Would life be worth living if there was no God?

[danserr]

I can’t do that.

It would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.

Your arguments sound very much like stuff Willam Lane Craig puts out, and I find him very unconvincing.

I’ll just have to be happy in my inconsistency as you see it.

For me, my life, and my family, it makes perfect sense to us.

Sarah x

Why keep adding “my” philosophy, or as “I” see it. It’s not my reason, it’s just reason.

Why unconvincing? You have been given (post 26), a valid argument with premises that you already have agreed with. When then so reluctant to accept the conclusion?

Maybe you could explore if you have reasons for not wanting God to exist that might bias you. You have already said that you don’t want to live forever, so that could be one reason. Are there others?

It’s no good just saying that you can’t do fancy philosophical arguments and using that to dismiss any reasons for Christianity. I mean, what would you think of a Christian who claimed he couldn’t do fancy philosophical or scientific arguments and so ignored any evidence for atheism?

And the reasons I have given are not fancy or complex at all. I am no philosopher, I’m a history grad student. I just make the effort to understand by starting with popularizations of a topic and then moving to the harder stuff.

The words I am using have simple meanings.
Objective- independant of what people think or perceive
subjective- dependant on what people think or perceive.

So when you say that moral values do not exist independent of what people think, but that your children have moral value no matter what anyone thinks, that is just a contradiction. I wonder why you are more willing to accept this contradiction than you are to accept the existence of God?

That is not complex philosophy at all! Now I agree that your children do have moral worth no matter what anyone thinks, but I also know that God exists, so I know there is a basis for that.

I know how much I love my husband, children and family, and how much they love me, and I know how well balanced, happy and healthy they are. I know how we fit into our local community, and the wider society. I know what I and they mean to others, and what others mean to us.

Sure, but I am not, nor have I ever questioned how much your family or community loves each other. That’s just not the point I’m making.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Maybe you could explore if you have reasons for not wanting God to exist that might bias you. You have already said that you don’t want to live forever, so that could be one reason. Are there others?

Throwing in my two cents, “not wanting [Yahweh] to exists” wasn’t even a factor for me. My desire was much to the contrary and that motivated further seeking and asking questions. All of the “supporting” reasons I received of found were most unconvincing. To summarize people had either personal evidence that could not be shared, what still comes across as an incredible leap (ex: “when I saw the baby smile I knew [Yahweh] exists”) and some said they didn’t really know, but were sticking with their custom just in case (Pascal’s wager).

 

[atheistgirl]

Maybe you could explore if you have reasons for not wanting God to exist that might bias you. You have already said that you don’t want to live forever, so that could be one reason. Are there others?

I don’t want to live forever, for the same reason I don’t want Superman to exist, or Batman. It doesn’t make sense and it’s fake. It’s natural to die. Always has been always will be. It’s fantasy to think someone can fly under their own power, and it’s fantasy to think I can live forever.

when you say that moral values do not exist independent of what people think, but that your children have moral value no matter what anyone thinks, that is just a contradiction.

Ok, well, I guess it is then.

It’s a nice coincidence though that we live in a world where people are valued from birth. For no other reason other than they are a person in their own right. Of course not everyone does value everyone, but in the main, the majority do.

It has to be like that, or we’d soon disappear.

So, I suppose we could say it’s all subjective, but whether it is or not, it has to be like that, people have to be valued for their own intrinsic worth, or we as a species would simple fade.

We’re sensible enough to know this.

Sarah x

er why you are more willing to accept this contradiction than you are to accept the existence of God?
.

 

[atheistgirl]

Objective- independant of what people think or perceive
subjective- dependant on what people think or perceive.

But this ‘objectivity’ you’re talking about, is actually ‘‘subjective’’ in that it depends on what God thinks is morally worthy, valuable etc.

So if God decided for what ever reason that human life was worthless and meaningless, then it would be! That’s what you’re saying.

Now, I would say that every single homosexual and witch that ever lived had an intrinsic value and worth and purpose, regardless of what any Diety thought, or what any other person taught.

However, it’s in the Bible that these people are to be stoned to death, by God’s command.

So, had these homosexuals and witches any moral value worth and purpose or not?

Sarah x

 

[danserr]

But this ‘objectivity’ you’re talking about, is actually ‘‘subjective’’ in that it depends on what God thinks is morally worthy, valuable etc.

Sarah x

Objective moral value is not dependent on what God thinks, but on his nature, which is essentially just, loving, impartial etc.

