What if God doesn't exist

[Incomplete]

EXACTLY. And to be honest I think that most people are like this as well…or they are legitimately sociopaths. Anyone that says they would completely change their outlook on life if they didn’t believe in God and treat others horribly is either lying or a sociopath…and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and just think they are lying.

To be honest, many of these people don’t even know they are lying, but as someone that went from a believer in God to a non believer I can tell you that my morals have not changed in the least. IMO the golden rule is still the best moral system and should be followed by everyone. If you legitimately only do nice things because you think some supreme being is watching you and that belief is the difference between you being a nice and noble person and you being a horrible person, you are a complete sociopath and I hope that you never lose your faith.

Just a point: if you don’t know you’re lying, you’re not lying.

That you can say your morals haven’t changed tells us nothing, especially in light of your earlier post that you weren’t ever aligned with Church teachings anyway. You are probably a person who tries to do what is right in the world, but if you are truly following God, there is a whole new level you can take things to. If you grow in a relationship with Him. And your understanding that Christians do things because God is watching isn’t necessarily accurate. It may be for some people, certainly not for all (and hopefully not for most) of us.

I’m not sure why you feel a need to convince us that we don’t need God to be good people. Christians know that the law of God is written in the hearts of all, even non-Christians. I suspect most of us know “good people” who are atheists. You ask how we’d change, and then say we lie but don’t know we’re lying. Why is it so important for you to convince us we wouldn’t change?

 

[Incomplete]

I personally think the world would be a better place. If no one believed in God or an afterlife suicide bombing would pretty much be out of the question. Many disputes around the world would pretty much be resolved.

Seriously? Re-read your history books. Most wars were not religious wars. Atrocities such as the Holocaust make suicide bombings look pretty small. And look at the unrest in the Middle East right now. Gaddafi isn’t doing what he’s doing as a result of religious convictions.

Of course, to prove your point you also have to totally ignore all the really good things that came as a direct result of Christianity.

 

[commoncents]

This is one of the most astonishing posts I have ever read.

"…we are moving away from Christian values, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing!! No doubt written by someone living within the secure boundaries of a civilised society built on Judeo-Christian values. If we are moving away from Cjhristian values, I sincerely hope you have in mind a better system. Christian society is built on tolerance and mutual respect and predicated on love of fellow man. And, of course, these values, plus a whole lot more, are predicated upon a beleif in a higher authority. True Christians have always accepted homosexuals, but not homosexuality. I trust you see and understand the difference. After all, it was Jesus Christ, the one after whom Christianity is named, that pointed out that he who is free of sin may cast the first stone, otherwise, desist. True Christians seek to protect their children from all types of exploitation, because, after all, Jesus Christ, had a special affection for children. So, if you come across anyone who is abusing gays, or exploiting children, tell them to behave like a true Christian.

And while you’re at it, take time to reflect on just how lucky you are that a society that was built on Christian principles has given you so much freedom and protection that you can even even denigrate those very same principles without fear of retribution.

There are societies in the East that are doing just fine that have not been built on Christian values. I don’t know how you figure freedom and protection have anything to do with Christian values. Japan seems pretty free and so does South Korea…are those societies built on Christian values? Of course not.

And our society isn’t really even built on Christian principles. Like I said, how much of what Jesus preached against would put you in jail? If our society was really based on Christianity most of what Jesus preached against would be against the law, right?

 

[commoncents]

Seriously? Re-read your history books. Most wars were not religious wars. Atrocities such as the Holocaust make suicide bombings look pretty small. And look at the unrest in the Middle East right now. Gaddafi isn’t doing what he’s doing as a result of religious convictions.

Of course, to prove your point you also have to totally ignore all the really good things that came as a direct result of Christianity.

I personally am under the impression that the missionaries that are doing great things in the name of Christianity would be doing the same things just because they are good people if they didn’t believe. A lot of people that do charity work are athiests. Is that charity work the direct result of not believing in God?

