Why are some people so adamant that God does exist?

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

I can assure you that I’m not here to taunt Catholics. You brought all this into play - don’t blame me if you think I fail to show proper deference to your Savior. Don’t be surprised either. I don’t believe your God exists, and I’m only barely willing to credit the idea that Jesus existed. Given this, you shouldn’t be at all shocked that I don’t think every word he uttered was dripping with perfect moral goodness.

You don’t fool anybody but yourself. You have persistently used this forum to depict Christ as half man, half monster … or altogether non-existent. You are not asking for debate. You are demanding permission to insult. This is a typically atheist strategy, and it’s exactly the strategy that makes so many atheists appear to the whole world to be angry and arrogant neurotics who have nothing better to do than go around slapping Christ and Christians in the face.

 

[ASimon]

Quit dodging the question, where is the evidence to support your conclusion?

But honestly at this point I highly doubt you can provide any.

Again, I say that levels of human well-being are something that can be realized at the level of the human brain. This is observable. When someone is feeling happy and secure, that shows up in observation of the human brain. Likewise, when they are suffering, this is also observable in the human brain. If you’ve ever felt transcendently happy in your life, while simultaneously hooked up to an fMRI machine, you may believe me when I tell you, that a trained neuroscientist would’ve been able to look at the image of your brain and, without seeing you or knowing anything else about you, been able to tell that you felt transcendently happy. To deny this is to, in effect, undercut rational discourse of observation, not to mention the entire branch of science known as psychology.

I repeat - if my basis for morality is as ill-conceived as you say, it should quite simple for you to show me an alternative basis for it that makes more sense. But you can’t. Any attempt at it will either be incoherent, or it will be a basis easily reducible to my basis - that of human well-being. You haven’t even attempted to say that Christian theology provides an objective basis, and I know why you haven’t. Because Christian theology roughly provides the same basis for morality as I do - the difference being that when you change the timeline to Eternity, that necessarily changes the moral calculus of certain beliefs and choices. You claim that your basis for human morality has nothing to do with human well-being. Needless to say, I don’t believe you, but feel free to tell me why I should.

There is no truly objective measure of physical health that reduces to a metric. There is no “health meter.” We can take two people at random, give them full check-ups, and ultimately come to an honest disagreement as which one is healthier. Person A might have knee pain that makes moving around more difficult, while Person B has high blood pressure. All other things being equal, who is healthier? I might say Person A, you might say Person B, and we might each be able to effectively argue our point of view. But if we introduce Person C, a similarly-aged person who is living in a wheelchair, has cataracts in both eyes, and can’t breathe for more than 30 seconds without a respirator, nobody would be compelled to argue that Person C is as healthy (much less healthier) than either Person A or B. This person isn’t “just as healthy, but in a sense that doesn’t take into account physical well-being.” It wouldn’t even be a discussion. And yet, we both made this determination without any metric for determining a level of overall physical health.

Such is what I mean when I say that no science can withstand utter skepticism. The underpinning of every realm of knowledge is a self-justifying premise, that is, in some sense, subjective, but to successfully attack it on that basis alone would bring the whole house down. Certain objections are just too silly to be given any credibility. It’s true of medicine. It’s true of biology. And it’s true of morality.

 

[ASimon]

ASimon

I can assure you that I’m not here to taunt Catholics. You brought all this into play - don’t blame me if you think I fail to show proper deference to your Savior. Don’t be surprised either. I don’t believe your God exists, and I’m only barely willing to credit the idea that Jesus existed. Given this, you shouldn’t be at all shocked that I don’t think every word he uttered was dripping with perfect moral goodness.

You don’t fool anybody but yourself. You have persistently used this forum to depict Christ as half man, half monster … or altogether non-existent. You are not asking for debate. You are demanding permission to insult. This is a typically atheist strategy, and it’s exactly the strategy that makes so many atheists appear to the whole world to be angry and arrogant neurotics who have nothing better to do than go around slapping Christ and Christians in the face.

