God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

[porkscratchings]

Easy now. Hitch has not said that religion should be forcibly done away with. Indeed, he states that it will likely always be with us, if you read the three chapters posted to slate.com.

For those of us who are not theists, what he has to say is quite so, though he uses the big brush. Why do you hate so? Why do you hate each other, and why do you hate those of us who don’t have the ‘sense of belief’?

Time was, and time has passed. We aren’t your enemies, if you haven’t realized. Rather, our interests are different, perhaps, in some ways. **But the best of both groups understand that we have common cause, and love the world and humanity. Madness claims its tithe from the believers and unbelievers alike, but that need not be a reason for more hatred./**QUOTE]



We are members of the same human race. There is no believer and unbeliever but brothers and sisters all.

It is not u or I who make the walls who divide us. But it is some of us who work to build the walls ever higher, instead working together to tear them down.

 

[christcnection1]

All laws and concepts of good and evil is subjective - that’s my point.

If God is does not exist, you’re absolutely right; all morality becomes subjective. If He does exist, there is objective truth, but we may not know it. It has to be received as faith.

Surely that is also subjective - u find meaning in God, whereas I find meaning in the things I see and experience around me.

If an afterlife is a figment of my imagination, what I believe is ultimately meaningless. If it does exist, my pursuit is ultimately meaningful. In this present life (not the afterlife), we discover “meaning” in anything.

Most right minded person would deplore this act - that person does not have be Christian to do so. The concepts of Human Rights were conceived by liberals who also rejected the authority of the Church.

If there is not God, to suggest that there is a thing as “right-minded” person is totally subject. However, I don’t think we disagree. If there is a Christian God, then objective truth exists, whether or not we know or believe it.

I am curious; which liberals are you referring to who ushered in this new age of enlighted human rights? What makes human “rights,” right anyway? They are subjective.

For example, in many tribal cultures, there is no concept of forgiveness. It has to be taught.
Correct!! U are the first person to see this distinction between one bad apple in a cart of good people

I’m sorry you think that I’m the first person. I’m sure most Christians agree that nonbelievers can have a code of ethics to live by.
The barbarism in both Christianity and Islam is stated in the holy books.

You will not find a religion or a worldview anywhere that calls people to the same level of sacrificial love as Christianity. The God of Christianity died not only for the world, but specifically for your sins.

This is a good article if you have time to read it.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

U r wrong. Every yr, we have various charitible events that fundraise to the tune of millions here in the UK. Now I can tell u for a fact that the majority of the folks donating money to these good causes r not Christians or Muslims.

I would like to see those facts! When I see one atheist living the same kind of life of Mother Theresa, I believe you would have something indeed.

I’m sure there are many generous atheists, but it’s malarchy to suggest that it’s a higher percentage. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the norm is we donate a higher percentage.

christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/06/poll-atheists-and-agnostics-are-less.html

Still, if there is no God, being generous is a subjective thing, so in the end, it doesn’t really matter anyhow. It only matters to those in the present, which is an objectively good thing if there is a God.
Good can be defined outside religion - many people from all walks of life have no problem knowing the difference. So why does only the Christian definition of good count?

I didn’t say morality can’t be defined outside religion. Many people think polygamy, incest, and masterbation are wholesome and moral things. Who am I to say otherwise? Who are you to say they are not?

I do not find your thoughts meaningless; that’s why I am here. However, if there is no God, there will ultimately be no eternal significance to anything. If there is not longer any existence, Neither your conscience, my conscience, or anyone else’s will exist to acknowledge something as meaningful.

One man’s gold is another man’s trash. A book is meaningful depending on the reader.

Either you are radically misunderstanding me, or we are rehashing the same argument which you fail to see. Let’s say that tomorrow nothing in this world existed. There is no life whatsoever in the universe. Nothing = Meaninglessness

Perhaps you can live with that. Many people certainly find this hope comforting. If you find it comforting, then indeed, you also find it meaningful. This is not my argument.
Freedom is also subjective. One man’s idea of freedom is another man’s bondage…

I have found my freedom in Christ and the peace that passes all understanding. I am again inviting you to this love, which will give you meaning, not only in this life, but the hope of eternal life.

