Would life be worth living if there was no God?

[buffalo]

Bottom line is, I don’t actually care. The point is, we had well documented codes of conduct long before ‘‘God’’ ever came on the scene to tell us right from wrong. Funnily enough, God agreed with us

Sarah x

Ahhh, the crux of it - you don’t really care. Protecting your worldview no matter the truth is irrational. The truth should matter, don’t ya think?

You have still not provided a credible source showing this “code of conduct” was first. In addition, a poor code of conduct has what value? Do you really believe man by himself can construct a “pure” code of conduct?

Funnily enough…

 

[buffalo]

You and I know it’s morally reprehensible. You and I also know there are passages in the OT that don’t outright condemn scuh actions. Others will say it’s because the Israelites got it wrong even though they were directly inspired by God to write their chronicles and no where in the OT does God condemn it!
You’ll then witter on about how my moral reprehension is only subjective because Im an atheist where as your moral reprehension is objective and righteous as it’s your God that tells you it’s outrageous.
And we both know that’s just nonesense!

Sarah x

Perhaps we should have “cleansed” the Bible of these accounts. Would that be better?

The fact they have been preserved must be worth something. What are they trying to tell us?

 

[atheistgirl]

Ahhh, the crux of it - you don’t really care. Protecting your worldview no matter the truth is irrational. The truth should matter, don’t ya think?

I absolutely do think the truth matters. That’s why I dont buy the we didnt know right from wrong until we got the OT when we KNOW there are older codes written purely by man, that clearly state the immorality of murder, theft, adultry, false witness etc.

You have still not provided a credible source showing this “code of conduct” was first.

You can check the dates for yourself. Ive not posted direct links to them, but they’re all there and dead easy to find, because I dont want to be accused of prozletyzing or trying to influence people to lose their faith.

You may laugh, but people report atheists here for such things, even though to me it’s prefectly reasonable to link sources!

In addition, a poor code of conduct has what value?

Well, to use the argument perfectly acceptable to someone else here, it’s an evolutionary process where we got the broad picture down, then refined it over time and generations. If that’s an acceptable Biblical argument, then it should be a perfectly acceptable secular argument.

Do you really believe man by himself can construct a “pure” code of conduct?

We’ve done a brillant job so far, and we refine and improve all the time. We got the lying, murdering thieving stuff down a long while ago, but just look back in recent time to slavery, womens rights, education, voting rights etc and see how weve improved, in some cases in the face of wide spread church opposition!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

The fact they have been preserved must be worth something. What are they trying to tell us?

That the OT is a book (s) written by man to justify his social and cultural norms at the time, and his subjective perception of what he thinks some God wants??? Which, as I said, co-incidently match up nicely with what man himself wanted at the time!

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

I absolutely do think the truth matters. That’s why I dont buy the we didnt know right from wrong until we got the OT when we KNOW there are older codes written purely by man, that clearly state the immorality of murder, theft, adultry, false witness etc.

You can check the dates for yourself. Ive not posted direct links to them, but they’re all there and dead easy to find, because I dont want to be accused of prozletyzing or trying to influence people to lose their faith.

You may laugh, but people report atheists here for such things, even though to me it’s prefectly reasonable to link sources!

Well, to use the argument perfectly acceptable to someone else here, it’s an evolutionary process where we got the broad picture down, then refined it over time and generations. If that’s an acceptable Biblical argument, then it should be a perfectly acceptable secular argument.

We’ve done a brillant job so far, and we refine and improve all the time. We got the lying, murdering thieving stuff down a long while ago, but just look back in recent time to slavery, womens rights, education, voting rights etc and see how weve improved, in some cases in the face of wide spread church opposition!

Sarah x

I am not making the claim we needed to wait. I am claiming that Adam and Eve knew the code. It was there at the very beginning. It was later represented to Moses and codified.

If the Pentateuch had dates on the **source material **that Moses compiled would it make a difference to you?

I would not report you. Civil discourse is respected. Conversations with you are decent and thoughtful. Have you ever debated with an atheist on youtube?