Oh, stop it. I am asking for debate, and I am perfectly willing to debate the morality of Christ with anyone that wants to meet me half-way. The problem is, you don’t want to meet me half-way. Because you think it’s an insult that I’d even ask such questions in the first place. Yet, when I see threads here, every single day, where non-judgmental Christians state as matters of fact that atheists are, at best, moral relativists, or (more often) immoral by definition, I do not reply in kind. I don’t throw an internet tantrum and pretend that my personal integrity has been maligned.

Trust me - the problem is you. You only want to debate as long as we both agree that certain issues are immediately taken off the table.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Sure it means something. Combined with your closing signature,
*Please excuse my long absences - I can only post once in a while due to intense college classwork.
*

it means that even though you don’t know anything, you have opinions of little worth that you’ve learned from others (in college now instead of high school), that you think are worth arguing with anyone your opinions disagree with, It means that you are run by your opinions. Good for you!

Keep those “long absences” coming, please!

There’s really no call to be rude.

I enjoy an interesting debate, and religion happens to be one of the topics I enjoy debating. I’m not run by my opinions.

 

[Jcnava15]

Again, I say that levels of human well-being are something that can be realized at the level of the human brain. This is observable. When someone is feeling happy and secure, that shows up in observation of the human brain. Likewise, when they are suffering, this is also observable in the human brain. If you’ve ever felt transcendently happy in your life, while simultaneously hooked up to an fMRI machine, you may believe me when I tell you, that a trained neuroscientist would’ve been able to look at the image of your brain and, without seeing you or knowing anything else about you, been able to tell that you felt transcendently happy. To deny this is to, in effect, undercut rational discourse of observation, not to mention the entire branch of science known as psychology.

Your posts keep getting longer, but you keep saying the same thing.

What evidence is there to substantiate that the degree to which something is moral depends on the amount to which it makes the brain “happy and secure”?

Serial killers and sociopaths achieve “happy and secure” brain states when they do things which you would deem immoral.

I am not being “utterly skeptical”. You are making the claim that morality can be objectively measured, but all you have shown is by which standards you judge. Yet your standards are simply that.

All you’ve established is that you have an opinion, congratulations.

I do not have to explain on what I base my morality, because I am not claiming to know that Christ, or even you, got it wrong. You are making claims, now I need the evidence.

You keep begging the question.

 

[ASimon]

Your posts keep getting longer, but you keep saying the same thing.

You mean I haven’t changed my mind about what I think just because you disagree (assuming that you actually do disagree)? Well, that’s a shock.

What evidence is there to substantiate that the degree to which something is moral depends on the amount to which it makes the brain “happy and secure”?

Serial killers and sociopaths achieve “happy and secure” brain states when they do things which you would deem immoral.

I dealt with this already. Certain opinions do not count when it comes to the science of morality. Just as certain opinions do not count when it comes to the science of chemistry. A psychopath or a sociopath cannot redefine what chemistry is, just by the power of his opinion. They don’t know anything about it. And it is the same with morality. Perhaps less so - since another objective fact about psychopathy and sociopathy is the brain damage that helps define it.

Incidently, I didn’t say that “happy & secure” was THE all-time standard for well-being in every case. It’s just one possible benchmark for it. If you could take a pill that would create feelings of happiness and security, but as a side-effect, would lower your IQ five points for every time you took it, then I would argue that taking the pill is not a moral act. Plenty of actions may require someone to temporarily move away from the well-being side of the continuum, in order eventually create well-being in the longer term. Dieting and exercising to lose weight being one example. Learning to play a musical instrument being another.

I am not being “utterly skeptical”. You are making the claim that morality can be objectively measured, but all you have shown is by which standards you judge. Yet your standards are simply that.

All you’ve established is that you have an opinion, congratulations.

Dealt with this already too. You’re asking me to meet a standard of objectivity that no science or realm of knowledge can meet. There isn’t a single fact of human knowledge in all of reality that can’t be undercut if we’re willing credit “Who says?” as an actual argument

I do not have to explain on what I base my morality, because I am not claiming to know that Christ, or even you, got it wrong. You are making claims, now I need the evidence.

