Creation is evidence of this, the rules only apply to creation once it is present and orderly...Where there are different rules, possibilities shift and events may occur like they happen in our dreams...Dreams don't have to make sense.  

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Always do science, however science without theology is lame, and is one ugly bastard.



Whirling Moat

[Velma]

Always do science, however science without theology is lame, and is one ugly bastard.

There's where you are wrong.  Science WITH theology is blind, deaf, and lame because theology doesn't want science to investigate anything that might contradict theology.  Theology only hinders progress.

[Inevitable Droid]

Peace....

You're back!  Excellent.  I think you might be the only Muslim currently active on this board.  You're the first I've noticed, any way.  It's fun to have you here.

No.  So long as it remains hope and makes no pretentions at knowledge or insight and presents no one and nothing as an authority on the subject.

Very well....

Would you say the same about positive thinking where there is no overwhelming evidence to support a positive outcome?

Yes.  But I think I'm missing your point.  Positive thinking is a success strategy.  Are you saying Islam is a success strategy?

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I am quite proud of the fact that my atheism, or, more precisely, my epistemology, forces me to seek justice on Earth or else let go of my anger; forces me to fear prison, because if I have only one life, spending the rest of it in prison would be tragic; forces me to fear getting myself killed, as I have more I'd like to do before I die.  My epistemology leads to the great virtues of caution, and stoicism*, and, when the first two cannot constrain it, heroism**.

Why are you forced to let go of anger?

Why not hold onto it and let it dissipate along with the remainder of your consciousness?

Hmm.  OK.  I guess there are three choices, one of which is a poor one:
1. Seek justice.
2. Let go of anger.
3. Hold onto anger but do nothing with it, so that it merely seethes.

I was rejecting the third choice out of hand because it's self-destructive.

As for your comment about dissipating consciousness, are you making the point that nothing matters if death is final?  If so, I would argue the exact opposite.  If I only have forty years to live, or forty days, or forty minutes, what I do with that time takes on a mighty significance to me personally and perhaps to others, depending on what I do.  My life is part of a greater life, that of humanity.  In the face of death, and given my will to meaning, it is in my interest to do things that make humanity's continued survival more likely, and to make humanity's future in some way a carrier for my own hopes.

Finally, how do you explain to those who will survive to continue to suffer the sting of the injustice committed against you, that they should not pick up the mantle and continue the fight since it no longer matters to you?

My loved ones are free to hold onto their anger if such makes sense to them.  I would only counsel them, then, to seek justice.  Either seek justice or let go of anger.  Don't merely seethe.

While your sentiment seems noble, I think you are waxing philosophic...Practically speaking, I think your position is untenable.

What position and in what way untenable?

You seem to be saying that since the finality of death is undesirable, it must be false.  How is it that desire dictates truth?  

Nevertheless, I am free to hope for an afterlife.  It is merely when I pretend knowledge or insight, or claim someone or something as an authority, that I err, for no one has knowledge or insight about any afterlife, and no one and nothing on Earth can be an authority on the subject, since to become such, one first must die and stay dead.  Given the honesty to acknowledge what we know and what we don't, by all means let us hope for an afterlife, if doing so makes sense to us.

Why would social order break down if people did not believe in a post life judgement?  Because revenge is a human compulsion which is most often tempered by the belief that a higher power, or arbiter will make right those injustices committed on Earth.  This is why religion and the thought of heaven has consistently been fed to the profane masses by those in power...It softens the blow of misery and contempt.  Many people are satisfied with the notion that they will recieve Heaven for their suffering and that those who are responsible for the suffering will be punished.

Yet many others aren't satisfied, and some of these believe in an afterlife, and even in a divine judge.  They merely convince themselves that they are the agents of that judge here on Earth, and then they take matters into their own hands.  

I agree that revenge is a human compulsion.  I go further, in that I don't condemn or denigrate revenge.  I condemn and denigrate only excess.  Risking too much, or inflicting too much of a penalty, or hitting too wide a target, or devoting too much of one's life, or causing reverberations that will continue for too long.  These quantities can only be assessed in terms of values, and values are subjective, so this is less a calculus and more a musical composition, its harmonies having to be judged by an ear that is sensitive to the tone and pitch of life.
   
