If I honestly think there’s no gods – and I turn out to have made an honest mistake – it can’t be fairly characterized as “I chose to turn my back to God.”Sent? No, you choose to turn your back to God.
It is relevant, because she said her decisions aren’t based on eternal reward. As well, they shouldn’t. The goodness she performs should be based on love and empathy. If you begin to recognize where this goodness comes from you can greater cooperate with it, which will expand the depth of your love even greater that it overflows, not just to those close, but strangers that may frustrate you and even enemies that persecute you.This is irrelevant to the original question. The question was, “What if you’re wrong [and a God does exist and goodness “flows” from this God]?”
And her answer was, basically, well I’m still going to have lived a good life, regardless of the fact that I was wrong.
There is vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. Know the difference.If I honestly think there’s no gods – and I turn out to have made an honest mistake – it can’t be fairly characterized as “I chose to turn my back to God.”
Should that unlikely situation turn out to be the case, then I will have made a mistake.
And they are. Whether she “recognizes where goodness flows from” or whether she could “love even greater” if she did recognize this does not change the fact that she lives a life full of love.It is relevant, because she said her decisions aren’t based on eternal reward. As well, they shouldn’t. They goodness she performs should be based on love and empathy.
How can one understand love if one denies love?And they are. Whether she “recognizes where goodness flows from” or whether she could “love even greater” if she did recognize this does not change the fact that she lives a life full of love.
I don’t think you’re grasping me here.How can one understand love if one denies love?
If your insulted, perhaps religious forums are not for you…people have been debating these things for years. This topic isn’t anything new. And I’m following the forum rules.I am not an atheist, but I find your question insulting.
Do you really want people claiming a religion even though they don’t believe? Simply because they might be wrong? That they should fake it?
I’m pretty sure he was insulted not by the idea of debating religion but by your implication – via Pascal’s Wager – that atheists ought to believe because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing.If your insulted, perhaps religious forums are not for you…people have been debating these things for years. This topic isn’t anything new. And I’m following the forum rules.
I don’t think you understand.I don’t think you’re grasping me here.
Atheists live their lives in ways very similar to yours. We love our spouses, kids, parents, friends. We have interests and hobbies that we love. We have jobs that we (hopefully) love. Most of us who are lucky enough to have been born in a first world country have pretty nice lives, and those of us with problems have problems no worse than anyone else’s.
Now, religious believers claim that there is some (presumably) “supernatural” source of love. Maybe you’re right, but obviously atheists don’t think you are. Yet, despite disagreeing with you, atheists are more than capable of the same love that you are.
Sure, you can say, “Oh! But if only you believed in my God, you’d love even more!!” but (1) you have no way of measuring the strength of someone else’s love, so you’re just kind of pulling that claim out of thin air, and (2) it’s awfully obnoxious to assume that you’re capable of some kind of “greater” love just because you have different opinions than someone else, and (3) even if it were true, it wouldn’t change the fact that atheists can and do love and can live a life of love and joy, regardless of what claims they accept.
So again, the answer to “What if you’re wrong?” is – “well, I’d live the same life I do now, a happy life filled with love. You say that I’d love even more if I believe something different. Well, maybe you’re right, but I don’t agree with you, and I don’t see any reason to think that what you’re saying is true, so I guess I’ll never know. Bye.”
Following the rules doesn’t make the way you worded your question any less insulting.If your insulted, perhaps religious forums are not for you…people have been debating these things for years. This topic isn’t anything new. And I’m following the forum rules.
THIS.I’m pretty sure he was insulted not by the idea of debating religion but by your implication – via Pascal’s Wager – that atheists ought to believe because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing.
Such an implication suggests that a person can “choose” what to believe in the simple sense of picking, but (1) that’s not how belief actually works, and (2) any god worth the name would see right through someone who was “just choosing to believe” as a method of covering his bets.
I don’t find that insulting (I just find it silly), but I could see how a religious believer (who takes his belief seriously) would be insulted at the suggestion that someone else should just “choose to believe it” (without really being convinced of it).
Don’t you think your shirt makes you look fat and ugly? A simple question that is an insult.Funny how a simple question turns into an insult. I’m not insulted that there are atheists on a Catholic forum…should I be?
Well, (1) an inability to provide an answer does not preclude a person from loving, but also (2) I’m perfectly capable of explaining what love is and what its origins are (hint: it’s entirely a biological phenomenon).I don’t think you understand.
Nobody claims you are incapable of loving. But what is love? This you can’t answer.
You submit it, but you can’t demonstrate that it’s true.I submit, God is love. He is the source of all goodness.
I would go even further and say that what you call “morality” is a purely natural, biological phenomenon that arose through simple memetics. If you read The Selfish Gene, among other works, you’ll see how it’s been established very convincingly how cooperative ethics can (and do) emerge from evolution.I would venture to go further and say that some of your moral compass was shaped by those that came before that paved the way with Christian virtues.
Ha! I demonstrate it on a daily basis. So do you. (even though you are in denial)Well, (1) an inability to provide an answer does not preclude a person from loving, but also (2) I’m perfectly capable of explaining what love is and what its origins are (hint: it’s entirely a biological phenomenon).
You submit it, but you can’t demonstrate that it’s true.
I would go even further and say that what you call “morality” is a purely natural, biological phenomenon that arose through simple memetics. If you read The Selfish Gene, among other works, you’ll see how it’s been established very convincingly how cooperative ethics can (and do) emerge from evolution.
That’s why you find these so-called “Christian virtues” in all cultures, including non-Christian cultures.
I do not think this word means what you think it does.Ha! I demonstrate it
Then perhaps there should be rules for the way I word my questions. In any case, I am following the rules. So it’s fair game. I cannot help the fact that people are easily offended by the way I pose my questions. Could you do me a favor and tell me how I could have made the question a little bit more un-offensive? I ask in kindness, thanks.Following the rules doesn’t make the way you worded your question any less insulting.
THIS.
Don’t you think your shirt makes you look fat and ugly? A simple question that is an insult.
Simply wanting to discuss what people believe and why, or what if you are wrong, is fine. Insinuating that people should fake their belief just in case they are wrong is insulting to those of us that believe.
You still seem not to have grasped that the thing that offended this fellow was your implication that religious belief can be “chosen” in the simple sense, as a way for atheists to hedge their bets.Could you do me a favor and tell me how I could have made the question a little bit more un-offensive? I ask in kindness, thanks.
Next time I wanna tell my wife how I feel about her I’ll say, “I have a biological phenomenon for you”I do not think this word means what you think it does.
How can you explain what love is with science? Didn’t you say earlier love could not be measured…wait are there biological phenomenons that cannot be measured?Well, (1) an inability to provide an answer does not preclude a person from loving, but also (2) I’m perfectly capable of explaining what love is and what its origins are (hint: it’s entirely a biological phenomenon).