If you can be a good person without God then why need Him?

[Bradski]

Since you don’t believe in God, you have already decided before you read a thing about Christianity that it was all wrong.

As WinterWolf said, maybe you haven’t been paying attention. I was brought up as a Christian and if you had asked me up to the age of around 15, I would have said I believed in God. It was only learning more about Christianity that sowed the seeds of doubt in my mind.

So I thought it was true originally, then came to realise that I didn’t believe it.

What for you is the single most unbelievable thing about not believing in God?

I’m not sure the question makes sense, so let’s try this one:

What is the single most unbelievable thing about Christianity for you?

I guess I could attempt this one. But it’s kinda tricky trying to decide what most Christians would accept as being true that I couldn’t accept in any way. So I’ve been ruminating…

With reference to the few posts on atheism v agnosticism and the various flavours of each (strong atheism with agnostic leanings with a hint of belief, stone fruit, vanilla and ripe plums yadda yadda yadda), I don’t say there is no God. I just don’t believe in the concept. So God himself is not, strangely enough, the most unbelievable thing about Christianity. Maybe He does exist. Maybe Jesus was crucified and in some way was thought to have been resurrected. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to all of it and it’s just not been presented in a way that I can find believable.

But…having said that, it’s difficult not to think of Adam and Eve as the front runners. Everything else could, with some imagination and a light dusting of metaphor and a sprinkling of parable (and let’s be extra generous with the faith) have a connection with reality. But those two?

And let’s face it, they can’t be glossed over. They are integral to the Catholic faith. Original sin, by definition, had to originate somewhere. So they are part of the whole box and dice. An integral part.

And it’s not that I don’t believe the reality or even the concept. This is one aspect of Christianity that I know didn’t happen.

Do you have some kind of proof that there is no God?

No.

And for PR, the verbatim bit was about Jesus being quoted. Not one, not twice, but (count 'em!) three times.

 

[PRmerger]

As WinterWolf said, maybe you haven’t been paying attention. I was brought up as a Christian and if you had asked me up to the age of around 15, I would have said I believed in God. It was only learning more about Christianity that sowed the seeds of doubt in my mind.

What branch of Christianity was it, that required you to be confirmed before receiving communion?

 

[PRmerger]

And for PR, the verbatim bit was about Jesus being quoted. Not one, not twice, but (count 'em!) three times.

Verbatim, as it applies to Jesus’ words, means that we believe Jesus said what was written in the text* word for word.*

No Catholic ought to believe that for the very simple reason that we are reading His words in English, and any translation we read cannot be verbatim.

But that doesn’t mean that we cannot believe that Jesus spoke "This is my Body’ and “He who hears you hears Me”.

We just don’t believe He spoke King James English and said, “He who hearest you hearest me.”

Nevertheless, what He said is recorded, in the ipsissima vox, and we believe it as Christians.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure the question makes sense…

Having been an atheist myself, I understand why Christianity does not make sense to you.

In the end i think it comes down to asking another question:

Do I want to believe in something, or do I want to believe in nothing?

Atheism* per se* offers nothing to believe in.

Not even truth, because one can never be certain atheism is not a lie … and so possibly even more unbelievable than Christianity.

Atheism requires that the world since the time of Moses has created one fantastic and consistent fiction about the fall, the rescue, and the salvation of mankind. Atheism requires that we believe everybody involved in this colossal fiction were a pack of liars, every one of them. Atheism requires that we believe only the atheist is telling the truth, when he can’t even offer a proof that there is no God.

Is the existence of God possible? Is the existence of God impossible?

To believe the existence of God is possible you cannot be an atheist.

To be an atheist you have to believe the existence of God is impossible.

As Chesterton put it, to believe that the existence of God is impossible is like believing there are no insects on any other planet throughout the universe.

 

[Bradski]

Atheism requires that we believe everybody involved in this colossal fiction were a pack of liars, every one of them. Atheism requires that we believe only the atheist is telling the truth…

Do you think that all Hindus are liars?

And unless we are talking secular matters, the only truth I am likely to tell you is that I don’t believe in God. And if you are honest when you say you do, then we are both telling the truth. I’m quite prepared to believe you, but is there a problem in you believing me?

 

[PRmerger]

And unless we are talking secular matters, the only truth I am likely to tell you is that I don’t believe in God.

Are you making the claim, “God does not exist”, which makes you an atheist, or are you saying you’re not certain God exists, which would make you an agnostic?

IOW: what is your answer to this question: does God exist?

There are only 3 answers: Yes, no or IDK.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you think that all Hindus are liars?

And unless we are talking secular matters, the only truth I am likely to tell you is that I don’t believe in God. And if you are honest when you say you do, then we are both telling the truth. I’m quite prepared to believe you, but is there a problem in you believing me?

