Athiest, how can you not believe in God?

[Exalt]

“If God exists, he’s a ********.” -A friend of mine.

Fill in the blank. If God was seriously a good father, he would talk to me in a way I can understand. So he’s either inept or a jerk. If he does exist and he has any kind of ethical code, he will understand. If not, then I’ll have fun with my friends in hell.

 

[cpayne]

“If God exists, he’s a ********.” -A friend of mine.

Fill in the blank. If God was seriously a good father, he would talk to me in a way I can understand. So he’s either inept or a jerk. If he does exist and he has any kind of ethical code, he will understand. If not, then I’ll have fun with my friends in hell.

You might want to acquaint your friend with the psychological concept of “projection.”

 

[Hubriss]

You might want to acquaint your friend with the psychological concept of “projection.”

Oh you’re quite witty aren’t you?

 

[Hubriss]

Okay. There is no disputing about tastes.

Science is wonderful, in its place. Its place, however, must always be secondary, by its very nature. Secondary questions are questions of interest to me; however, they are not the only questions I am interested in.

For example: “How can I live a longer, more healthy life?” A scientific question of interest to me.

“Why should I desire a longer, more healthy life?” A more fundamental question, and one which science itself cannot answer, now or ever. Also of interest to me.

Instead of “Why should I desire a longer, more healthy life?” it should be “Why do I desire a longer, more healthy life?” You should becuase you do. But contrary to what you think, science can give us answers. All life desires an end to continue life. If life did not have the capability or desire (if able to will so) to continue life, we would not be having this discussion, because all life would have ended when it first began. Natural Selection can be applied to provide a perfect answer.

“Who created God?” is a question somewhat like “What color is a four-sided triangle?” When the terms are properly understood, the answer becomes obvious.

Of course the answer is Basketball! Come on, how could you not know that?

Of course if the terms you put forth are properly understood the answer is obvious because you define the term God as the answer to everything. When you presuppose and answer to everything, the answer to anything is that presupposition. But is it logical to presuppose? to assume? Nope.

 

[cpayne]

Oh you’re quite witty aren’t you?

Thank you. But what I wrote I would stand by. Some people look at the universe and are overwhelmed by God’s grace, kindness, and beauty. Other people look at the universe and are overwhelmed by the “**********” (to quote Exalt quoting his friend). And it’s God’s character that makes the difference?

 

[cpayne]

Instead of “Why should I desire a longer, more healthy life?” it should be “Why do I desire a longer, more healthy life?” You should becuase you do. But contrary to what you think, science can give us answers. All life desires an end to continue life. If life did not have the capability or desire (if able to will so) to continue life, we would not be having this discussion, because all life would have ended when it first began. Natural Selection can be applied to provide a perfect answer.

Of course the answer is Basketball! Come on, how could you not know that?

Of course if the terms you put forth are properly understood the answer is obvious because you define the term God as the answer to everything. When you presuppose and answer to everything, the answer to anything is that presupposition. But is it logical to presuppose? to assume? Nope.

Thanks, but I’ll stick with my original question, “Why SHOULD I desire a longer life?” The answer “You should because you do” is not much of an answer. I agree, as Aquinas puts it, that all life seeks self-preservation. But humans are also capable of self-reflection on their innate desires. The questions arising from this self-reflection are philosophical in nature, not scientific.

Having said that, of course science gives us (scientific) answers. When did I say otherwise?

“Is it logical to presuppose?” No, not if one’s *a priori *assumptions lead to circular reasoning. However, it is logical to define terms. If the term “God” is defined, just as if the terms “four-sided” and “triangle” are defined, the answers to the questions, as I said earlier, become apparent.

I have a question for you, not anything cynical or sarcastic, but genuinely interested: Why did you choose the screen name you chose? “Hubriss” seems really negative in connotations, whether one is a believer or non-believer. Is there something behind it I’m not catching? Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

 

[Sarpedon]

For me, these are some of the traditional arguments against theism which are quite compelling:

1. The argument from evil and suffering. Why is there so much evil, pain, suffering and injustice in the world? Why are good people often rewarded with bad fortune, while the evil often flourish? Assuming God exists, and he is infinitely powerful, wise, knowing, good, morally perfect and beautiful, then why:

I haven’t read through all the posts, so I apologize if this has already been discussed. The way I understand this issue is:

1. A cannot exist without B, and B cannot exist without A
2. God desires A to exist
3. Therefore, He choses to allow B to exist in order that A might exist.

Reasons:

1. This argument assumes that good and evil are desicions made by the human will, not actual existing physical or spiritual forces independant of the will. It is also assumed that a choice cannot be good and evil at the same time. The will has the capacity of chosing to make either a good or evil act. This means that if good exists, the potential for evil must also exist, and vice versa. If the potential for evil does not exist, then the human will is incapable of refusing to chose good. This then ceases to be a choice at all.
2. But God desires the human will to be capable of chosing good
3. Therefore, God allows evil to exist so that the human will is capable of chosing good.