As I said earlier, this does not make it subjective any more than the fact that the measurement of a book at 12 centimeters wide is subjective because it is relative to a meter.

Obviously, any measurement needs a standard. God is the objective standard of moral value in the same way that a meter is the objective standard of length. Hence a certain book is 12 cm wide, independent of what people think. And human beings have moral value independent of what people think because God exists as an objective standard of moral value.

So for your other objections, which basically boil down to “what if God thought people didn’t have moral value?”

So if God decided for what ever reason that human life was worthless and meaningless, then it would be! That’s what you’re saying.

Now, I would say that every single homosexual and witch that ever lived had an intrinsic value and worth and purpose, regardless of what any Diety thought, or what any other person taught.

However, it’s in the Bible that these people are to be stoned to death, by God’s command.

So, had these homosexuals and witches any moral value worth and purpose or not?

Objecting to God as the standard of moral value by asking “well, what if he commanded child rape?” is like objecting to a meter as an objective standard of length by asking “well, what if a meter was only 2 feet long?” Then it would not be a meter!

The God that we are discussing is by definition a being worthy of worship. A being that thought that people did not have moral value would not be worthy of worship. Hence that being would not be God!

So asking “what if God thought human life is worthless” is actually an incoherent question. It is like asking “if a square circle existed, how would we measure its area?”

As to God appearing to do mean things in the Bible. Think of what this would prove at most. At most, it shows that the Israelites were mistaken in thinking God commanded those things. They were doing their best, thought God wanted them to do that, and did it, but were just mistaken in thinking God actually did command that.

Put in this way, you see that your objection does not prevent God from being the source of objective moral value at all, at most it is an attack on Biblical inerrancy. In this case the Christian would just have to hold that the Bible (and maybe just the OT) is inspired, but not inerrant, which is not really a big deal.

Another possibility, (which I mention just so you know there are others), is that God had to gradually reveal his commands to people. Too much too soon would have overwhelmed them. For instance, today, if you were trying to introduce democracy into the Middle East, isn’t it plausible that the gradual route would be more effective? So, God gradually introduces his moral commands. At first, he allows an “eye for an eye” (thus setting limits on vengeance), later he commands to “turn the other cheek.” But this latter command probably would have been too much at first, just as it is too much for many people today!

p.s. homosexuals do indeed have objective moral value because God exists who is the objective standard of moral value, who loves all people, died for them, and wants them to be united with Him in eternal happiness.

What God objects to is not homosexual orientation, but homosexual actions (exactly why is a subject for another post). If this seems hard to grasp (I find it is for many non-Christians), then think of it this way: Many pedophiles would claim that theirs is an orientation, that they are just born that way. Nonetheless, we still object to pedophilic actions. The orientation is not the problem, the action is.

I don’t want to live forever, for the same reason I don’t want Superman to exist, or Batman. It doesn’t make sense and it’s fake. It’s natural to die. Always has been always will be. It’s fantasy to think someone can fly under their own power, and it’s fantasy to think I can live forever.

So you are saying you don’t want to live forever because you don’t think it is possible to. What if it was possible to?

Saying that human being can have eternal life is not like saying superman can fly. I know of no serious scholar employed at a major university who defends the idea that superman can fly. I know of many who think that there is good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (and hence we can too).

Nor did all these start out as biased Christians. Gary Habermas was an agnostic when he started his studies, and he became a Christian on the basis of his study of the Resurrection.

At the popular level, the same is true of Lee Strobel, an atheist journalist who decided to investigate Christianity the way a journalist would. He published his results as The Case For Christ.

 

[danserr]

So, I suppose we could say it’s all subjective, but whether it is or not, it has to be like that, people have to be valued for their own intrinsic worth, or we as a species would simple fade.

But that has been my point all through, that (if atheism is true) in order for people and society to live happily, we must believe something that is not true.! Like you said, we need to believe in objective moral value, but if atheism is true, they don’t exist.

But how would this work? Either we would be lying to ourselves and know it, in which case, how could the lie be effective? Or else, we would just let other people trick us into believing something that is not true (that we have moral value no matter what anyone thinks!) But don’t we normally think it is wrong to lie to others? Shouldn’t we believe what is true?

On the other hand, if God exists (as I have shown that the evidence of objective moral values shows), then we do have a basis for knowing that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks.

