If there were no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter clarkgamble1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well then, it isn’t really morality then is it? Just plain self interest.
 
Theban said:
Correct. But why care about society, if it’s just another meaningless aspect of the universe? Isn’t your own comfort more important? And if you do care still, why not exploit the rules of conduct as much as possible for your own gain, and make sure you don’t infringe on society?
Click to expand...
As has been said: game theory. Over a gazillion generations we have kep those that abide by the rules and have lost those who didn’t.

Add to that a touch of reciprocal altruism and a pinch of empathy and what we are left with is what works. And what works is what we call ‘good’.

And you seriously have no sense of empathy?
 
Theban said:
Well then, it isn’t really morality then is it? Just plain self interest.
Click to expand...
Not self interest. It generally works at the group level or higher. If you just consider yourself it doesn’t work.
 
Theban said:
Well then, it isn’t really morality then is it? Just plain self interest.
Click to expand...
The good balance is more complicated than that. Sometimes it requires to go against one’s immediate interest, for the good of someone else. I suggest you really learn about “game theory”. Of course I have no idea what YOU mean by “morality”. It is one of the most abused concepts “out” there.

Just an example to illustrate: “What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?” The difference is… simple. If you agree with him, he is a freedom fighter. If you disagree, he is a terrorist.
Theban said:
Correct. But why care about society, if it’s just another meaningless aspect of the universe? Isn’t your own comfort more important? And if you do care still, why not exploit the rules of conduct as much as possible for your own gain, and make sure you don’t infringe on society?
Click to expand...
Good old biology will help you to understand. We are both individuals AND herd animals. There is a good balance between these two aspects of our nature. That is how the selfish / selfless behavior works. If you “mess” up and become too selfish, you will not get help even if you are in need. If you are too selfless, people will take advantage of you.

Simple!!
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
Yet, explaining the fact that there are of billions of believers would still be a tough nut to crack, especially if there were no God. You’d be left with the impossible task of every atheist or agnostic, proving that all religion is just mass delusion. So far, every effort to prove that has been a dismal failure.
Click to expand...
It is far more likely that a propensity to accept explanations form those in authority when faced with danger, fear and knowledge of personal mortality is affected by some group of genes. Those with it are more likely to live in better organised groups, find more food, keep going when the going gets tough etc. They will have more descendants. This hypothesis explains the ubiquity of religion and the fact that it occurs in a virtually infinite variety. The existence of a single God explains the first but is undermined by the second. It also explains why, with the rise of technology and science it is easier for some, but not for all, to cease religious belief. Most non-religious people retain though a tendency to accept claims on the basis of authority. Atheists who take vitamin supplements are a case in point. The genes remain!
 
Bradskii said:
As has been said: game theory. Over a gazillion generations we have kep those that abide by the rules and have lost those who didn’t.

Add to that a touch of reciprocal altruism and a pinch of empathy and what we are left with is what works. And what works is what we call ‘good’.

And you seriously have no sense of empathy?
Click to expand...
So your morality is strictly conservative then? Whatever has worked best in the past to create a lasting society is “good”, and whatever doesn’t is bad?

Perhaps I should mention that there isn’t a single atheist society that has ever lasted in all of history. Yet I don’t think you consider that morally evil. So again I am left to wonder whether you just pick whatever beliefs you find convenient to believe, and pay no attention to the logical inconsistencies you are left with.

As for the empathy, from what I can gather empathy is divided in two. One part recognizes emotions in others, the other reacts to said emotions. The part of my brain that controls the latter appears to be deficit, which is not uncommon, as it affects about 1 in 50 people.
 
I have to disagree with your concept of morality, as I do believe giving everything for the sake of others to be a good moral action, better even than seeking what is best for both yourself and others. Your morals will always place yourself above others, and while you can absolutely do some good while also prioritizing yourself, it is not the Christian way.
 
Theban said:
I have to disagree with your concept of morality, as I do believe giving everything for the sake of others to be a good moral action, better even than seeking what is best for both yourself and others. Your morals will always place yourself above others, and while you can absolutely do some good while also prioritizing yourself, it is not the Christian way.
Click to expand...
Well, since I did not present my system of “morality”, you are not in the position to agree or disagree with it. If you say that total selflessness is “superior” to a “well-balanced” behavior, then you are in deep trouble. Either you actually live according to what you preach and then people WILL take advantage of you (and you will deserve it!), or you just “preach water and drink wine” - other words you are a hypocrite. Which one will it be?

Of course you could stop and think, just for the fun of it. If everyone would consider the well-being of others superior to their own, a huge mess would be the result. After all NO one can know as well what my needs are, as myself.

You are right, of course, what I suggest is NOT the Christian way, since the Christian way is sub-optimal. Learn game-theory, all I can say. By the way, if I do not take care of myself, I will not be in the position to help others. This alone should tell you that indiscriminate selflessness is very bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Theban said:
40.png
Bradskii:
As has been said: game theory. Over a gazillion generations we have kep those that abide by the rules and have lost those who didn’t.

Add to that a touch of reciprocal altruism and a pinch of empathy and what we are left with is what works. And what works is what we call ‘good’.

And you seriously have no sense of empathy?
Click to expand...
So your morality is strictly conservative then? Whatever has worked best in the past to create a lasting society is “good”, and whatever doesn’t is bad?

Perhaps I should mention that there isn’t a single atheist society that has ever lasted in all of history. Yet I don’t think you consider that morally evil. So again I am left to wonder whether you just pick whatever beliefs you find convenient to believe, and pay no attention to the logical inconsistencies you are left with.