The evolutionary perspective is left wanting. Don’t forget it cannot let “the divine foot in the door”. It is also self limiting by definition.

Now here I may agree with you and the word evolutionary. The Catholic understanding of Scripture evolves, in that it gets fuller. However, doctrines do not get severed or reversed.

Catholics understand this to be implanted in every human heart. I would argue that becuase we are not well self governed the cost of enforcement is wasting valuable resources that could feed the poor for example. I don’t think this is so brilliant. I think it a failure. And yes, Catholics fail to live Christ’s propositions.

Just think if the two greatest commandments were followed by all humans what the possibilities would be?

 

[buffalo]

That the OT is a book (s) written by man to justify his social and cultural norms at the time, and his subjective perception of what he thinks some God wants??? Which, as I said, co-incidently match up nicely with what man himself wanted at the time!

Sarah x

How would they know what to justify? Against what background?

Their experience’s are recorded. Granted the story of God’s Chosen People is one of hard lessons and in places affect our modern sensibilities, they were essentially infants. We have the benefit of these lessons at our disposal today. Very valuable indeed.

Some God? Absolutely not. “I am who am” is a personal God reaching out to His people. Many men did not want or believe God. It was very difficult. They preferred animal gods. They wanted the base human desires and license to do them and rejected God’s fathership in advising them how to live. (not at all different than today)

 

[itullian]

i believe that the OT 's negative portrayals and criticisms of the Jews goes to its credibility.

no people writing their own history would tell so many negatives.

 

[buffalo]

i believe that the OT 's negative portrayals and criticisms of the Jews goes to its credibility.

no people writing their own history would tell so many negatives.

I am not sure what you mean here…

 

[atheistgirl]

I Have you ever debated with an atheist on youtube?

No, and I never want to

I find certain types atheists intolerable

Sarah x

 

[danserr]

As to what youve said, youve said it many times now, and you still havent shown, to me anyhow, how the fact of God’s existence automatically means there is an objective moral standard. You just cant say the Judeo-Christian God exists, therefor we have objective moral worth. It makes no sense. It’s no different to me saying, I exist, so therefor as the mother of my children, they have objective moral value, no matter what anyone thinks. It’s no different at all.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then we know the following. We know that a being worthy of worship exists, a greatest conceivable being, who is morally perfect, who made man in his image, suffered and died for him, and wants man to enter into a loving relationship with Himself thus enjoying eternal happiness.

If such a being exists, it is easy to see how He is the objective standard of moral value in the same way that a meter is the objective standard of measurement.

Forgive me my amusement, but it is funny how you say that you don’t see the difference between you and God . The difference, of course, is that you are a different sort of being than God. Look at the description I gave of God. Are you morally perfectly? Essentially just and loving? worthy of worship (and no jokes about, my husband thinks so)? Suffered and died for them to give them eternal happiness if only they would accept it? Well, (assuming the answer to these is no), that is the difference between you and God. If the answer to these is yes, then you are God, and I would like to meet you as soon as possible.

You only know what you know about God from the Bible and other believers? Is that right? You also have a personal relationship with this God so you would percieve you know certain things about this God through your personal relationship.

So every single source for your information for God is totally subjective.

So your claims for some sort of objectivity is based entirely on stuff you can only ever know subjectively. Makes no sense to me Im afraid.

Sarah x

But the same would apply to moral values if God didn’t exist. Remember in your last post, you rejected your old position that “everything was subjective and relative” and admitted that people do have objective moral value. But your objections to God here as the source of objective moral value would also apply to your own position. Since we would still know moral values subjectively.

Now, again, the problem is that you are confusing how we know something exists, with whether or not it exists. You are trying to say that since our sources for knowledge of God are subjective, that we cannot know that He exists as the source of objective moral value. So this is not an argument that God is not the source of objective moral value, only that we cannot know that He is, which is a totally different thing. Hence, this is not a good argument that God is not the source of objective moral value.