 

[Incomplete]

I personally am under the impression that the missionaries that are doing great things in the name of Christianity would be doing the same things just because they are good people if they didn’t believe. A lot of people that do charity work are athiests. Is that charity work the direct result of not believing in God?

For some doing charity work is because of love of God, and for some it isn’t. But your contention is that the world is a better place without belief in God, and you gave terrorist bombings as an example. My point it is that there are many more atrocities committed that aren’t about religion, and that there is an awful lot of good done because of religion. And because of organized religion, there are ways we can be much more effective. Just think, for example, of what you can do on your own vs. what Catholic Charities does.

I’m not just talking about charities, either. Start with the Catholic church, for example, and read of the numerous contributions to the world, including things such as colleges, science, hospitals. The scientific method owes it’s roots to the realization that if God exists, then things must be orderly. That is what lead to the beginnings of being able to observe and explain things.

There are whole books on this stuff. Take time to learn it before saying the world is a better place without belief in God.

 

[Soler]

OK, so someone’s moral breakdown is internal but it doesn’t show externally? Is that even a moral breakdown then?

Yes. And I said that it might not show externally.

If someone helps someone because they want to avoid eternal punishment and receive eternal happiness and someone else helps someone just because they want to help someone, who is being more noble?

Neither person is being “more noble”.

If, on the other hand, X helps A out of perfect love for God, and Y helps B because helping people gives him a warm fuzzy feeling, then X is certainly being “more noble” than Y.

Bottom line is that if someone has an internal breakdown of morals it will certainly show externally…unless the person is acting like a good person to fool others and screw them over, but that is quite far fetched.

Simply not true.

Someone could have an internal breakdown of morals and continue acting like a good person because being nice gives them the warm fuzzy feeling mentioned above, or because being nice to other people makes other people be nice in return.

Someone you know could have an internal breakdown of morals and start to masturbate or use porn or use prostitutes or take drugs or engage in shady business deals or cheat little old ladies out of their life savings and you wouldn’t know a thing about it.

My friends that have gone from believers to atheists, including myself, have not become worse people morally. For the most part, it just doesn’t work like that.

I doubt they cheat little old ladies out of their life savings, but you can’t know if their morals have deteriorated unless you stalk them. :ehh:

Besides, they (and you) very probably haven’t been as rational as I would be (no offence meant) if I utterly ceased to believe in God. They (and you) likely cling on to a bare-bones, watered-down version of Christian morality because it adds comfort and stability to their lives. But there is no rational justification for that.

You mentioned “empathy” above. Think of an argument that does not mention God telling me why I should care about empathy. Now imagine that I respond “Why should I care?” to everything you say. See? Without God, rational morality breaks down. We are left with a morality based only on emotion.

The funny thing is that that emotion is the lingering remnant of your former belief in God. You call us sociopaths for refusing to acknowledge that atheist morality is logically viable, but if you really, truly and completely did not believe in God, you would have every right to be a sociopath. We, on the other hand, do believe in God, and we ally ourselves with Him, therefore we are not sociopaths.

(I would also like to point out that you seem to have ignored two-thirds of my previous post.)

 

[Thoughtfulone]

This is one of the most astonishing posts I have ever read.

"…we are moving away from Christian values, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing!! No doubt written by someone living within the secure boundaries of a civilised society built on Judeo-Christian values. If we are moving away from Cjhristian values, I sincerely hope you have in mind a better system. Christian society is built on tolerance and mutual respect and predicated on love of fellow man. And, of course, these values, plus a whole lot more, are predicated upon a beleif in a higher authority. True Christians have always accepted homosexuals, but not homosexuality. I trust you see and understand the difference. After all, it was Jesus Christ, the one after whom Christianity is named, that pointed out that he who is free of sin may cast the first stone, otherwise, desist. True Christians seek to protect their children from all types of exploitation, because, after all, Jesus Christ, had a special affection for children. So, if you come across anyone who is abusing gays, or exploiting children, tell them to behave like a true Christian.