In a nutshell- free will. God gives us the freedom to chose evil instead of Him so that we are capable of choosing Him. If he stopped all evil, then He would have to take away our freedom, something that due to His love for us He is not willing to do.

 

[TomPiltoff]

In a nutshell- free will. God gives us the freedom to chose evil instead of Him so that we are capable of choosing Him. If he stopped all evil, then He would have to take away our freedom, something that due to His love for us He is not willing to do.

But if God is all knowing, he knows what I’ll do throughout my entire life. How can I be making a choice if God already knows what I’ll do?

 

[cpayne]

But if God is all knowing, he knows what I’ll do throughout my entire life. How can I be making a choice if God already knows what I’ll do?

Well, but knowing something that is chosen is not really the same as causing it to be chosen, even if one knows it infallibly. To know something happens is not the same as to force it to happen.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Well, but knowing something that is chosen is not really the same as causing it to be chosen, even if one knows it infallibly. To know something happens is not the same as to force it to happen.

Point.

 

[freesoulhope]

the golden rule.

You speak of humanity as if we are anything other then mere animals!
If theres no God, then theres nothing specail about us, and there is no moral reason why we should act any differently then an animal. We live a while and then die, so why should i put what little time i have on the line for a life that will eventually come to nothing anyway? For what? Where all going to die anyway! The desire to stay alive is irrational; we our simply trying to avoid the inevitable. What should i do? Walk around parading that i am such a wonderfull and good person, satisfying my ego, **decieving **people in to thinking that my life or your life has any more value then an animal? Moral obligations simply misses the point of existing. The point is…there is no point. With out God, we’re freaks of nature; nothing more, so why should i care if your life is cut short for my bennifit? Where is the golden rule then?

If an atheist is allowed to live in a fantasy, then how dare they judge religion, and call themswelves rational! ha!

I agree that It does not do well for a theist to argue that Atheist cannot regonise the good that can come from being good; however, what i would argue, is that man is stripped of any objective **authority to judge **another man on the basis of an objective Moral Law which exists outside of human opinon, that is unchanging and is beyond whether one percieves them as bennificial to human society or not. Since such a thing as morality is meaningless to mere animals, we cannot speak of moral Law, since we our nothing more then mere animals.

There our indivisuals in society that have gained greatly from being selfish, feeding off the opportunities of a capitlist free-market society as “indivisuals”, in sense of economic explotation. The Golden rule doesn’t work if your enemy doesn’t think himself obliged to serve a greater good, and one cannot argue that they are wrong to act as they do, since that would simply be a lie; they are acting as animals, “survival of the fittest”.

If there is no greater good, no greater God, then we are simply decieving are selves if we think that we have any more value then the genes that drive us.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

“Why do I desire a longer, more healthy life?” You should becuase you do.

So evolution provides us with coherant explaintions for our desires, which are wholly rudicible to matter?

But contrary to what you think, science can give us answers. All life desires an end to continue life. If life did not have the capability or desire (if able to will so) to continue life, we would not be having this discussion, because all life would have ended when it first began. Natural Selection can be applied to provide a perfect answer.

Natural selection explains why the desire for life has survived, but it does not explain the desire for life.

Is it loggical to pressupose?.

Its not logical to suppose that the world appeared out of nothing without the aid of a trancendent cause; yet there are many atheists who believe just that.

 

[TomPiltoff]

If theres no God, then theres nothing specail about us, and there is no moral reason why we should act any differently then an animal. We live a while and then die, so why should i put what little time i have on the line for a life that will eventually come to nothing anyway? For what? Where all going to die anyway!

Just because I don’t believe in God doesn’t mean I’m automatically a chimp. Humans have moral codes. I was raised to believe that hurting another human being is wrong. That’s the imprint my mind was given.

Even though I don’t believe in an afterlife, I still have the normal human urges. I go to work because working = money = shelter and food.

The desire to stay alive is irrational; we our simply trying to avoid the inevitable. What should i do? Walk around parading that i am such a wonderfull and good person, satisfying my ego, **decieving **people in to thinking that my life or your life has any more value then an animal? Moral obligations simply misses the point of existing. The point is…there is no point. With out God, we’re freaks of nature; nothing more, so why should i care if your life is cut short for my bennifit? Where is the golden rule then?

The non-existence of God hardly makes humans freaks of nature. It simply leaves just nature.

You’re working on the premise that ‘The Golden Rule’ is somehow ingrained into human beings through God. It isn’t. It’s all about upbringing. If you were raised in a society that never taught Christianity you would not believe in God, simple.