I will address it anyway though. You claim that since how we learn about God is subjective, then we cannot trust our knowledge of Him. But this applies to almost all our knowledge. Most of the stuff we learn is through other people, (even if we read it in a scientific textbook, we are still trusting the authors), or ourselves.

Imagine the following:

1. you tell me you have a headache.
2. My dad tells me it is raining.
3. I have a stomachache
4. I read in a history book that the American Civil War occurred
5. I look on a map and see that China exists.

In each of these, I am subjectively perceiving these things, or else trusting other people’s subjective perceptions. That does not prove, however, that: you do not have a headache, it is not raining, I do no objectively have a stomachache, the american civil war did not occur, China does not exist.

All knowledge occurs through the self or through other persons. That does not mean that:

1. it is not about something that objectively exists or
2. that we cannot trust that knowledge.

So applied to God, that some of our knowledge of God comes from individuals is not any sort of evidence that God does not exist as the objective standard of moral value, nor is it evidence that we cannot know that God exists and is the standard of objective moral value.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, we know about God, not only through the Old Testament, but through the new, which can be verified by historical evidence for the Resurrection. But not even just by that, but also through theological and philosophical (and yes, possibly even scientific) evidence.

Lastly, you have dropped our discussion about whether objective moral values exist and how they cannot on atheism (since they would be the result of socio-biological conditioning), but how we still have a strong intuition that people do have objective moral value (no matter what anyone thinks). I hope, though, that you are still thinking about that.

 

[danserr]

Perhaps Im a fundamentalist Christian at heart

Haha, maybe. But the question is why do you insist on reading the Bible like a fundamentalist Christian? Is it because, read that way, it offers more ammunition against the Christian God?

I can’t have any confidence in people that claim to be Divinely inspired, yet make such fundamental errors that resulted in the slaughter of innocents.

Well, the people killed were certainly not innocent. Here, you push the point too far. In every case it was some guilty person being killed (the case that refers to the babies being killed as well was probably hyperbole. We know this because the places the Israelites were to attack were military outposts. There would have been no women or children there. Now we can agree that the punishments were excessive, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the people were innocent.

It’s inexcusable to me that the Divine would not interject and correct them, rather than see innocent men women and children be slaughtered in error.

This is a totally separate topic. You are now bringing up the problem of evil, why does God let bad things happen? Or let people do bad things? Well, I think there are good answers to that, (here is a partial one only) but that requires another thread.
In this case, though, what if God knew that His people would ignore Him if He commanded them more directly? The only thing He could do then would be to force them to stop. I think it is easy to see, though, why He would not do this.

Anyhow, that’s neither here nor there to a degree, because I simply dont accept the premise that all this is built on - namely - God had to slowly introduce moral goodness!

I will never buy that, ever. Sorry.

Well, now you are being at least a little unfair because I took a long time posting an explanation to this and you haven’t replied to it. Here it is again:

Now you say “why didn’t God make it all known at once?” But it is easy to see why that would be a problem. God already asked more of his people than other gods and cultures did. Had he asked for too much, the Israelites might simply have given up (as a student might give up if held to too high standards at first), or switched to other gods (as a student might try to switch to a class with an easier professor).

So God did not reveal everything at once because if He did, people could have easily given up, or else turned to worship other gods. (remember the Israelites believed in many at this point).

The code recommends death in certain circumstances where certain conditions are met.

So, hopefully now we agree that ancient cultures were indeed much harsher in many respects that the ancient Israelites. The code of Hammurabi and ancient Egyptian laws certainly were as I have shown.

You object:

But I say again, so what? It’s nonsense to point to others and say they are worse than us!

This is effectively rhetorically, not logically. It is not like stealing a person’s computer and then saying “but so what, so-and-so stole his car!” Obviously this would be nonsense, but that it because a person today has access to the whole law.