If you can’t accept it now, perhaps the merciful Lord will allow you to embrace Him on your deathbed. Although I hope you convert well before that, maybe you will not be so stubborn as to reject His love and mercy before you die.

In His Love,
JB

 

[porkscratchings]

If an afterlife is a figment of my imagination, what I believe is ultimately meaningless. If it does exist, my pursuit is ultimately meaningful. In this present life (not the afterlife), we discover “meaning” in anything.

For me, the afterlife does not exist. To make choices based on something that does not exist is not just meaningless but stupid. So it is with God.

If there is not God, to suggest that there is a thing as “right-minded” person is totally subject. However, I don’t think we disagree. If there is a Christian God, then objective truth exists, whether or not we know or believe it.

I don’t think we agree at all. The is no God, whether that God be Christian or God of another religion. There is no objective truth - only subjective truth. And no objective right and wrong - these too, are subjective. Where societies have values in common, these occur because all humans live similar lives, dealing with similar problems (life, death, crime, social breakdown, poverty) irrespective of geography, language and culture. So when I say ‘right-minded’ most people would understand me, regardless of their own personal values and beliefs.

I am curious; which liberals are you referring to who ushered in this new age of enlighted human rights? What makes human “rights,” right anyway? They are subjective.

It is enough to know that in history it is neither Christianity nor Islam would give full rights to anyone save themselves. It does not matter to me who those liberals are - they are most likely to be the same folks the Church condemned as Jews and modernists. I have no idea what a modernist is, actually.

Human rights might be subjective, but they are far more important than any ‘objective truth’. They exist to guarantee the freedom of everyone to believe as they wish, and the freedom to find their own path in life.

For example, in many tribal cultures, there is no concept of forgiveness. It has to be taught.

Forgiveness is not important in those cultures. But they have other ways of showing understanding and compassion.

You will not find a religion or a worldview anywhere that calls people to the same level of sacrificial love as Christianity. The God of Christianity died not only for the world, but specifically for your sins.

I’d prefer religions that didn’t preach this type of imperialism - with an excuse to conquer and convert because we unbelievers ‘owe’ Jesus for dying for our supposed sins. As for sacrificial love - many people are capable of dying for others, even others who don’t believe the same as them. The Buddhists have a history of doing just that.

I would like to see those facts! When I see one atheist living the same kind of life of Mother Theresa, I believe you would have something indeed.

Many people live lives as good as Mother Teresa, but they don’t feel they have to tell newspapers about it. Unlike Mother Teresa. I give money to charity - I do it because I think it is the right thing to do - not because I want to show myself to be better than joe bloggs next door. Good people are everywhere, the fact that u fail to see good works from atheists is because u don’t want to see it.

I’m sure there are many generous atheists, but it’s malarchy to suggest that it’s a higher percentage. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the norm is we donate a higher percentage.

Whose norm? In the UK, far more pple do not believe in God, than those who do. There are about 1 million Anglicans and maybe 1.2 million Catholics. in a population of 60 million. Are u claiming that the combined 2.2 million Christians give more money to charity, than the rest of the UK population, even if I only count the 30 million adults? % wise, this 2.2 million Christians do not give enough to run their own churches, never mind to charity.

Still, if there is no God, being generous is a subjective thing, so in the end, it doesn’t really matter anyhow. It only matters to those in the present, which is an objectively good thing if there is a God.

Nope. Being generous matters to somebody, and to society who ultimately benefits in the present and in the future. No God needed.

 

[porkscratchings]

I didn’t say morality can’t be defined outside religion. Many people think polygamy, incest, and masterbation are wholesome and moral things. Who am I to say otherwise? Who are you to say they are not?

It is society who outlaws these things, along with murder and rape. And many societies do outlaw these things. Moral values evolve - we learn what is good and not so good by experience, and we improve accordingly. There’s always going to be a debate on whether certain things are good or bad. That’s healthy in my view. Not so in religion where values are forced on people with no debate and no discussion, by an oligarchy of priests and clerics. Like in Iran.

Either you are radically misunderstanding me, or we are rehashing the same argument which you fail to see. Let’s say that tomorrow nothing in this world existed. There is no life whatsoever in the universe. Nothing = Meaninglessness

Perhaps you can live with that. Many people certainly find this hope comforting. If you find it comforting, then indeed, you also find it meaningful. This is not my argument.