If an atheist is allowed to live in a fantasy, then how dare they judge religion, and call themswelves rational! ha!

There’s no fantasy.

Since such a thing as morality is meaningless to mere animals, we cannot speak of moral Law, since we our nothing more then mere animals.

Faulty logic. Yes, we are animals, but we’re animals that have created our own set of morals to follow. Since humans created these morals, we can enforce their laws on fellow humans.

The Golden rule doesn’t work if your enemy doesn’t think himself obliged to serve a greater good, and one cannot argue that they are wrong to act as they do, since that would simply be a lie; they are acting as animals, “survival of the fittest”.

So Christians needn’t bother following Christian rules towards atheists?

 

[freesoulhope]

Just because I don’t believe in God doesn’t mean I’m automatically a chimp.

First I would just like to say that you gave some good arguments.

However…If God does not exist, then you’re an animal, it doesn’t matter what subjective values you place upon yourself for your own comfort. Your denial of this fact only goes to show that man has no “Objective Value” with out God.

Humans have moral codes. I was raised to believe that hurting another human being is wrong. That’s the imprint my mind was given.

Just like the rest of us. However, this alone does not mean that it is wrong to hurt somebody.

Even though I don’t believe in an afterlife, I still have the normal human urges. I go to work because working = money = shelter and food.

Survival of the fittest. Conclusion; we are all animals.

The non-existence of God hardly makes humans freaks of nature. It simply leaves just nature.

If there is no God, then we are silly to think that there is any objective value to our existence. Your life, I’m sorry to say, objectively, is no more valuable then a monkey or a lizard.

If you were raised in a society that never taught Christianity you would not believe in God, simple.

This is irrelevant. If God does not exist, then you are an animal. You would not call a lion wrong for eating its own children, yet you would judge a person, as if they had more objective value and transendent responsibilities then mere animals. Sometimes some people have urges to kill there own children. If this is not a temptation of the devil, if there is no trancendent moral law, then it is a by-product of evolution, and you can hardly blame somebody for acting on urges, since they are just responding to their ultimate nature. Your certainly cannot say that they are objectively wrong just because they do something you don’t like, since the only reason you don’t like it is because your genes have programmed you to have that disposition with the help of social conditioning.

Humans created these morals.

Therefore they are not real. It’s a fantasy that you wish to impose on people for your own benefit.

So Christians needn’t bother following Christian rules towards atheists?

A Christian follows the Law because it is objectively true that something’s are objectively wrong, for human beings to do, by its very nature depending on what that act may be in its relation to God. Christians also believe that this is because the source of are reality is "ultimate love and perfection”. Therefore to appose the source of your very being is to become imperfect, and therefore immoral. Once you have cut your self off from the source of your being (the roots of your existence) you become “spiritually dead”.

Until you are reconciled to that ultimate source from which you were granted Life, man remains spiritually dead and forfeits eternal life, since all pleasure love and happiness comes from the source of are very being, and is given to us as a gift. One cannot have one with out the other becuase God is Love, although we are granted in this life the ability to experience these things to a finite degree. Its is God that gives are lives purpose and meaning, and therefore value; and it is upon this “objective value”, which transcends human opinion, that we judge something to be right or wrong. That is what gives man the authority to judge; it is not just mere opinion and fantasy. That is what it means when somebody says that moral law is never changing and is carved in stone. Upon this foundation, Moral law makes sense.

 

[TomPiltoff]

However…If God does not exist, then you’re an animal, it doesn’t matter what subjective values you place upon yourself for your own comfort. Your denial of this fact only goes to show that man has no “Objective Value” with out God.

As far as consequences after death, I agree. Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, Gandhi, Pol Pot…they all met the same fate, IMO.

]Just like the rest of us. However, this alone does not mean that it is wrong to hurt somebody.

Again, I agree that there is no set right and wrong. A civilization could easily develop that viewed murder as a virtue to be valued and they’d view it as ‘right’.

However, the culture I was raised in taught me that murder is wrong because people should be treated with respect.

I’m consciously aware that I only hold these beliefs because children are blank slates, but the fact remains that I have a personal sense of right and wrong.

If there is no God, then we are silly to think that there is any objective value to our existence. Your life, I’m sorry to say, objectively, is no more valuable then a monkey or a lizard.

Agreed.

This is irrelevant. If God does not exist, then you are an animal. You would not call a lion wrong for eating its own children, yet you would judge a person, as if they had more objective value and transendent responsibilities then mere animals.

Because it isn’t black and white. There isn’t only ‘I believe God exists and thus I believe morality exists’ and ‘I do not believe in God so I can do whatever I want’.