 

[danserr]

Throwing in my two cents, “not wanting [Yahweh] to exists” wasn’t even a factor for me. My desire was much to the contrary and that motivated further seeking and asking questions. All of the “supporting” reasons I received of found were most unconvincing. To summarize people had either personal evidence that could not be shared, what still comes across as an incredible leap (ex: “when I saw the baby smile I knew [Yahweh] exists”) and some said they didn’t really know, but were sticking with their custom just in case (Pascal’s wager).

I asked that specifically of this poster since she already indicated earlier that she didn’t want to live forever, which suggested bias. It wasn’t meant as an accusation, just as suggestion that she might consider if there were also other reasons that might bias her.

I’m sorry the evidence for the God that you considered was of such poor quality. If I could suggest some better stuff, (at the pop. level for now, but I can give you the scholarly sources behind them if you want):

The books by Lee Strobel are decent popularizations:
The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
On Guard, William Lane Craig

At a slightly higher level:
Reasonable Faith
I’ve also heard suggested:
Stephen Barr, Modern Physics, Ancient Faith

And Craig’s website has useful articles to start with if you don’t want to buy books.
reasonablefaith.org/

 

[atheistgirl]

On the other hand, if God exists (as I have shown that the evidence of objective moral values shows), then we do have a basis for knowing that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks.

I just don’t see it, I’m afraid. Even if I say ok, fine, there is a God, it simply doesn’t follow from saying ‘‘there is a God’’ that suddenly we have moral value and worth where previously there was none. This God could be a monster, as I said before, and the most corrupt immoral being in the whole of the universe. Just because a God exists, it simply doesn’t follow that this is a good thing.

I also don’t buy the God had to introduce things slowly arguement. It makes no sense. It’s dead straight forward, don’t kill, murder or pysically assault anyone. Simples. What’s so hard to understand about that? Why have a staged process? Eye for an eye, then, forget that, turn the other cheek? Nope, just say it straight.

My understanding is that the Bible is ‘inspired’’ by God. So this bit: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them is inspired by God.

The death penalty for a homosexual act, and exonoration for the executioners as the homosexuals blood is upon themselves??!!??

When I read things like this, I see how it ties up neatly with the primitive ideas of the people at the time. They feared women, witches, homosexuals, sorcerers, etc out of their ignorance. It was fine to kill them, because they weren’t fully human anyhow. And to make themselves feel better, co-incidently, this is also what God ‘‘inspired’’ them to think and write! Really?

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

I just don’t see it, I’m afraid. Even if I say ok, fine, there is a God, it simply doesn’t follow from saying ‘‘there is a God’’ that suddenly we have moral value and worth where previously there was none. This God could be a monster, as I said before, and the most corrupt immoral being in the whole of the universe. Just because a God exists, it simply doesn’t follow that this is a good thing.

I also don’t buy the God had to introduce things slowly arguement. It makes no sense. It’s dead straight forward, don’t kill, murder or pysically assault anyone. Simples. What’s so hard to understand about that? Why have a staged process? Eye for an eye, then, forget that, turn the other cheek? Nope, just say it straight.

My understanding is that the Bible is ‘inspired’’ by God. So this bit: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them is inspired by God.

The death penalty for a homosexual act, and exonoration for the executioners as the homosexuals blood is upon themselves??!!??

When I read things like this, I see how it ties up neatly with the primitive ideas of the people at the time. They feared women, witches, homosexuals, sorcerers, etc out of their ignorance. It was fine to kill them, because they weren’t fully human anyhow. And to make themselves feel better, co-incidently, this is also what God ‘‘inspired’’ them to think and write! Really?

Sarah x

Ahhh - the old Skeptics Annotated Bible. There is an anti-dote you know.

 

[atheistgirl]

Ahhh - the old Skeptics Annotated Bible. There is an anti-dote you know.

I googled bible and homosexuals for the relevant bit I was looking for, because I knew there was something there and I couldnt recall where.

What’s the anti-dote?

Sarah x

 

[itullian]

believing in God comes down to a leap in faith.

if the leap isn’t too great we can make it, if we choose to.

if we make that leap, and i think there are very good reasons to.

then we must figure out what is hia nature; caring? justice giving? loving? in nature? outside of nature?

thus helping us choose how we will relate to him.
religion

 

[danserr]

I googled bible and homosexuals for the relevant bit I was looking for, because I knew there was something there and I couldnt recall where.

Sarah x

Do you think that sort of googling and cherry-picking is really the best way to read the Bible? Would you read another source that way?