See above. So look - I’m more than happy to keep restating my point if you want to keep asking the same questions. Just warning you in advance that’s where this headed unless you want to change it up a little.

 

[tonyrey]

Functionally speaking, there’s no difference at all between what Confucius said and what Jesus said. That Jesus “accentuates the positive” doesn’t change the content, nor improve upon what Confucius said a few centuries earlier. My point was not that Confucius was smarter than Jesus. My point was Confucius came up with the Golden Rule before Jesus did. It was not a revolutionary idea.

Did Confucius tell us to love our enemies?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Did Confucius tell us to love our enemies?

The Golden Rule existed before Jesus’ lifetime. Jesus certainly wasn’t the first to have said it:

“"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” - Confucius

The Golden Rule was also alluded to by Ancient Greek philosophers:

“"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him” - Pittacus

“"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” - Isocrates

Of course, you would probably find some rationale as to why this is the case, which is perfectly fine. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Did Confucius tell us to love our enemies? **

Did Confucius eve exist?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You missed my point. I said that the Confederate slaveholders justified slavery in Biblical terms. And they did. Here is a direct quote from Jefferson Davis:

Hey ASimon,

I have been following most of the thread. Certainly interesting…

Anyway, back to the issues… About this Jefferson Davis character, I think you would agree that humans get things wrong. A Fundamentalist can read books on evolution and make the interpretation (from the same books that other scientists read) that monkeys should not exist if we actually came from them. That’s what they understand from reading the text.

So, it is not the Bible’s (or any other book for that matter) fault that people misunderstand and interpret wrongly, unless you’re willing to submit that it is evolutionary theory’s fault and not the fault of the Fundamentalists reading about it.

If you do submit that, read more on evolution. Good stuff.

Yes, there were abolitionists who also justified their beliefs in Biblical and Christian terms. That was also part of my point. The Bible is vastly self-contradictory book. It allows for two different people to call themselves Christian and reach wildly different conclusions on what’s moral and what’s not.

The Bible is only self-contradictory to those who have no desire to learn what it actually means from those who actually do know what it means. I’ve read many well-respected books by atheists and rarely do they use the interpretations Catholics use, or even Protestants. They use the ones easiest to refute, which Catholics have probably done already.

Again, the evolutionary theory is only self-contradictory to those who have no desire to learn what it actually means by those who write articles on the evidence for it. An ignorant person should not have a debate on the things they are ignorant of. You are ignorant of the Bible. That is not a bad things, that just means the allegations you use are only based on the non-scholarly works of atheists who attack the Bible.

But since you asked (again…), no, I don’t think vicarious redemption is, in point of fact, a moral idea. We’re not allowed to absolve other people of their responsibility for immoral acts they commit against people not ourselves. If I wrong you, you can either forgive me for it, or not. I have to deal with the possibility that you might not, and the consequences of that. But if a 3rd party could just sail in and forgive me on your behalf, that would pretty much mean the absolute negation of personal responsibility.

This doesn’t attack Catholic belief. This attacks the Fundamentalist beliefs that actually does take away responsibility of our faults. Learn what Catholics believe before you make a claim like this.

Functionally speaking, there’s no difference at all between what Confucius said and what Jesus said. That Jesus “accentuates the positive” doesn’t change the content, nor improve upon what Confucius said a few centuries earlier. My point was not that Confucius was smarter than Jesus. My point was Confucius came up with the Golden Rule before Jesus did. It was not a revolutionary idea.

Actually, they are functionally different.

“Don’t do this” is functionally different from “Do this”.

I am not defending whether it was a new idea or not. I don’t know enough about that to say anything, nor do I really care that it actually matters which came first.

Also, when the consequences of one choice mean eternal Paradise, and the consequences of the opposite choice mean eternal suffering, then we needn’t kid ourselves that this in any way represents a real choice, or that this choice is somehow a gift.

How so?

 

[ASimon]

Did Confucius tell us to love our enemies?