Ur argument is that meaning must come from belief in God and an afterlife. I don’t agree with that. Meaning is subjective. Comfort is also subjective. Whether something is meaningful depends not on a belief in God, but depends on the person.

If you can’t accept it now, perhaps the merciful Lord will allow you to embrace Him on your deathbed. Although I hope you convert well before that, maybe you will not be so **stubborn **as to reject His love and mercy before you die.

So why is it me who is stubborn and not u? I’m wrong and u r right - isn’t that the source of conflict and suffering? Dawkins argues that religion is the cause of conflict in the world. And isn’t that fact that religion cannot accept as equals anything outside of itself is the reason why religion is a problem?

 

[christcnection1]

For me, the afterlife does not exist. To make choices based on something that does not exist is not just meaningless but stupid. So it is with God.

If I didn’t believe in the afterlife, I would do the same thing.

I don’t think we agree at all. The is no God, whether that God be Christian or God of another religion. There is no objective truth - only subjective truth.

So hypothetically, if the Christian God does exist, and created ALL things, are you sure that there is no objective moral law?

If He does not exist, I agree that all morality is totally subjective.

It is enough to know that in history it is neither Christianity nor Islam would give full rights to anyone save themselves.

Although “Christian” authorities have done some wicked things in the past, I would much rather live under this than some totalitarian dictatorship or communist state. The most advanced, “ethical,” and free civilizations in modern times have had Christianity as their main religion.

Human rights might be subjective, but they are far more important than any ‘objective truth’. They exist to guarantee the freedom of everyone to believe as they wish, and the freedom to find their own path in life.

Is it a human right to have freedom of speech?.. to worship or not worship freely as one chooses?..to not be enslaved by the powers with the biggest guns? Yes, they are all human rights (because these are objectively truths). If they not are not, Hitler or some other lunatic could redefine “rights” however they please.

Forgiveness is not important in those cultures. But they have other ways of showing understanding and compassion.

Agreed. However, forgiveness is something everyone should learn, because it’s objectively good. Just like stripping someone’s human rights is objectively evil.

I’d prefer religions that didn’t preach this type of imperialism - with an excuse to conquer and convert because we unbelievers ‘owe’ Jesus for dying for our supposed sins. As for sacrificial love - many people are capable of dying for others, even others who don’t believe the same as them. The Buddhists have a history of doing just that.

Imperial Christianity is a false version of Christianity. Fortunately, the vast majority of converts were through love, not the sword.

I have a lot of respect for Buddhists along these lines.

Many people live lives as good as Mother Teresa, but they don’t feel they have to tell newspapers about it.

Yes, and they are Christians, not atheists. But to her credit, she never desired the spotlight.

Good people are everywhere, the fact that u fail to see good works from atheists is because u don’t want to see it.

Is good a sensation? A flavor? How does one know what is good if no objective good exists?

Whose norm? In the UK, far more pple do not believe in God, than those who do. There are about 1 million Anglicans and maybe 1.2 million Catholics. in a population of 60 million. Are u claiming that the combined 2.2 million Christians give more money to charity, than the rest of the UK population

I can’t speak for the UK, but I can speak for the U.S. and the world in general. Remember, I’m not referring to Christians alone, but all those who believe in God of some sort.

Nope. Being generous matters to somebody, and to society who ultimately benefits in the present and in the future. No God needed.

You’re totally missing my point again. If God does not exist and no one or nothing exists, obviously we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Concepts like justice, peace, love, human rights, good, evil, ect. would not exist either. Hence, it would not matter to anyone.

If God does exist (but creation did not) these concepts could still exist, because they would be objective truths.

 

[strngrnrth]

porkscratchings has posted so many bizarre and untrue statements in so short a time and so pointedly and doggedly ignored so many refutations that I am starting to wonder if he/she is really serious. I’m off to find a serious conversation.

 

[christcnection1]

It is society who outlaws these things, along with murder and rape. And many societies do outlaw these things. Moral values evolve - we learn what is good and not so good by experience, and we improve accordingly. There’s always going to be a debate on whether certain things are good or bad. That’s healthy in my view. Not so in religion where values are forced on people with no debate and no discussion, by an oligarchy of priests and clerics. Like in Iran.