This God could be a monster, as I said before

Since, you brought it up…
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster
(He reads the Old Testament in context, not just cherry-picking difficult passages (which he does read and explain))

But as to your question:

it simply doesn’t follow from saying ‘‘there is a God’’ that suddenly we have moral value and worth where previously there was none.

Obviously! ! ! The reason, you keep misunderstanding me here is because of your refusal to talk about the Judeo- Christian God, who I am talking about. But how is that fair of you. It would be like if we were talking about Zeus, breaking in and talking about Buddha.

Obviously that a God exists, does not make life meaningful, but that is not my point. My point is that if God (the Judeo-Christian God) exists, then life has objective meaning, value and purpose. The Judeo-Christan God is a being worthy of worship, he is the in essence good and loving; He made man in His image, suffered and died for him, and wants man to enter a loving relationship with Him. You may doubt if such a God exists, but if He does, then it is easy to see how we can have an objective standard of meaning, value, and purpose.

It is not the mere existence of a god, but the existence of this God, the Judeo-Christian God, that would provide an objective standard for meaning, purpose, and value in life.

I also don’t buy the God had to introduce things slowly arguement. It makes no sense. It’s dead straight forward, don’t kill, murder or pysically assault anyone. Simples. What’s so hard to understand about that? Why have a staged process? Eye for an eye, then, forget that, turn the other cheek? Nope, just say it straight.

So, I gave two possible answers, you only replied to one.

You objected that how could God be the standard of moral value when he seems so mean in the Old Testament (and if you are genuinely curious rather than just looking for a stick to beat Christianity with, check out the Copan book).

I replied:

1 This does does not show that God is not the objective standard of moral value. It might be that the Israelites were just mistaken in thinking that God commanded those things. Hence God did not really command those things, the Israelites just thought He did.

This might mean we would have to accept that the Bible is inspired, but not necessarily inerrant in every respect, but I don’t see that that is a big deal. I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I read the Old Testament that way.

So no, a Catholic need not believe that the command that you cite was itself commanded by God.

1. Another possible answer is that God had to introduce his commands gradually. You disagree, but obviously there are cases it is plausible

• For example, I hold my freshman to a lower standard when I grade their writing than I hold my seniors. To demand too much too soon would not help and might hurt them! Gradually introducing the rules of grammar is better. The point being to, in the end, make them better writers.
• If introducing democracy in the Middle East, the best way would probably be to do it gradually. To much too soon would be too shocking and less likely to succeed.
  So if God commanded too much too soon, it might be too much for people. Of course, he would prefer that people would be good from the beginning, but knowing that human nature just isn’t like that, he has to introduce moral rules gradually.

God isn’t trying to cover his ***, rather he acts to try to help people become morally better and in the context of the ancient world (think how far people had to come), the requires a gradual approach. I don’t see that this is so unbelievable. I mean, you yourself admitted how different the moral context of the ancient world was, so considering how far people had to come, surely the gradual approach makes the most sense (even if it is not emotionally satisfying).

 

[atheistgirl]

Do you think that sort of googling and cherry-picking is really the best way to read the Bible? Would you read another source that way?

There’s nothing wrong with it. I could have said - that bit about homosexuals - or I could go to the trouble of looking it up, so you knew what bit I was refering to. I chose to look it up.

The Judeo-Christan God is a being worthy of worship, he is the in essence good and loving;

Who says so? A subjective human definition? If God says so Himself, then that His subjective definition of himself?

This does does not show that God is not the objective standard of moral value. It might be that the Israelites were just mistaken in thinking that God commanded those things. Hence God did not really command those things, the Israelites just thought He did.

And it might be that they were right, God inspired, and God did indeed command these things!

So no, a Catholic need not believe that the command that you cite was itself commanded by God.

This sounds rather convenient. There’s very akward bits attributed to a totally moral God, so, to get around it, just say those that received the divine inspiration, were mistaken!

Of course, he would prefer that people would be good from the beginning, but knowing that human nature just isn’t like that, he has to introduce moral rules gradually.

How do you gradually introduce the idea of ‘dont murder people!’???

Do you think we knew that was a seriously bad and unacceptable thing, before God spoke about it? Do you think we knew stealing was a seriously bad idea before God said it was wrong? Were there courts determining guilt and innocence on such matters before God intervened to say these things were wrong?

surely the gradual approach makes the most sense (even if it is not emotionally satisfying).