And while you’re at it, take time to reflect on just how lucky you are that a society that was built on Christian principles has given you so much freedom and protection that you can even even denigrate those very same principles without fear of retribution.

Buddhists don’t believe in God or Christianity and they are some of the kindest, gentlest people on the planet. A society made up entirely of Buddhists would be compassionate, selfless, would not fight in wars for almost any reason, and would not even harm animals to eat them. To say that a Christian society is the best society is completely religiocentric.

That being said, I think Catholicism is the one true religion, but I would have to say that a Buddhist society would be the most loving and peaceful one.

 

[fhansen]

That being said, I think Catholicism is the one true religion, but I would have to say that a Buddhist society would be the most loving and peaceful one.

I think it would be better to qualify this by saying that, if everyone in a society lived by Buddhist teachings, then that could be the most loving and peaceful society-because there are plenty of Asian societies with Buddhism as their religion that have been far from peaceful. In any case, I’m sure that peace and love would reign supreme in a society that fully embraced the teachings of Jesus-there’s just no guarantee that we’ll follow our religion any better than anyone else.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Nobody is saying they won’t still have feelings of pity or empathy without God, just that they would become more selfish.

Like you, I also don’t feel sympathy for the homeless just because I think God wants me to. In fact, I would argue that those are the kinds of feelings we can’t control.

Yet there are some that I find it harder to feel sympathy for. Those who are homeless because they’ve spent it all on drugs, it took me awhile to understand the slavery they were under. And I wouldn’t have cared to understand if it wasn’t for my growth in God. We have just developed a shelter in our community that takes in those homeless nobody else will take in, which includes pedophiles. (Those who take in kids can’t take in pedophiles, of course.) Do you have the same sympathy for them, and if so, do you sacrifice for them? Either way, it’s not about those I have sympathy for, it’s about those I don’t have sympathy for and how I react to them, how I help or don’t help, that shows if I am selfish or not.

You are faithful in your marriage because you love your husband and you want to be faithful. Why is that less selfish than those who stay with their vows because it’s the right thing to do, even on days or weeks or years that they find their marriage very difficult, even loveless, yet they continue to try to make it work?

You say you love your son more than life itself and that’s why you sacrifice for him. I love my daughter the same way. I know parents who do not feel that way. Which is more selfish: to sacrifice for your child because you love him or to sacrifice even for those you don’t love?

Having feelings of love, feelings of sympathy, feelings of empathy are just that: feelings. Feelings are often beyond our control.

It is not a sign of selflessness to do for those we love. Selflessness does for others when you don’t love, when there is nothing in it for you. Though I would agree that there are those who do things thinking it will get them to heaven, understand that many do the right thing because they love God, not because they are trying to get to heaven.

Love itself is self-effacing. Those who don’t feel love or attachment to others are sociopaths and have something internally wrong with them. They only act normal because it is necessary to live in modern society. People who don’t love their spouse or children but force themselves to act as if they do aren’t doing anyone any favors. Those people would be better off without them.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I think it would be better to qualify this by saying that, if everyone in a society lived by Buddhist teachings, then that could be the most loving and peaceful society-because there are plenty of Asian societies with Buddhism as their religion that have been far from peaceful. In any case, I’m sure that peace and love would reign supreme in a society that fully embraced the teachings of Jesus-there’s just no guarantee that we’ll follow our religion any better than anyone else.

Tibetan Buddhists do a better job of living their beliefs than the vast majority of Christians, the main purpose of Buddhism being complete detachment from the world, and these Buddhists don’t just preach it like most Christians; they make it their life’s work. It is NECESSARY for them to become detached in order to attain enlightenment…it’s not just a matter of belief, but of very strict discipline. Chinese Buddhists n the other hand are not “real” Buddhists in the Tibetan sense, but then again, all Chinese religion is pretty much corrupted by the government there.

I think former Buddhists would make amazing Christians

 

[Incomplete]

Love itself is self-effacing. Those who don’t feel love or attachment to others are sociopaths and have something internally wrong with them. They only act normal because it is necessary to live in modern society. People who don’t love their spouse or children but force themselves to act as if they do aren’t doing anyone any favors. Those people would be better off without them.