Hmm…

Maybe through trial and error and rigorous debate, civilization will come to realize that we can get rid of all these sub-human people with defects, the elderly, people with low-IQ’s, the weak and lazy…

Finally, we can improve! They are just a drain on the economy and an inconvenience to the elite anyway.

Man, after all, is the measure of all things! And if Hitler got his way, this could have been a reality.

Ur argument is that meaning must come from belief in God and an afterlife. I don’t agree with that. Meaning is subjective. Comfort is also subjective. Whether something is meaningful depends not on a belief in God, but depends on the person.

Are you ignoring me, or just playing games at this point??? It’s not my point at all. Even if God does not exist, anyone can have meaning. How many times do I have to say this?

My point is that if God does not exist, to the individual, their existence is meaningless to them after they die. Why? Because they die and nothing happens. Now, to other people, if the world ceases to exist (we get hit by a giant meteor), then collectively, there is no meaning, because we don’t exist.

I have never been talking about this life; I’m talking about the afterlife. (There is no ultimate hope of a happy afterlife if God does not exist.) Do you understand now? How do you want me to word this differently?

So why is it me who is stubborn and not u? I’m wrong and u r right - isn’t that the source of conflict and suffering? Dawkins argues that religion is the cause of conflict in the world. And isn’t that fact that religion cannot accept as equals anything outside of itself is the reason why religion is a problem?

Again, I just love repeating myself…

These are issues of faith. Yes, I believe I’m right and you’re wrong. You believe I’m wrong and you’re right.

I have faith that there is a God and you have faith that there is not.

I have faith that there is an objective moral law because God exists. You have faith that a subjective moral law exists and that God does not exist.

Obviously we can’t both be right.

I don’t believe religion is the cause of pain and conflict. My religion does not promote greed, selfishness, pride, arrogance, etc. My religion promotes love, peace, harmony, understanding, forgiveness, mercy, ect. My religion isn’t the problem; the problem is my people not following it.

I’ll tell you what…

If after I die, and there is no God, I will apologize to you in the afterlife for giving you a hard time. :tiphat:

If I’m wrong for sharing my faith with you because God does not exist, in the end it won’t matter to me. If I’m right for sharing my faith with you because He does exist, I’m doing a powerful act of love for you.

 

[christcnection1]

porkscratchings has posted so many bizarre and untrue statements in so short a time and so pointedly and doggedly ignored so many refutations that I am starting to wonder if he/she is really serious. I’m off to find a serious conversation.

We’ll see…

I’m willing to hang in there a few more rounds. Hehe…

Truthfully, I really love the guy, whether he’s being disingenuous or not.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

All laws and concepts of good and evil is subjective - that’s my point. Everyone says they have the truth on their side - well who’s gonna step up and actually prove it? until they can prove it to the rest of the world, then their argument is no more objective than anyone else’s. That goes for their versions of ‘objective moral law’?

Does an afterlife even exist? Or is that a figment of ur imagination? If it is, then it is no more meaningful then waiting to die. And who are u and I to dictate what is meaningful for another person? Surely that is also subjective - u find meaning in God, whereas I find meaning in the things I see and experience around me.

Most right minded person would deplore this act - that person does not have be Christian to do so. There are morals that are common to all societies, whether these societies believe in one God or another, or even many God, or no Gods at all. The concepts of Human Rights were conceived by liberals who also rejected the authority of the Church.

Good can be defined outside religion - many people from all walks of life have no problem knowing the difference. So why does only the Christian definition of good count? If my thoughts are meaningless, they are meaningless only to u. They are not meaningless to me. Just as God has meaning for u, but I can find meaning without it.

One man’s gold is another man’s trash. A book is meaningful depending on the reader. If u find it meaningless, then the book is clearly not meant for u. If i find it meaningful, then the book speaks to me. Rules only exist for the society that needs them, otherwise they become obsolete and are replaced by new rules.There is no ‘goldern rule’ as such.

Freedom is also subjective. One man’s idea of freedom is another man’s bondage…

I’m just wondering how all of these paragraphs can fit together as parts of a consistent argument.​

One can say, “bicycles are common to many societies” - must one then say “Japanese people who experience bicycles, experience them as trash, unlike people in the UK, who value them” ?

