Is Atheism a guilt response?

What's your hypothesis, rjr6?

"Unresolved guilt" is an interesting quality. How would you test for it?

Don't have one yet, gathering information. Atheism has many sects so it would be hard to test. And unresolved guilt would depend on the level of honestly of the testee, among other things such as, for lack of better name, internal moral code. To test for contradictory behavior of testee to this code and coping methods of said testee.

Haven't given much thought to it.
 
The thread topic developed from an honest question in my attempt to understand atheist. Though it could be construed as antagonistic, agreed.

From the hip response: Have you seen a dog look guilty?

No.

I wouldn't say it's possible.
 
If by unresolved you mean unsolved, or undecided, uncertain. Then your barking up the wrong tree, Atheism is what you are from the onset, Atheist have no need to solve or decide anything unless they had been indoctrinated into a religion, those Atheist have used there reason, intellect and solved(and by solved I don't mean it was any kind of problem/difficulty, common sense isn't rocket science) and decided there stance, and thus left the (religious cult name here ).
But as for guilt, Why would they have any guilt? what is there to feel guilty about?
They have decided that there is no reason to hold a belief in a god/gods, because a belief in god/gods is irrational and unreasonable.

How do atheist internally reconcile their behavior when they harm another, or themselves for that matter? This could include failure and mistakes.
 
How do atheist internally reconcile their behavior when they harm another, or themselves for that matter? This could include failure and mistakes.

Firstly: how does the theist reconcile such behaviour?

Secondly: why is reconciliation necessary?

As an atheist,I'd be happy to answer your question, but I'm unsure as to what exactly you mean.
 
No.

I wouldn't say it's possible.

Why not? I looked up "guilt" in the dictionary and in Websters it had no religous or deistic connection. Though I imagine there are many definitions that are out there.
 
Why not? I looked up "guilt" in the dictionary and in Websters it had no religous or deistic connection. Though I imagine there are many definitions that are out there.

Your point being??

You obviously have a working definition of "guilt".
Do you think a dog may experience it?
I do not.
 
The thread does not attempt to address guilt developed from disobeying religous doctrine, necessarily. Just the feeling of guilt. Medicine*Woman seem to indicate that her idea of atheism did not allow for the feeling of guilt, and I wanted her to correct my assumption or expand on her assertion.

Oh okay.
 
Your point being??

You obviously have a working definition of "guilt".
Do you think a dog may experience it?
I do not.

You don't think dogs feel bad about choices they've made or things they've done when they know they shouldn't have done something? I disagree.
 
Although I can't cite any studies to back it up, my hypothesis would be that christians are more likely to have "unresolved guilt" than atheists; otherwise they wouldn't need to image that there's a magic father-figure in charge of the universe who is able to forgive them for all the bad things they have done. When you're an atheist and you do something bad, there's really no way to undo it other than trying to actually fix whatever harm you did. When you're a christian, you can just say "Oh well, god forgives me!" and move on. Thus people who felt a lot of guilt about things would likely be drawn to christianity.
 
Firstly: how does the theist reconcile such behaviour?

Secondly: why is reconciliation necessary?

As an atheist,I'd be happy to answer your question, but I'm unsure as to what exactly you mean.

If by unresolved you mean unsolved, or undecided, uncertain. Then your barking up the wrong tree, Atheism is what you are from the onset, Atheist have no need to solve or decide anything unless they had been indoctrinated into a religion, those Atheist have used there reason, intellect and solved(and by solved I don't mean it was any kind of problem/difficulty, common sense isn't rocket science) and decided there stance, and thus left the (religious cult name here ).
But as for guilt, Why would they have any guilt? what is there to feel guilty about?
They have decided that there is no reason to hold a belief in a god/gods, because a belief in god/gods is irrational and unreasonable.

Do you support geeser's statement, Glaucon?
 
Your point being??

You obviously have a working definition of "guilt".
Do you think a dog may experience it?
I do not.

This discussion of dogs is either important or ridiculous, I don't know which. The thread was intended to address guilt and this guilt does not have to be connected to religion. I hope that clarifies my definition of guilt.
 
Well, there are a number of statements there, but if you mean do I agree that an atheist has no need to feel guilt, then I concur.
Most people (except perhaps psychopaths) will feel guilt about various things. The main difference is that atheists are only likely to feel guilty if they believe that they have really harmed someone, rather than feeling guilty about "victimless sins" (like eating some particular food, having sex, etc.) that's are forbidden "because god doesn't like it" even though they don't actually harm anyone in any clear way.

Another difference is that atheists don't believe that they can be magically absolved of their guilt by getting forgiveness from god. Christianity appears to offer people who feel guilty a magic pass to feeling better again; just ask forgiveness from god, repent, and everything is better! I suspect that people who felt guilty would be more likely to turn christian, rather than the other way around.

(Apologies if I'm being narrow-minded by equating theism to christianity, I realize that of course there are other religion).
 
Most people (except perhaps psychopaths) will feel guilt about various things. The main difference is that atheists are only likely to feel guilty if they believe that they have really harmed someone, rather than feeling guilty about "victimless sins" (like eating some particular food, having sex, etc.) that's are forbidden "because god doesn't like it" even though they don't actually harm anyone in any clear way.

Another difference is that atheists don't believe that they can be magically absolved of their guilt by getting forgiveness from god. Christianity appears to offer people who feel guilty a magic pass to feeling better again; just ask forgiveness from god, repent, and everything is better! I suspect that people who felt guilty would be more likely to turn christian, rather than the other way around.

(Apologies if I'm being narrow-minded by equating theism to christianity, I realize that of course there are other religion).

I would agree with the vast majority of what you said.

Do note however, that i said "... need to feel guilt... ".
 
Well, there are a number of statements there, but if you mean do I agree that an atheist has no need to feel guilt, then I concur.

Could you expand upon the statement you make when you say "no need"?
 
I would agree with the vast majority of what you said.

Do note however, that i said "... need to feel guilt... ".

I agree that an atheist doesn't necessarily have to feel guilt, I was just trying to remind everyone that our hypothetical atheist who is able to stop feeling guilty about things generally doesn't really exist. I didn't feel any less guilty about doing things that I considered "bad" after I became an atheist, although the list of things that I considered to be "bad" got a bit shorter.
 
I agree that an atheist doesn't necessarily have to feel guilt, I was just trying to remind everyone that our hypothetical atheist who is able to stop feeling guilty about things generally doesn't really exist.
...

Right.
And it's a good observation too.
Not that I want to digress too far here, but I would say that, to a degree, remorse is a natural human response, and therefore, sooner or later most of us are going to experience it.


Could you expand upon the statement you make when you say "no need"?

As in, we are not compelled by any emotion or reason to subject ourselves to it.
 
How do atheist internally reconcile their behavior when they harm another, or themselves for that matter? This could include failure and mistakes.
What has that to do with unresolved guilt and belief in a god/gods.

But to give you an answer, are you suggesting that Atheist cant be moral or ethical, when no one else is around, as thats how it appears.

Yes I don't doubt that Atheist have hurt others and themselves, but it would be extremely rare, without a dogma to follow, Atheist have no reason to harm, there is nothing inciting them to do that. thus no need to reconcile anything. An Atheist does the right thing because it is the right thing, not because it is something required of him.
 
Back
Top