I guess we define love differently. Love is not just a feeling. When you love, you want the best for the other person, whether or not you get any benefit.

To stay with a husband you love is easy. If you stop loving but do what you can for the best for that person, that is difficult and selfless. If you would leave someone you didn’t have those warm and fuzzy feelings for, then you are staying for yourself.

God commanded love, but He can’t command feelings because people can’t force feelings. He can command actions. To act in love for those who are unlovable is unselfish.

By your definition, if you fall out of love with your husband, you should leave him. And it’s good to help people who are in need as long as you feel something for them. Anybody can do that. Christianity is more than that.

 

[Soler]

I guess we define love differently. Love is not just a feeling. When you love, you want the best for the other person, whether or not you get any benefit.

To stay with a husband you love is easy. If you stop loving but do what you can for the best for that person, that is difficult and selfless. If you would leave someone you didn’t have those warm and fuzzy feelings for, then you are staying for yourself.

God commanded love, but He can’t command feelings because people can’t force feelings. He can command actions. To act in love for those who are unlovable is unselfish.

By your definition, if you fall out of love with your husband, you should leave him. And it’s good to help people who are in need as long as you feel something for them. Anybody can do that. Christianity is more than that.

 

[Soler]

Buddhists don’t believe in God or Christianity and they are some of the kindest, gentlest people on the planet. A society made up entirely of Buddhists would be compassionate, selfless, would not fight in wars for almost any reason, and would not even harm animals to eat them. To say that a Christian society is the best society is completely religiocentric.

That being said, I think Catholicism is the one true religion, but I would have to say that a Buddhist society would be the most loving and peaceful one.

1. It is often—perhaps not usually, but often—a good thing to fight in wars.
2. Not killing animals for food is sentimentalist and indicative of unhealthy attitudes towards the natural world. thumps table
3. If we are meant to make our faith the centre of out lives, how can you act as though being “religiocentric” is a bad thing?
4. Your view of a Buddhist society is based on the assumption that these Buddhists would live their faith properly. A Catholic society where people lived the faith properly would of course be preferable to this, as Catholic morality and theology is the best in the world.
5. I’m sure many Tibetan Buddhist monks live their faith properly—just like the Trappists or Carthusians. But what about the laypeople?

 

[Daegus]

If God did not exist, does not exist and CANNOT exist then NOTHING exists. Not even what you call “existence”

This world, nor anything around it, universe and galaxies beyond would not exist.

The concept of good and evil would not exist, because the grand archetype of what constitutes “good” and the archetype of what constitutes “evil” would not exist. (Which, in essence, would be God for good and those things that are not apart of Him for evil)

The concept of believing would not exist either, because I would not have a brain to believe with, because that brain that is a part of my being, contingent upon the existence of God, would not exist if God does not exist.

Not even the concept of existence would exist. Not even the concept of CONCEPT would exist. In actuality, existence is purely and truly existence in and of itself, because for existence to exist in its own right it would have to NOT be contingent upon anything else, or else it would not be pure, and therefore not existence at all.

Because God was and is and will be, that would mean that He is existence. For God to ‘not exist’, then there would be nothing.

 

[momor]

I guess we define love differently. Love is not just a feeling. When you love, you want the best for the other person, whether or not you get any benefit.

To stay with a husband you love is easy. If you stop loving but do what you can for the best for that person, that is difficult and selfless. If you would leave someone you didn’t have those warm and fuzzy feelings for, then you are staying for yourself.

God commanded love, but He can’t command feelings because people can’t force feelings. He can command actions. **To act in love for those who are unlovable is unselfish.
**
By your definition, if you fall out of love with your husband, you should leave him. And it’s good to help people who are in need as long as you feel something for them. Anybody can do that. Christianity is more than that.

This is so very true and if we Christians lived according to our religion we would live in a much better world.