It’s hard to see why. Bicycles are in fact valued in both societies, different as these are in many ways. Your idea of a bicycle may not be exactly the same as a Japanese’s idea of a bicycle: but that is no reason to think that you don’t both value the same thing.

Freedom from bicycles, is not the same thing as freedom to possess a fleet of them - but there is still a notion of freedom there: what differs, is the use to which it is put.

The problem with truly radical subjectivism is that it is solipsistic - what is more, it’s contradictory: because if the very notion of bicycle can mean “jelly-fish”, “hypothermia”, or “kung fu”, it becomes impossible to exchange ideas. To exchange ideas about bicycles at all, people have to agree that what they are discussing is basically the same thing - if one man’s bicycle were the other’s jellyfish, this would be impossible. If discussion is possible - then the way is open to the beginnings of a natural theology.

Even if “bicycle” is understood as denoting “jellyfish”, or a million other things it does not, it is understood to denote something - it is not taken to have no meaning at all. If a concept has no meaning, then thought becomes impossible.

Your entire case is built on premises you claim to deny - it is, in the strictest sense, non-sense. So there is no case for us to answer.

 

[porkscratchings]

I’m just wondering how all of these paragraphs can fit together as parts of a consistent argument.​

Quoting out of context is like overhearing SO talking on their cell. U miss half of the conversation.

My argument is that - belief is subjective, depending on a person’s upbringing, geography, culture, language, politics, and all the other stuff that makes us unique. It is not for u to rubbish my beliefs, nor me to rubbish yours.

One can say, “bicycles are common to many societies” - must one then say “Japanese people who experience bicycles, experience them as trash, unlike people in the UK, who value them” ?

It is not I or the Japanese who declare bicycles to be trash but u. Does the analogy to Christianity versus other belief systems or atheism - make sense? Beliefs in one God, many gods or no god exist - must one then say that one belief system is superior/the truth, and all the others are just ignorance? But u do say that, don’t u?

It’s hard to see why. Bicycles are in fact valued in both societies, different as these are in many ways. Your idea of a bicycle may not be exactly the same as a Japanese’s idea of a bicycle: but that is no reason to think that you don’t both value the same thing.

I am an atheist and u r a Christian - that does not mean we don’t both value a society based on moral laws, even when we differ on what these morals might consist of.

But in fact u don’t believe that we actually value the same thing. so u r in fact building a case on an argument that u deny.

Freedom from bicycles, is not the same thing as freedom to possess a fleet of them - but there is still a notion of freedom there: what differs, is the use to which it is put.

Surely that applies to belief. Ur ideas of freedom are not the same as mine. Would u agree that there is still a notion of freedom in both my views along with urs, even though the we use it differently? Do I hear a no?

The problem with truly radical subjectivism is that it is solipsistic - what is more, it’s contradictory: because if the very notion of bicycle can mean “jelly-fish”, “hypothermia”, or “kung fu”, it becomes impossible to exchange ideas. To exchange ideas about bicycles at all, people have to agree that what they are discussing is basically the same thing - if one man’s bicycle were the other’s jellyfish, this would be impossible. If discussion is possible - then the way is open to the beginnings of a natural theology.

An agreement on the definition of bicycle does not lead to opening a way to the beginning of a natural theology. I don’t see any logic in ur argument. It just means 2 groups of people have something in common. I have a spade and another guy says he also has a spade, having both agreed on the definition of a spade. But I can still be an atheist and he a Buddhist. No problemo.

Even if “bicycle” is understood as denoting “jellyfish”, or a million other things it does not, it is understood to denote something - it is not taken to have no meaning at all. If a concept has no meaning, then thought becomes impossible.

Your entire case is built on premises you claim to deny - it is, in the strictest sense, non-sense. So there is no case for us to answer.

I think i have shown from my responses to the argument above, that it’s the OP who builds a case on a premise he denies.

I argue what we, left to ourselves, have no problem with agreeing to a definition of bicycles, and indeed how to live peacefully with one another.

The problem is when religion steps in and tells us that the other person is talking nonsense because he dissents from the viewpoint of that religion.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

Please, get off your self righteous high horse. It’s a winky not a smiley. CDL

Well, you got a chuckle out of me, anyway. Of course, I used to have a bumper sticker that read, “Got Christ? It’s hell without Him”.