On the contrary, people in Israel did not. God gradually revealed his moral law. Now, I am not presenting this point as evidence that it was ideal for the ancient Israelites to behave as they did. But it is evidence that since Israel’s neighbor’s were worse, that this supports the idea that God was gradually introducing his moral laws to his people, gradually holding them to higher and higher standards. So Israel’s laws (under God’s influence) do indeed represent important moral improvements over ancient laws.

Suppose, a child was brought up in bad company and had depraved morals. He is then adopted at age 12 or so by a good, loving family. Obviously, it would be unreasonable for the family to demand too much too soon. Rather, knowing his depraved upbringing, they would be satisfied with gradual progress on his part. On the contrary, if the family tried to demand too much progress too soon, it might lead the child to give up or rebel.

So, too with God.

He could just as easily have said murder is wrong, dont keep women as property, free slaves, etc, but he didnt.

In many cases He did say these things and Israel, while not ideal, was far more lenient than its neighbors, hence showing that under God’s influence, their behavior, while not ideal, did show important moral progress.

 

[atheistgirl]

If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then we know the following. We know that a being worthy of worship exists, a greatest conceivable being, who is morally perfect, who made man in his image, suffered and died for him, and wants man to enter into a loving relationship with Himself thus enjoying eternal happiness.

You keep saying this, as if it’s true. You’ve repeated it a hundred times now. You cant KNOW what you claim to know, to my mind anyhow. You’re just SAYING IF this being exists THEN he is the most powerful, most moral blah blah blah, wants man to enjoy eternal life etc, where as there’s no connection between the two what so ever.
Furthermore, you’ve never met this being, you don’t know the first thing about what they are like, only what OTHERS have told you, or youve read in a book.
It’s entirely subjective.

If such a being exists, it is easy to see how He is the objective standard of moral value in the same way that a meter is the objective standard of measurement.

No it’s not. This being could be a monster, and some of the things he’s commanded done are simply monstrous. You claim the Israelites misunderstood. I say that’s nonsense. You claim even if God did order such horrific things, then He had a reason. I say that’s nonsense too. So no, even IF such a being exists, it in no way means he is the objective moral standard.

Look at the description I gave of God.

Yep, an entirely subjective one, and no different than the way my kids when they were younger would describe their superhereos.

So this is not an argument that God is not the source of objective moral value, only that we cannot know that He is, which is a totally different thing. Hence, this is not a good argument that God is not the source of objective moral value.

If we can’t know it, then We’re simply ascribing things to this Diety subjectively when in fact we actually don’t KNOW it’s essential nature at all.

So applied to God, that some of our knowledge of God comes from individuals is not any sort of evidence that God does not exist as the objective standard of moral value, nor is it evidence that we cannot know that God exists and is the standard of objective moral value.

Nope, ALL of our ‘‘knowledge’’ of God comes from others subjective ‘opinions’ on the issue. Or, individuals own personal subjective ‘experiences’. So there’s nothing objective here at all.

Lastly, you have dropped our discussion about whether objective moral values exist and how they cannot on atheism

I’ve not ‘‘dropped’’ anything. It’s tiresome going over the same ground again and again with no further insight. I’ve got nothing further to add, and nothing you’ve said changes anything for me.

Sarah x

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Well assuming you think God made all this possible, if there was no God, you wouldn’t even be a thought. There would be no life to live.

Of course if you don’t believe God made all this, then the question is irrelevant because atheists seem to get around just fine.

 

[atheistgirl]

Is it because, read that way, it offers more ammunition against the Christian God?

Um, I don’t need ammunition against a Deity I don’t believe exists

In this case, though, what if God knew that His people would ignore Him if He commanded them more directly?

Well He commanded them to stop worshiping other gods, overnight? And they ignored Him. What’s the difference?

So God did not reveal everything at once because if He did, people could have easily given up, or else turned to worship other gods. (remember the Israelites believed in many at this point).

I’ve read all your replies, in detail, and I’ve reread some as I didn’t grasp your points on the first reading. I’ve taken the time to do this, for two reasons, one, out of interest, hence why I’m involved in this conversation, and two, because you took the time and trouble to reply. So Ive not dismissed anything you’ve written.
However, I simply don’t buy that. No amount of times that you say it will change it. I simply don’t accept or think that God needed to tell these people to ‘‘gradually’’ stop being so barbaric.
That’s just nonsense to me. Sorry.