We don't need to teach children a myth.  What we need to do is teach them how to consider personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness; and how to weigh these things in light of complete and accurate data and valid logic; and how to put these things into balance; and how to negotiate and compromise with those who want a different pitch and tone but who at least agree with the pursuit of music.

Karl Marx was correct when he said "religion is the opiate of the masses" ...It is what keeps them at bay...

Then we need a new humanity, one that doesn't have masses, but only individuals seeking wisdom.  What's needed is education, both academic and practical.

If takes no more than to look at Slavery in America for the point to be demonstrated.  When slave rebellions began to become more sophisticated, and frequent, the Bible and Christianity was implemented by the slave holders.  The same is true if the history if England is examined.

It intrigues me that you, a Muslim, seem to be arguing for religion as a necessary evil.  I, for my part, reject all evil, and dispute its necessity.  Why sink when we can rise instead?  Instead of opiates, let's offer humanity ideas, opportunities, creative challenges, and the promise of Earthly reward for those who learn to think and then act.

Heres the thing...I am not as passionate about lying to people as I let on, nor do I believe that folks should wait till the afterlife for justice..

I suspected you weren't and didn't.  

I put that out there to raise another question which I will present later.

I look forward to discovering what is next from you, Whirling Moat.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

Ok, you have the right to think that. I disagree and think it is not. It is simply the acknowledgement of reality. It also causes me to appreciate this one and only life we have far more than I ever did as a Christian. Nothing selfish about that. What I believe to be selfish is lying for the purpose of giving others false hopes and beliefs. It is also unethical and cruel.

I still don't get it McQ...Yeah, lying is bad..but I am saying that from a different set of values..I don't see how you would maintain this same idea however..I mean from where you stand it seems to be without merit.  What difference does it make if a person embraces death with the expectation of something else and then they just stop existing..who was hurt?

I hear many people say things in funerals like  "We lost a daughter, but we gained an angel.."  Now I agree that this may not be the reality, however once again I have my reasons for disapproving of this, what are yours? Should we remind everyone after the funeral that we have no peer reviewed test which proves unequivocally that a departed person becomes anything but a carcass?

What of it? What of the Christian mother who experiences the same thing? Both live with terrible heartache and loss, granted. But one might choose to add to that grief a lie of utmost cruelty while the other chooses not to, instead acknowledging the fundamental truth that life is unfair. You need to broaden your worldview to recall that the human race has been here a long time, and for the vast majority of that time life has been (to paraphrase) nasty, brutish, and short.

And how does this realization help the person?

It is like sobering someone up just because....Do you find yourself at Nightclubs trying to sober up drunk people?
Or how about people on pain meds...Should they embrace the fact that it hurts?   "Hand over the anesthetics Brian, you shouldn't take them they are just keeping you away from reality.."  

Not irrational to hope, but irrational to believe it. Next, justice is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. We have changed the meaning of justice as society has changed over the millennia as well. The justice you hope for is not the same as the justice that preindustrial societies lived with. Again, you cannot impose human concepts on nature, so you can only impose them on the society you live in, or in the case of historical revisionists, on previous societies.

I think my point simply reflects the age old idea of revenge.  

Me? How do I? Or how do others who don't believe in life after death? Can't answer for others. And you also inserted another what if into this that doesn't necessarily go along with that question, so I'll do my best to answer.
I don't swamp the living with useless platitudes about their dead, for one. I find the idiotic things people say during funerals to be just that. Idiotic. They are the words of people who don't know what to say, and have no concept of how much more the truth is helpful than the lies they repeat mindlessly. "Oh, Mary is in a better place, and you'll see her again someday."

Total garbage. They say something they don't even really believe, can't explain, and certainly can't know for sure, yet they say it as if they are the ultimate arbiters of our deaths. Cruel, stupid, thoughtless words.

it is stupid and many othOher expletives...but once again...how does it hurt anybody?
It isn't like they are gonna get somewhere and find out that it was all a lie...