I doubt it. And I’m glad he didn’t, because that was another awful idea. You want to love your enemies, go right ahead. Just understand that your true enemies aren’t unbelievers on message boards. Your true enemies are plotting to destroy you, in the name of THEIR God.
Charlemagne II:

Did Confucius eve exist?

Possibly. Though it doesn’t really matter if he did or not. Even if he didn’t, somebody still advanced the ideas attributed to him. As opposed to Christ, whom, if it could be proven that he never existed, it would completely unmake Christianity.

GreggAlvarez:

Hey ASimon,

I have been following most of the thread. Certainly interesting…

Anyway, back to the issues… About this Jefferson Davis character, I think you would agree that humans get things wrong. A Fundamentalist can read books on evolution and make the interpretation (from the same books that other scientists read) that monkeys should not exist if we actually came from them. That’s what they understand from reading the text.

So, it is not the Bible’s (or any other book for that matter) fault that people misunderstand and interpret wrongly, unless you’re willing to submit that it is evolutionary theory’s fault and not the fault of the Fundamentalists reading about it.

If you do submit that, read more on evolution. Good stuff.

The Bible is only self-contradictory to those who have no desire to learn what it actually means from those who actually do know what it means. I’ve read many well-respected books by atheists and rarely do they use the interpretations Catholics use, or even Protestants. They use the ones easiest to refute, which Catholics have probably done already.

Again, the evolutionary theory is only self-contradictory to those who have no desire to learn what it actually means by those who write articles on the evidence for it. An ignorant person should not have a debate on the things they are ignorant of. You are ignorant of the Bible. That is not a bad things, that just means the allegations you use are only based on the non-scholarly works of atheists who attack the Bible.

I don’t know any Christians (much less Catholics) who actually condone slavery. But I know plenty who think it’s a reprehensible act for someone like me to point what the Bible actually has to say on the subject. It doesn’t matter that none of them think slavery is a good idea - they refuse to even acknowledge the fact that the book around which they organize their spiritual lives ever even hinted otherwise. Which tells me that there isn’t quite this uniformity of thought and belief, even within the Catholic ranks.

The reason that atheist books spend so much time and ink on the so-called “fundamentalist examples” of religious awfulness is pretty simple. At the heart of Christian theology is the idea that the Bible is the perfect word of the Creator of the Universe. Lives are lost on this premise every single day, even now. Now, many Christians (and I would say Catholics in particular) go to a lot of trouble to distance themselves from this idea, but only when it’s most sharply at odds with certain modern realities. Catholics like to cite St. Augustine, who supposedly said that they should defer to scientific truth whenever it conflicts with Biblical literalism. And I’ve heard the entire arsenal of defenses trotted out - “This is a metaphor.” “This is just symbolism.” “You’re not reading it right.” “If you really cared what it meant, you wouldn’t make this mistake.” And on and on and on.

To which I say, again - Fine - whatever. If all you want to take from the Bible are the easiest-to-remember moral nuggets that Jesus spoke, go for it. There are some religions that I just don’t lose any sleep over. And likewise, there are certain types of Christians and Catholics that I don’t bother with either (though their fellow Christians and Catholics certainly might).

This doesn’t attack Catholic belief. This attacks the Fundamentalist beliefs that actually does take away responsibility of our faults. Learn what Catholics believe before you make a claim like this.

Hey, I’d love to know what Jesus actually martyred himself for, if not for that. More importantly, Charlemagne needs to be told. He thinks Jesus died for his sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASimon
Also, when the consequences of one choice mean eternal Paradise, and the consequences of the opposite choice mean eternal suffering, then we needn’t kid ourselves that this in any way represents a real choice, or that this choice is somehow a gift.

How so?

I’m saying it’s not a real choice, in any practical sense, when someone with that much power over you gives you the option, of either abasing yourself to him (to earn an eternal reward), or not abasing yourself to him (and being dealt the most horrific punishment imaginable). This is not a choice, and being allowed to choose it is not a gift.

 

[tonyrey]

Did Confucius tell us to love our enemies?