So, hopefully now we agree that ancient cultures were indeed much harsher in many respects that the ancient Israelites

Completely irrelevant, and again I say, so what? The examples youve brought up don’t work Im afraid. Some one knows its wrong today to steal a computer because we have access to the whole law, but the Israelites didnt know and had to be gradually brought to believe stealing was wrong??? No, sorry, doesnt work for me Im afraid. Don’t steal. Simples. End of.

My kids didn’t know right from wrong until we taught them. They were not, not, told anything about stealing, so they could steal left right and centre, then gradually told not to steal from their brothers and sisters, but from the store it’s ok, then told not to steal from the store, and then told don’t steal anything, ever, off anyone, for any reason what so ever!!! No, they were told from the get-go it’s wrong to steal, don’t do it. Period. If a little kid can do it, I’m pretty sure a sophisticated tribe capable of building amazing temples and in tune with God such that he inspires their writings, could do it too!!!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Of course if you don’t believe God made all this, then the question is irrelevant because atheists seem to get around just fine.

Hi PumpkinSeed

We sure do, don’t we

Sarah x

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Hi PumpkinSeed

We sure do, don’t we

Sarah x

Yes. While I believe in God, I would never say an atheist can’t have a good life.

 

[danserr]

You keep saying this, as if it’s true. You’ve repeated it a hundred times now. You cant KNOW what you claim to know, to my mind anyhow. You’re just SAYING IF this being exists THEN he is the most powerful, most moral blah blah blah, wants man to enjoy eternal life etc, where as there’s no connection between the two what so ever.
.

The subject of this thread was “would life be worth living if there was no God?” The flip side of this is “would life be worth living if God exists?”

So, yes, of course I am saying that if this being exists, then He has certain traits and hence life can have objective value, worth, and meaning.

The point was not to argue whether God exists (I can), but that if the Judeo-Christian God exists, an essentially good being, worthy of worship, a greatest conceivable being, just, impartial, and loving, who made man in His image and wants man to enter into a loving relationship with Him, then life has objective meaning, value, and purpose.

It is vain to object and say, “but, so what; you don’t know if such a being exists!”

Yes, I do, but that is not the point of this thread. This point here was only to establish the if. If God exists, life has objective value, purpose, and meaning. If He does not, then life does not, it would be wholly subjective and relative."

Furthermore, you’ve never met this being, you don’t know the first thing about what they are like, only what OTHERS have told you, or youve read in a book.
It’s entirely subjective

You have never met George Washington. You only know what OTHERS have told you about him, or what you’ve read in a book. Does this prove that Washington does not objectively exist? Or that you cannot know that he does?

Most of what we know we know because we read it in books or because of what other people have told us. It would be silly to pretend for that reason we can’t actually know these things. A person who rejected something just because others told it to him or because he read it in a book would go through life knowing very little.

This being could be a monster, and some of the things he’s commanded done are simply monstrous.

As to the commands themselves, I will address it below. But to say that He is a monster doesn’t work.

Remember, the point is to argue that IF the Judeo-Christian God exists (with the qualities I mentioned above), then life has objective value, purpose, and meaning. A being having those qualities would simply not be a monster.

Again, the point is not that A God exists, but that this God exists.

Nope, ALL of our ‘‘knowledge’’ of God comes from others subjective ‘opinions’ on the issue. Or, individuals own personal subjective ‘experiences’. So there’s nothing objective here at all.

As I say above, the fact that our knowledge on something comes from others does not mean that: 1. the thing itself does not exist, 2. we cannot know that the thing exists.

And no, we do not know that God exists only through personal opinions. We can also know through revelation (confirmed by miracles and historical evidence), philosophical (and maybe scientific) investigation.