To add to this, the believers' ideas of punishment are stuck with some nagging issues of their own. For instance, the nasty pedophile you propose. In your scenario he might go to hell, right? But he might not. He may, in fact, be offered eternal glory with his lord and master, jesus christ. If your pedophile is a Christian, he's not going to hell, he's going to heaven. For eternity. To be rewarded

.

I know I never did get this..

I am not a Christian...

I think most Christians would be fine providing certain evil doers with a rather painful send off even if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior...

I think both ideas are harmful to a stable social structure. Atheism and certain religious concepts relating to justice.  

I am not really done with this post but I have to leave the computer for awhile...I will finish later..



Whirling Moat

[Davin]

There is no reason to accept anything as true without empirical evidence. There are lots of reasons to not accept things without empirical evidence.

So can you or anyone prove empirically  that a black hole has an interior deeper than 1cm? Or that Dark Matter exists?

Both of these determinations are the result of reasoning and mathematics coupled with empirical data. No one has actually seen or tested either of the two.

I cannot, is there a reason for me to accept this as true?

[Inevitable Droid]

I still don't get it McQ...Yeah, lying is bad..but I am saying that from a different set of values..I don't see how you would maintain this same idea however..I mean from where you stand it seems to be without merit.  What difference does it make if a person embraces death with the expectation of something else and then they just stop existing..who was hurt?

I'm not McQ but what the heck, I'm home from work today, so I'll join in.

First, let's be clear that I reject morality as readily and for the same reason that I reject theology.  Neither of them can have any place in my epistemology.

The above doesn't mean that I reject any discussion of what is good or what is evil.  I merely require that we speak of what is good or evil in its effect on me, or he/she/it/them, or us, or you.  Not the moral sort of good or evil, but the practical sort.

In assessing the evil of pretending we know there's an afterlife, or even merely believe it on strong evidence, since even that is false, I look at two things:
1. The effect of the lie itself
2. The effect of the implied epistemology

The effect of the lie itself is its insidious tendency to turn a person's attention from the only world we know for sure exists and matters, which is this one.  Survival, success, and satisfaction are all rendered more likely the more we focus on what is real and significant, and less likely the more we don't.  Otherworldliness is anti-survival, anti-success, and anti-satisfaction.

The effect of the implied epistemology is its despicable tendency to partition off logical empiricism, mathematics, and logic, as being only a subset of the valid approaches to objective truth, when in fact they are the whole set.  If faith - which is believing something because we want to - can be trusted on the question of what happens after death; if intution can be trusted on this question, or if emotion can; then these approaches might be construed as being trustworthy for answering other questions, and they most emphatically are not.  Faith is what happens when desire invades and usurps control of our epistemology.  Nothing could be less trustworthy.  Intuition is a powerful tool for generating hypotheses but those hypotheses must be tested by one of the three genuine approaches to objective truth.  Emotion gives us information about ourselves but only ourselves.  Anyone who tries to navigate the real world by faith, or by untested intuition, or by emotion, is going to get lost, and perhaps worse than lost, as they may wander unsuspectingly onto hazardous terrain.
 
There was an old TV show titled, Lou Grant.  In one episode the young rebel reporter, Joe Rossi, a skeptic and a cynic, had this to say, and I never forgot it: "I don't believe many things in this world, but this I believe.  In the battle between good and evil, if truth is on the field, good will win the day."  (That may not be verbatim but it's very close.)

Should we remind everyone after the funeral that we have no peer reviewed test which proves unequivocally that a departed person becomes anything but a carcass?

In such crass terms, no.  But we should acknowledge that as far as we know, our loss of a loved one is real.  The hole in our lives is real.  The clench in our stomachs, the choke in our throats, the sting in our eyes, are all in reaction to something real.  