Then your statement that there’s no difference at all between what Confucius said and what Jesus said is false…

And I’m glad he didn’t, because that was another awful idea. You want to love your enemies, go right ahead.

Your mentality is the same as those who have practised vendettas from one generation to the next and is directly responsible for the bloodstained history of mankind…

Just understand that your true enemies aren’t unbelievers on message boards.

Your sarcasm is irrelevant and merely indicates your aggressive mentality…

Your true enemies are plotting to destroy you, in the name of THEIR God.

Your sarcasm is irrelevant and merely indicates your aggressive mentality.

You obviously have** no solution **to the problem of evil and like Nietzsche despise the teaching of Jesus as weakness and a form of insanity…

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly. Only our actions. A great advantage, indeed.

No response!

As well as a great relief to not be subject to the thought policing of an unanswerable, unaccountable being.

It certainly appeals to the criminal mind!

No response!

God does command people to commit atrocities. The Bible is rife with examples.

If you are a fundamentalist…

No response!

As for loving others as you love yourself, it’s a nice thought - but it’s also impossible to achieve…

It would be wiser to speak for yourself and not the entire human race!

No response!

.

… (and probably unhealthy in anything more than the short term).

That belief reveals unsupported faith in the necessity of egoism…

No response!

 

[ASimon]

Then your statement that there’s no difference at all between what Confucius said and what Jesus said is false…

Nope. It’s the “Do unto others…” vs. “Don’t do unto others…” that I was comparing. "I wasn’t comparing “Love thine enemies” to anything Confucius said or didn’t say.

Your mentality is the same as those who have practised vendettas from one generation to the next and is directly responsible for the bloodstained history of mankind…

Your sarcasm is irrelevant and merely indicates your aggressive mentality.

Okay.

You obviously have** no solution **to the problem of evil and like Nietzsche despise the teaching of Jesus as weakness and a form of insanity…

Correct on both counts, although in practical terms, it’s only a slight weakness and a mild form of insanity (There I go being all irrelevant again!). As for the problem of evil, if we stipulate there must be a God that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then I have no idea how we get evil in the world. Another good reason not to believe in God.

 

[tonyrey]

  		*Then your statement that there's no difference at all between what Confucius said and what Jesus said is false....

		 		 	 	 Nope. It's the "Do unto others..." vs. "Don't do unto others..."  that I was comparing. "I wasn't comparing "Love thine enemies" to  anything Confucius said or didn't say.

An unconvincing evasion. You were comparing their** teaching.**

Your mentality is the same as those who have practised vendettas from one generation to the next and is directly responsible for the bloodstained history of mankind…

Your sarcasm is irrelevant and merely indicates your aggressive mentality.

Okay.I’m glad you agree with both statements.

You obviously have** no solution **

to the problem of evil and like Nietzsche despise the teaching of Jesus as weakness and a form of insanity…
Correct on both counts, although in practical terms, it’s only a slight weakness and a mild form of insanity (There I go being all irrelevant again!).
The addition of “slight” and “mild” doesn’t alter the fact that your remark is not only false but insulting.

As for the problem of evil, if we stipulate there must be a God that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then I have no idea how we get evil in the world. Another good reason not to believe in God.

The fact that you believe in the reality of evil is inconsistent with your belief in an amoral universe…

 

[ASimon]

An unconvincing evasion. You were comparing their** teaching.**

And their teachings were the same on this specific point, despite how they structured the idea.

I’m glad you agree with both statements.

And I’m glad you’re glad.

The addition of “slight” and “mild” doesn’t alter the fact that your remark is not only false but insulting.

Don’t blame me. It was all my aggressive mentality.

The fact that you believe in the reality of evil is inconsistent with your belief in an amoral universe…

Nope. But nice try anyway.

 

[tonyrey]

An unconvincing evasion. You were comparing their** teaching.**

You admitted they differed on an important point that you rejected as absurd.

I’m glad you agree with both statements.

And I’m glad you’re glad.

Then you are very glad to admit that your mentality is the same as those who have practised vendettas from one generation to the next and is directly responsible for the bloodstained history of mankind - and that your sarcasm is irrelevant and merely indicates your aggressive mentality!