As for the empathy, from what I can gather empathy is divided in two. One part recognizes emotions in others, the other reacts to said emotions. The part of my brain that controls the latter appears to be deficit, which is not uncommon, as it affects about 1 in 50 people.
Click to expand...
When I say ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in the context of getting us where we are now, I don’t mean morally good or evil per se. Not running away from tigers is bad for survival but not evil.

For morality to evolve you need empathy so you can understand what other people are feeling and reciprocal altruism so you tend to help each other. You not helping people while others are could mean ostracism. And we have evolved emotions such as pride and shame which shape our actions. You try to avoid bad feelings like shame and are tempted to act in ways which will make you proud. We don’t necessarily do these things consciously.

And from your description are you not lacking sympathy rather than empathy?
 
Your view does not adequately take into account the fact that God does answer prayer and has answered it sometimes in very miraculous ways. Like for instance when a friend of mine got throat cancer and was addicted to cigarettes, he was prayed over by a prayer team, not only did his cancer dissapear, but so did his addiction to cigarettes.

This objection has no logical merit, only emotional appeal because no one likes suffering. But, can you prove that God could not have morally justifying reasons for allowing suffering? No, you can’t. Since you only see a small amount of data and do not have en eternal perspective.

Most people despite all the suffering would prefer to live rather than to die. This tells me most consider life to be good rather than bad. This is consistent with a good God.

Only God can make up to the innocent sufferer in the next life. Atheism offers no real hope to the innocent sufferer. You just live and then you die. And that’s it. Ultimately, everything dies in the heap death of the universe. There is no meaning to anything. That to me is more tragic than temporary suffering in this life followed by an eternity of bliss.
 
Last edited:
clarkgamble1 said:
if there were no God all these things could easily be explained as natural occurrences due to the world we live in.
Click to expand...
If there were no God there would be no reality. Natural occurrences are to an extent sufficient in explaining quantifiable events within a system that already exists, but they fail as an ultimate explanation of why anything would exist at all in the first place. Much less why an amalgamation of mindless atoms would result in a goal-directed desire for happiness and goodness and would have a mind to consider suffering as something bad, or that there would be such a thing as suffering to consider.

Difficulties in understanding why God would create a universe that has the potential to cause suffering does not make a materialistic conception of reality rational or correct. In fact the very existence of qualitative experiences like suffering or pleasure tend to move me away from a materialistic conception of reality towards theism. That’s why i tend to take the position that if we cannot understand why, it is because it is beyond our comprehension, there is a fundamental limitation in our capacity for knowledge, and not because we are in a position to understand and have found the existence of God to be morally impossible.
 
Last edited:
If there were no God, I wouldn’t be on CAF. There, that’s all the proof needed!
 
None. How could you answer them about a being doesn’t exist? I do wish the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the Flying Cannelloni Monster, though 🤣 JK on that. I assure you, sir, I’m not trying to be flippant or disrespectful. And I really do like cannelloni…and calzones…

Don’t get thrown by the title in this video below. He answers the first two of your instances in it. (Just for the record, I’m one of the people he talks about at the 4:30-ish mark) As to the starving children, our free will impacts others for better or worse and if an omniscient being has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, then you couldn’t use them to disprove God. I suppose you could argue that his reasons aren’t sufficient, but you’d have to be omniscient to do so.

 
Last edited:
ascetic said:
I suppose you could argue that his reasons aren’t sufficient, but you’d have to be omniscient to do so.
Click to expand...
And this is precisely why the problem of evil as an argument against God fails because it assumes what we cannot possibly comprehend.
 
ascetic said:
As to the starving children, our free will impacts others for better or worse and if an omniscient being has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, then you couldn’t use them to disprove God. I suppose you could argue that his reasons aren’t sufficient, but you’d have to be omniscient to do so.
Click to expand...
I really would like to have a conversation with the guy who made that video. It would be quite interesting. But that will not happen. So, all I can do is answer to your remarks. You say “IF an omniscient being has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil…” and thereby lies the problem. The “IF” gives the game away. Who says that God has a “morally sufficient reason for allowing evil”? That is the very question which is being disputed. You cannot use the “premise” - God is all good, so everything that he does or permits - by definition - is good and loving? God is NOT loving and caring - by definition. God’s love and caring is something that needs to be substantiated, not just presented as an axiom. The pain and suffering in this existence in not just a “measurement error” - and to say that IF ONLY we would be privy to the explanation, we would see how wrong we are.

What you would need to do is: “take any random suffering (I suggest the Holocaust and a random Earthquake) and show that it actually was a ‘blessing in disguise’, that not even God - with his omnipotence could have prevented that suffering, while also keeping that ‘greater good’ that it was alleged to bring forth”. Obviously you cannot do that. And God is silent. As such we rely on the duck principle. God does not LOOK like a loving and caring entity, God does not ACT like a loving and caring entity, therefore the conclusion is: God IS NOT a loving and caring entity.

As for the title, it could not have been further away from the truth. The creator is always responsible for the well being of his creation. To bring forth a feeling being, fully knowing that this being will be exposed to some random and gratuitous suffering is the epitome of cruelty.

Concerning the starving children, we cannot be held responsible for those events that are outside our power to control. We have no power over the weather, we cannot prevent deluges or droughts, we cannot prevent diseases that kill the crop. A very small percentage of the suffering can be placed on our doorstep.
 
Last edited:
Such gymnastics, I rarely see. Looks like your vitamins are working.

I had no idea my faith in God was merely genetic.

BTW, could you post the genetic research on the “Religion Gene” so we know you’re not just making that up? 😎
 
Last edited:
Does there need to be a religion gene? It’s like asking for the football gene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top