It is quite possible to have an openly atheist funeral ceremony, and to find catharsis therefrom.  Not necessarily comfort, perhaps, but in our mourning it isn't always comfort that we want.  There can be a deeper need.  Up and down our spines a hot liquid can churn, demanding release.  This can drive us first to face the emptiness, and then, in response, to face the fullness of the life that was lived, to grab hold of the past, of the memory, of the meaning of that life, and to decide with quiet fury that what that life meant, other lives can carry forward, each in unique ways, perhaps only in piecemeal, surely never as the original life would have carried it all forward - but forward at least some of it can proceed nevertheless, and by all that is sacred to the mind and heart of man, so shall it proceed.  And under the tread of its foot, the Earth will be moved.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Recusant.  Joyful Papist?  Really?  Anyway, I'm glad that Encyclopedia Britannica is still alive and kicking--they must have gone through no small crisis of confidence when came on the scene.

The following is a quote from a writer who would apparently agrees with your belief.  The reason I'm quoting it however, is to give evidence to show that the majority of biblical scholars don't agree with your position

The majority opinion (referenced a couple of paragraphs later by JP) is that most of the NT books were written between 50-100 AD.  Jesus died ~34 AD.  I'd feel pretty confident writing a short book on the rise and fall of Vanilla Ice right now, ~20 years after the events occurred, and I'll probably still feel the same way thirty years from now.  "Stop.  Collaborate and listen..."  Love that guy.

[McQ]

Peace....

Ok, you have the right to think that. I disagree and think it is not. It is simply the acknowledgement of reality. It also causes me to appreciate this one and only life we have far more than I ever did as a Christian. Nothing selfish about that. What I believe to be selfish is lying for the purpose of giving others false hopes and beliefs. It is also unethical and cruel.

I still don't get it McQ...Yeah, lying is bad..but I am saying that from a different set of values..I don't see how you would maintain this same idea however..I mean from where you stand it seems to be without merit.  What difference does it make if a person embraces death with the expectation of something else and then they just stop existing..who was hurt?

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you here. We both think lying is bad, if I'm reading you correctly. I believe that telling someone there is a heaven they will go to after death is a lie, and therefore, I don't like it. I think it gives a person a false belief. In other words, I would be actively feeding someone what I consider the ultimate false hope: life after death.
Where I think it makes a difference is that they, in turn, may perpetuate the same myth, and so it goes, until we are in a world where nearly everyone believes it (our current situation). To my way of thinking, this actually cheapens the value of life, because it allows people to act in ways that make it ok to waste their time on Earth, or to then extrapolate their heavenly beliefs to a god or gods, and use that ultimate trump card to control the lives of others, or to fight wars, and wage atrocities on humanity (also our current situation). Of course, not all evil is done in the name of belief in god or gods, but it would be dishonest to say that throughout human history many of the atrocities haven't been due to that.

I skipped a few steps in the process of that progression from belief in heaven to atrocities, but I don't have the skill or time to write all of human history in this thread. ;-)

I hear many people say things in funerals like  "We lost a daughter, but we gained an angel.."  Now I agree that this may not be the reality, however once again I have my reasons for disapproving of this, what are yours? Should we remind everyone after the funeral that we have no peer reviewed test which proves unequivocally that a departed person becomes anything but a carcass?

Just to be clear, I don't go around at funerals calling people out for saying things. However I simply don't say those same things. Again, to me, it is active dishonesty in the worst way: planting false hope in vulnerable people. I'm not some robot who says we need peer reviewed studies in the middle of a funeral. I care for those who are suffering at the loss of someone they loved.

I think you may have been a bit tongue in cheek there, but wanted to be sure.

What of it? What of the Christian mother who experiences the same thing? Both live with terrible heartache and loss, granted. But one might choose to add to that grief a lie of utmost cruelty while the other chooses not to, instead acknowledging the fundamental truth that life is unfair. You need to broaden your worldview to recall that the human race has been here a long time, and for the vast majority of that time life has been (to paraphrase) nasty, brutish, and short.

And how does this realization help the person?

It is like sobering someone up just because....Do you find yourself at Nightclubs trying to sober up drunk people?
Or how about people on pain meds...Should they embrace the fact that it hurts?   "Hand over the anesthetics Brian, you shouldn't take them they are just keeping you away from reality.."  