The addition of “slight” and “mild” doesn’t alter the fact that your remark is not only false but insulting.

Don’t blame me. It was all my aggressive mentality.

That must be the consequence of your belief that you have “a basic neural infrastructure” over which you have no control!

The fact that you believe in the reality of evil is inconsistent with your belief in an amoral

universe…
Nope. But nice try anyway.

An unjustified assertion convinces no one… except perhaps yourself.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I don’t know any Christians (much less Catholics) who actually condone slavery. But I know plenty who think it’s a reprehensible act for someone like me to point what the Bible actually has to say on the subject. It doesn’t matter that none of them think slavery is a good idea - they refuse to even acknowledge the fact that the book around which they organize their spiritual lives ever even hinted otherwise. Which tells me that there isn’t quite this uniformity of thought and belief, even within the Catholic ranks.

Who refuses to acknowledge that? Give me sources.

The reason that atheist books spend so much time and ink on the so-called “fundamentalist examples” of religious awfulness is pretty simple. At the heart of Christian theology is the idea that the Bible is the perfect word of the Creator of the Universe. Lives are lost on this premise every single day, even now. Now, many Christians (and I would say Catholics in particular) go to a lot of trouble to distance themselves from this idea, but only when it’s most sharply at odds with certain modern realities. Catholics like to cite St. Augustine, who supposedly said that they should defer to scientific truth whenever it conflicts with Biblical literalism.

How little do you know… What Catholic distances themselves? Are you just making stuff up here? Yes.

And so what about the last sentence? If and only if it were to somehow contradict Catholic teaching, THEN we have a problem. The Church teaches what is true. We do not hold Sola Scriptura.

And I’ve heard the entire arsenal of defenses trotted out - “This is a metaphor.” “This is just symbolism.” “You’re not reading it right.” “If you really cared what it meant, you wouldn’t make this mistake.” And on and on and on.

So, you really don’t care what others have to say on the topic. Why bother debating then if you are not willing to be objective? Subjectivity and bias are hardly reasonable. Wouldn’t you agree?

To which I say, again - Fine - whatever. If all you want to take from the Bible are the easiest-to-remember moral nuggets that Jesus spoke, go for it.

Are you bitter? While there are some who do that, go read Catholic doctrine and see if this is the case. You will learn that Catholics are far from what you accuse.

If all you want to do is remember those nuggets which you assume are bad/contradictory, go for it. You see what I did there? It was a useless statement, just as useless as yours. Except yours was useless and you were oblivious about it.

There are some religions that I just don’t lose any sleep over. And likewise, there are certain types of Christians and Catholics that I don’t bother with either (though their fellow Christians and Catholics certainly might).

Fair enough… I am in the same boat, more or less.

Hey, I’d love to know what Jesus actually martyred himself for, if not for that. More importantly, Charlemagne needs to be told. He thinks Jesus died for his sins.

Thanks for misconstruing my point. But what else should I expect from atheists?

Jesus did die for his sins, as well as everybody else’s. In no way does that eliminate personal responsibility as Fundamentalists think.

I’m saying it’s not a real choice, in any practical sense, when someone with that much power over you gives you the option, of either abasing yourself to him (to earn an eternal reward), or not abasing yourself to him (and being dealt the most horrific punishment imaginable). This is not a choice, and being allowed to choose it is not a gift.

You said that already. I am asking you to explain why you believe that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

As opposed to Christ, whom, if it could be proven that he never existed, it would completely unmake Christianity.

Golly, you’ve mentioned a steep mountain to climb. Try it if you like!

We’re all ears!

Do you think he did not exist?

 

[ASimon]

ASimon

As opposed to Christ, whom, if it could be proven that he never existed, it would completely unmake Christianity.

Golly, you’ve mentioned a steep mountain to climb. Try it if you like!

We’re all ears!

Do you think he did not exist?

No, I’m working on the assumption that the figure of Christ as depicted in the Gospels was probably based on a real human being who lived at some point.