You’ve made it quite clear that you don’t believe anything that is recorded in the Bible is believable. If it’s not believable, it’s not true. If it’s not true, the Bible authors are all liars. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from your own logic. You don’t have to admit it, but it’s so.

Truth is not divided. We can’t both be telling the truth when we reach such opposite conclusions.

 

[987mk]

1. If God is exists, I have no need of him or her or it.
2. I do not believe God exists and do not need a God.

Either way, I’ve no need of a God and if hell awaits me for my unbelief, then so be it.

The thing is, for the majority of my life, I believed in God and for a spell, was a devout Catholic.

I see both perspectives clearly.

 

[PRmerger]

1. If God is exists, I have no need of him or her or it.

If God exists, of course you do.

1. I do not believe God exists and do not need a God.

Since you are making a claim about the existence of God, what proof do you have for this claim?

The thing is, for the majority of my life, I believed in God and for a spell, was a devout Catholic.

I see both perspectives clearly.

Can you articulate Catholic apologia for God’s existence, in your own words?

I doubt you can, so I challenge your assertion that you “see both perspectives clearly”.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Pinching yourself proves nothing. You could be delusional thinking you have a self to pinch.

That’s irrelevant. I can experience pain, and can feel, I can think, therefore I am.
Therefore I exist. No matter what form I happen to be in.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I would assume that because without a multiverse you have no other cause but God to point to for the universe to come into existence.

I really don’t know why you assume such a dichotomy.
I neither believe in a god or a multiverse.

Are both possible? Sure.
Are they real? There’s no evidence so I believe neither.

So there goes your assumption.

 

[Winterwolf00]

As to the title question for this thread, we need God because we need continuing nourishment for our goodness. Much as we need sunlight even though we can survive for some time without it.

I live a life without god and have no issue living a good life, so there’s another assumption debunked.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Those who sincerely repent are not doomed. Those who do not repent are doomed, right along with the Christians who do not repent. We ask the Lord to forgive us our trespasses, and atheism is a trespass. The CCC calls it a mortal sin. Mortal means deadly … the killing of our innocence.

Why is lack of belief a ‘trespass’?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Right. We intuit, rather than prove, our own existence.

By the same token, we intuit, rather than prove, the existence of God.

Also, those who refuse to intuit the existence of God cannot prove the non-existence of God.

Even for the atheist God is possible. God is not impossible.

Assuming we’re talking about a Deistic god then certainly not impossible.
The Christian God however is inherently impossible simply because its nature is self-contradictory.

And disproving god is unnecessary to not believe, no more then having to disprove vampires or werewolves.

 

[Winterwolf00]

If God exists, of course you do.

Since you are making a claim about the existence of God, what proof do you have for this claim?

Can you articulate Catholic apologia for God’s existence, in your own words?

I doubt you can, so I challenge your assertion that you “see both perspectives clearly”.

“I do not believe a god exists” is not a claim, it is a statement of fact.
“God does not exist” is a claim, a claim that was not made.

Reading comprehension is important.

 

[PRmerger]

Assuming we’re talking about a Deistic god then certainly not impossible.

Then have you considered the arguments for the existence of God? Not the Christian God, but the God of the Philosophers.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Then have you considered the arguments for the existence of God? Not the Christian God, but the God of the Philosophers.

I was once a Deist myself so yes I am familiar with the arguments as I have used them myself.
The majority of atheists today are former believers and tend to be VERY familiar with the arguments.
In the end though I found no point in professing an un-provable deity, so I stopped.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I don’t have time to wade through the multitude of pages already in this thread, but I wanted to post my response.

I would argue that one cannot be a good person without God, and that without God, any “goodness” is false. Following up on that, I would argue that good people (holy people if that’s more concise) are such because of God and through God, even if they aren’t necessarily aware of it themselves or outwardly professing it. So a given atheist may well be a “better” person than a given Catholic, however, for me that comes with the stipulation that a good person is good because that goodness comes from God. As such the atheist would necessarily have a better relationship with God than the Catholic in question.

In this hypothetical scenario, it would be logical to assume that the atheist does not disbelieve in God as He truly is (and based on their actions is probably quite devoted to Him) and instead is opposed to what they interpret as other people’s descriptions. As a result, they serve God in truth by their actions and treatment of others, and likely just have an incorrect understanding of theology?

 

[PRmerger]

Reading comprehension is important.

Careful, Winterwolf.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

It would be a shame for you to be banned for you need to be here.

I suggest you learn from some of the veteran posters here (see Bradski, Regular Atheist) and model your posts after them.

 

[PRmerger]

I was once a Deist myself so yes I am familiar with the arguments as I have used them myself.

What argument did you find the most compelling (even if it failed to convince)?