Re: loving the unlovable - what is so amazing about doing this is that feelings follow actions. If you act as if you love someone you usually end up feeling love too. It changes our hearts.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I guess we define love differently. Love is not just a feeling. When you love, you want the best for the other person, whether or not you get any benefit.

To stay with a husband you love is easy. If you stop loving but do what you can for the best for that person, that is difficult and selfless. If you would leave someone you didn’t have those warm and fuzzy feelings for, then you are staying for yourself.

God commanded love, but He can’t command feelings because people can’t force feelings. He can command actions. To act in love for those who are unlovable is unselfish.

By your definition, if you fall out of love with your husband, you should leave him. And it’s good to help people who are in need as long as you feel something for them. Anybody can do that. Christianity is more than that.

If my husband fell out of love with me, I would want him to tell me and leave. He wouldn’t be doing me some huge favor by staying around faking it.

Now, that doesn’t mean that love doesn’t change, that infatuation doesn’t die out and become something more stable and enduring, but if he suddenly wakes up one day with zero feelings for me whatsoever, well, I hope the door doesn’t hit him in the *** on the way out, because I don’t need that kind of pity and nobody should have to live a lie for their entire lives.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

1. It is often—perhaps not usually

, but often—a good thing to fight in wars.

Maybe 1 in 1000 wars are justifiable.

1. Not killing animals for food is sentimentalist and indicative of unhealthy attitudes towards the natural world. thumps table

Well, to give you an idea of how devout Tibetan Buddhists are, Tibet now has 1.8 million Buddhists and nearly 6,000 monasteries where monks actually live a monastic life. The archdiocese of Galveston-Houston TX has 1.3 million Catholics and only 150 Catholic churches.

 

[Warrenton]

What logical conclusion? That without God the only thing you should concentrate on is your own happiness at the expense of others? Have you ever heard of empathy?

Of course I have heard of empathy, just as you have heard of faith.

However, empathy is simply, what would be the right word? an accident.

It has no purpose to my ends, other than to make me feel good. And the feeling it creates can easily be replaced by other, more potent pleasures.

Suggesting I organize my life around empathy makes as much sense as suggesting I eat nothing but bran cakes when I much prefer french cooking. More pleasure is better, and empathy, as far as pleasures go, is paltry, absent some compelling reason.

I admit its fine if it happens to coincide with what I want to do anyway, but by itself?
Like eating strait salt.

 

[Warrenton]

I personally think the world would be a better place. If no one believed in God or an afterlife suicide bombing would pretty much be out of the question. Many disputes around the world would pretty much be resolved.

This is an attractive notion, but not particularly supported by the factual record, thus far.

Non belief does not solve the problem that society requires some common way to resolve problems and induce cooperation. Compulsion is a handy remedy, but has definite limits.

The most effective substitutes for a shared religious belief, I think are racialist. First of all, its evident visually. Even untutored people can see the color of their own skin, or hear the sound of their own language. Competition is evident for all to observe, both within society and in the natural world. Thus, the racialist can draw a simple analogy that as the beasts align each other according to species, so the group can align against other, different groups for shared gain. An last, but by no means least, racialism nurtures, and puts to productive use the negative passions such as greed and hate, by providing the individual an approved outlet for them. Hence, the individual does not suffer the unpleasant feelings associated with emotional repression.

Without faith, I suggest that the logical benefits of racialism would quickly become the governing principal among most societies on earth.

Moreover, this ideology has been tried before, in Germany, in numerous African countries, in the United States, and in China and some Southeast Asian countries today. The regimes, it must be noted, have a remarkable appeal. Even in Germany, where the racialist regime was defeated, one must respect the remarkable dedication it engendered.

We do agree, however, that a racialist government does solve a number of problems that average people face.

It solves them more efficiently than Christianity does, to be certain, although those on the losing side of the equation experience a rather higher degree of dissatisfaction, probably.

 

[Warrenton]

Ummmm, it’s pretty scary how selfish everyone here would become if you believed that God didn’t exist, as if none of you have any sort of compassion or love for your fellow man whatsoever.