 

[danserr]

As to God’s commands in the Old Testament…
I have been mostly defending the position that the best way to account for God’s commands in the Old Testament is by the position that God had to gradually introduce His commands to a hard-hearted people.

For example:
Suppose, a child was brought up in bad company and had depraved morals. He is then adopted at age 12 or so by a good, loving family. Obviously, it would be unreasonable for the family to demand too much too soon. Rather, knowing his depraved upbringing, they would be satisfied with gradual progress on his part. On the contrary, if the family tried to demand too much progress too soon, it might lead the child to give up or rebel.

I point out that it is indeed true, that compared to their neighbor’s, Israel’s laws represent important moral advances and this supports that hypothesis that God was gradually trying to bring them to a higher standard and knowledge of morality and Him.

Now, so far you may be inclined to complain that I am just repeating myself, but this is setting up a basis for what I hope is a new point.

The next question one might ask is: Why didn’t God just give the whole law at once?

As my examples show, though, the danger of God asking too much of his people too soon is that it might lead them to give up, rebell, or turn to worship of other gods completely and rejecting him wholly:

ex.1: Had he asked for too much, the Israelites might simply have given up (as a student might give up if held to too high standards at first), or switched to other gods (as a student might try to switch to a class with an easier professor).

ex.2: (from above): … a family adopting a depraved boy would be satisfied with gradual progress on his part. On the contrary, if the family tried to demand too much progress too soon, it might lead the child to give up or rebel.

Now you say:

So what if the Israelites ignored God] Well He commanded them to stop worshiping other gods, overnight? And they ignored Him. What’s the difference?

Consider the example of the depraved boy adopted by a loving family. What if he gave up? Well, he would have given up trying to be good (and been left in his depraved status), and second he would have missed out on the goods of knowing and loving that family.

So too the Jews. If they had rejected God and gone to worship other gods, that would have meant they would give up trying to reach better moral goodness. Hence it would have been pointless for God to reveal his whole commands to them at once. If He did, they might just have ignored Him or rejected Him wholly. Then, what would the point be of revealing it all at once! ! !

So, like the loving family adopting the depraved boy, God accepts poorer behavior at first because He knows that his stubborn people will not listen and revealing too much too soon could only hurt. So, He puts up with less than ideal behavior, all the while gradually letting His people know that they are called to a higher and better standard to behavior.

Lastly, and this is a great point of confusion for many atheists. The point was not just to follow the laws or “be good, so you can go to heaven.” The point is to enter into a loving relationship with God. Now, if the Israelites had rejected God, this hardly would have been possible!

So, this answers your other concerns, but one more:

If a little kid can do it, I’m pretty sure a sophisticated tribe capable of building amazing temples and in tune with God such that he inspires their writings, could do it too!!!

Technological progress does not equal (or cause) moral goodness. And remember, your kids have grown up in a different social context, not the ancient one. Second, you as the parent are not seeped in the vices of the ancient middle east (I assume ), whereas, the ancient Jews were in a wholly different context, raised by parents seeped in ancient vices.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes. While I believe in God, I would never say an atheist can’t have a good life.

An atheist doesn’t believe he/she is a sinner. They think they are perfect, and that they have never done anything wrong in their lives and that there is nothing to feel sorry for, ask forgiveness for, or to try to be better!

 

[atheistgirl]

An atheist doesn’t believe he/she is a sinner. They think they are perfect, and that they have never done anything wrong in their lives and that there is nothing to feel sorry for, ask forgiveness for, or to try to be better!

I’m sorry but that’s just plain wrong.

Replacing sinning with ‘wronging’ I’ve wronged people in my life, and made up for it.
I am far from perfect, nor do I think perfection exists.
I’ve done plenty wrong in my life, mostly through ignorance which Ive rectified where I could.
I’ve asked to be forgiven plenty times.
I try and better myself every single day.

I can not speak for atheists, or atheism, but I suspect I would be right in saying a lot of people feel like me.

You’re appraisal of what you think atheists are like needs to be seriously reviewed.

Sarah x