Again, I think, and hope, that you are being tongue in cheek here. For one, this is a poor analogy. It doesn't match at all to what we are talking about. So of course I don't believe in keeping people from pain meds. Pain is real. It is measurable. I also don't go to nightclubs. I also don't get drunk. I do try to prevent others from drinking too much and becoming drunk. Of course, again, this is nowhere near analogous to what we are discussing.

Not irrational to hope, but irrational to believe it. Next, justice is a human construct. It does not exist in nature. We have changed the meaning of justice as society has changed over the millennia as well. The justice you hope for is not the same as the justice that preindustrial societies lived with. Again, you cannot impose human concepts on nature, so you can only impose them on the society you live in, or in the case of historical revisionists, on previous societies.

I think my point simply reflects the age old idea of revenge.  Oops! This is Whirling Moats, sentence, not mine. I effed up the quotes feature!

Me? How do I? Or how do others who don't believe in life after death? Can't answer for others. And you also inserted another what if into this that doesn't necessarily go along with that question, so I'll do my best to answer.
I don't swamp the living with useless platitudes about their dead, for one. I find the idiotic things people say during funerals to be just that. Idiotic. They are the words of people who don't know what to say, and have no concept of how much more the truth is helpful than the lies they repeat mindlessly. "Oh, Mary is in a better place, and you'll see her again someday."

Total garbage. They say something they don't even really believe, can't explain, and certainly can't know for sure, yet they say it as if they are the ultimate arbiters of our deaths. Cruel, stupid, thoughtless words.

it is stupid and many othOher expletives...but once again...how does it hurt anybody?
It isn't like they are gonna get somewhere and find out that it was all a lie...

I'll use the venerable South Park to answer this, in paraphrase, because it is absolutely accurate. If you haven't seen it, here's the scoop. John Edward, famous fake psychic (of course all psychics are fake) says that his ability to talk with the souls of the dead for their living friends and relatives is challenged by Stan, a fourth grader, who believes that this is harmful to society.

JE: Look, what I do doesn't hurt anybody. I give people closure and help them cope with life.
STAN: No, you give them false hope and a belief in something that isn't real.
JE: But I'm a psychic!
STAN: No, you're a douche.
JE: I am not a douche! What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?
STAN: Then you're a stupid douche.

....and in a later conversation which picks up where this left off...

JE: Everything I tell people is positive and gives them hope! How does that make me a douche?
STAN: Because the big questions in life are tough: Why are we here? Where are we from? Where are we going? But if people believe in asshole douchey liars like you, we're never gonna find the real answers to those questions. You aren't just lying, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind, you douche!

To add to this, the believers' ideas of punishment are stuck with some nagging issues of their own. For instance, the nasty pedophile you propose. In your scenario he might go to hell, right? But he might not. He may, in fact, be offered eternal glory with his lord and master, jesus christ. If your pedophile is a Christian, he's not going to hell, he's going to heaven. For eternity. To be rewarded

.

I know I never did get this..

I am not a Christian...

Yeah, doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's what they believe. I used Christian beliefs because I'm unfamiliar with Muslim beliefs on this.

I think most Christians would be fine providing certain evil doers with a rather painful send off even if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior...

Perhaps many would, but it doesn't negate the fact that, according to their beliefs, this asshole will still spend eternity in glorious reward. A couple of moments of suffering at the hands of Christians doesn't change that.

I think both ideas are harmful to a stable social structure. Atheism and certain religious concepts relating to justice.  

I am not really done with this post but I have to leave the computer for awhile...I will finish later..[

Keep in mind that atheism is not a social construct relating to the running or governing of societies any more than a-Santa Claus-ism is. Or a-Easter Bunny-ism.

No sweat on getting back to me on this. My workload for the remainder of the year just picked up massively, and this might be the last time for a couple weeks or months that I have time to devote to the topic. Ultimately, I am ok with agreeing to disagree, and live peacefully so. But it is a nice discussion.

And lastly, please do your best to overlook typos and errors. I did this on my iPad while in a huge hurry to get it done before my next appointment. Not the best time to try to do this!

And I've just re-re-read this, and must say I'll never again try to type this much so fast, while using an ipad or iphone. What a freaking disaster! My apologies to anyone who tried to slog through it. WTF was I thinking when I attempted this?