Humans are only animals, but we are unique in that we do have higher brain functions, which creates morals.

I wouldn’t judge a human being raised in the wild, away from all civilization, for eating his or her children. I would judge a human being raised in society for the same act.

Sometimes some people have urges to kill there own children. If this is not a temptation of the devil, if there is no trancendent moral law, then it is a by-product of evolution, and you can hardly blame somebody for acting on urges, since they are just responding to their ultimate nature.

And, again, this statement applies when talking about a human being raised in the wilderness.

But humans are social creatures, we’ve built societies with rules and laws.

Lack of God ≠ mindless beast.

Your certainly cannot say that they are objectively wrong just because they do something you don’t like, since the only reason you don’t like it is because your genes have programmed you to have that disposition with the help of social conditioning.

No, I can’t call it factually wrong. But most human beings would agree that it is wrong by our moral code.

A Christian follows the Law because it is objectively true that something’s are objectively wrong, for human beings to do, by its very nature depending on what that act may be in its relation to God.

Whereas I, as an atheist, do not murder people simply because I believe hurting others is bad.

 

[freesoulhope]

freesoulhope;2876765:

Whereas I, as an atheist, do not murder people simply because I believe hurting others is bad.

You Have Admitted That Right And Wrong Is not Factually True; so on what bases can you say that hurting eachother is bad or wrong? You live by a moral principle, and that is fair enough, but your moral principle isnt saying anything true about the real world, if in fact moral law does not exist objectivly and independently of human opinion.

 

[TomPiltoff]

You Have Admitted That Right And Wrong Is not Factually True; so on what bases can you say that hurting eachother is bad or wrong? You live by a moral principle, and that is fair enough, but your moral principle isnt saying anything true about the real world, if in fact moral law does not exist objectivly and independently of human opinion.

Yes, I believe that our sense of right and wrong is based completely on what we’re taught.

Both of us were raised to follow traditional Judeo-Christian values, so we both understand why we believe stealing is wrong.

We jail those who steal because those of us who choose to take part in our society understand the rules. They were well aware of violating our moral code.

My point is that stealing is only wrong to us because those are the sensibilities instilled in us. You can’t blanket anything as good or evil.

You’d likely agree with me that a man stealing another mans television is BAD.

What if he steals another mans food because he’s starving? Is stealing still bad in this instance?

Theoretically, one could raise a child to believe that raping and killing are the noblest things one can aspire to achieve. This person would feel the same satisfaction that we feel when we, say, help an old woman cross a street by murdering people.

TO THAT PERSON, they are doing good. Of course you and I would condemn them, but how can you factually prove him to be evil? He was just doing what he thought was right.

Because of the ability to mold right and wrong into new humans as we see fit, I can’t agree that there’s one universal standard of good and evil.

 

[freesoulhope]

You’d likely agree with me that a man stealing another mans television is BAD.

Thats only becuase i believe it trully is bad whether i like it or not. But i can’t think it wrong if right and wrong does not exist. However i can dislike someones actions just as much as i dislike a flava of ice cream.

I don’t think that moral law can be reduced to socail brainwashing; i believe that our awareness of moral law is a good sign that there is a Good God.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Thats only becuase i believe it trully is bad whether i like it or not. But i can’t think it wrong if right and wrong does not exist. However i can dislike someones actions just as much as i dislike a flava of ice cream.

You can view it as wrong according to the code you live by. You have the right to judge that persons actions to be in poor character.

I don’t think that moral law can be reduced to socail brainwashing; i believe that our awareness of moral law is a good sign that there is a Good God.

But how do you explain past societies that performed human sacrifices?

 

[freesoulhope]

You have the right to judge that persons actions to be in poor character.

This is the problem; his character is not in poor character, in fact he is morally neutral just like every other animal. So such a statement is false. You can choose to impose your ideas on others, but one cannot speak of “poor character”, since its simply a matter of “i dont like your behavior. I am in a more powerfull position then you are, therefore i am going to punish your behavior.”

Your authority cannot be in moral law, Its not a matter of “moral law”, “right and wrong”; rather it is a matter of “absolute power”, and those who have the power, are the ones that get to dominate there ideas over the masses; making laws of how they think people should live according to what makes the king feel comfortable.

But how do you explain past societies that performed human sacrifices?

This is a good qeustion as well as some others that you have posted, and i wish to deal with them point by point in there entirity because they are reasonable qeustions that deserve reasonable answers. However, these qeustions are better answered by the likes of William lain craig and C.S Lewis. Mere christianity is a good book which i my self am reading at the moment.

I will adress your qeustions, you will have to wait for a week for me to get my philosophical bearings, since this is not my computer, and you qeustions are good. Peace; i am enjoying the convesation; i hope you are to.

Peace.