No not to me regarding killing, murder, stealing, adultry etc. Comparing slowly telling a bunch of people not to murder each other, because it’s wrong, with slowly introducing democracy in the middle east doesnt work. One is a profound cultural change and entire way of life, the other is simply doing what I suggest we know anyhow!
To suggest we needed to be told, murder is fine, then gradually ok, well dont murder just chop of limbs, then stop doing that just poke out an eye, then stop doing that, just give them a good slap, and finally, actually, I think you’re ready to deal with this now - don’t be physically violent or murder people at all, just doesnt work I’m afraid. We didn’t need to ever be told murdering someone is just plain wrong.

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

I googled bible and homosexuals for the relevant bit I was looking for, because I knew there was something there and I couldnt recall where.

What’s the anti-dote?

Sarah x

SAB Refuted

 

[someperson555]

YES. im a catholic i just want to make that clear. but sometimes i wish there was no God. think about it, if theres no God, then WE are Gods. we would be masters of our own destiny and free. we wouldnt have God and angels and demons bossing us around! im completely serious, i dont like being told what to do, i don like being told that i cant masterbate or else ill burn in hell forever. but unfortunately i know too much to become an atheist. i dont understand these other catholics who say “man if theres no God id be so saaaad”, or these atheists who say " man i wish there was a God". im a catholic and if i found out tomorrow that there was no God, id rejoice because that would be the day i find out that im FREE.

 

[buffalo]

YES. im a catholic i just want to make that clear. but sometimes i wish there was no God. think about it, if theres no God, then WE are Gods. we would be masters of our own destiny and free. we wouldnt have God and angels and demons bossing us around! im completely serious, i dont like being told what to do, i don like being told that i cant masterbate or else ill burn in hell forever. but unfortunately i know too much to become an atheist. i dont understand these other catholics who say “man if theres no God id be so saaaad”, or these atheists who say " man i wish there was a God". im a catholic and if i found out tomorrow that there was no God, id rejoice because that would be the day i find out that im FREE.

You are asking for license, not freedom.

 

[danserr]

danserr 9229186:

The Judeo-Christan God is a being worthy of worship, he is the in essence good and loving;

Who says so? A subjective human definition? If God says so Himself, then that His subjective definition of himself?

When I expressed the concern that you were cherry-picking the Bible, I meant going though it, solely for the purpose of picking out a tough passage to challenge a Christian with; yet making no effort to understand those passages in any sort of context.

As to (the Judeo-Christian) God being worthy of worship, essentially good and loving. That simply is his nature, how he objectively is no matter what we or anyone else believes. It is not a matter of God saying so, it is simply how He is. That is the concept of God we are discussing. (I mean, come one, if God exists, obviously He has certain nature, and that nature can be objectively described).

If your objection is some form of “how do we know that?” (which I think is what your objection really means), then I would say through a combination of reason and revelation. But now your objection is back to how we know, not what actually is (existence vs. knowing).

Again, the issue is that if (the Judeo-Christian) God exists, then we have an objective basis for meaning, value, and purpose in life. Your last objection does not challenge this, only asks how we know that God has those qualities. That is like saying “sure, but how do we know that God exists?” A legitimate question (and I gave you a couple ways already), but a separate one. Right now we are just making the point that if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then we have an objective basis for meaning, purpose, and value in life.

Now, we’ve come far off topic, but your most recent move is to try to claim that the Judeo-Christian God can’t provide a basis for objective moral value because He just seems so mean in the Old Testament (when you selectively choose passages at least).

Now, there are at least two intentional answers to this.
**

1. Perhaps God never commanded those things (killing the Canaanites, for example), but the Israelites were simply mistaken in thinking that God commanded those things. **

• This shows that bringing up God in the OT as you do is totally irrelevant because it does not call into question God’s goodness (He never commanded those things, the Israelites just mistakenly attributed such commands to Him), hence the only thing this calls into question is biblical inerrancy. A Christian would then have to hold that the Bible is inspired, but not necessarily inerrant. Not too big a deal.

You then raise the concern that *I * am cherry-picking, ie, just picking out the bad stuff with no reason and saying that God did not command that:

This sounds rather convenient. There’s very akward bits attributed to a totally moral God, so, to get around it, just say those that received the divine inspiration, were mistaken!

But it is not cherry-picking if we have a good reason for thinking God really didn’t command the passages in question. That comes from the New Testament and Jesus. Since Jesus was the final revelation of God, then Christians read the Old Testament in light of the New. Since from the New Testament, it seems unlike what we know of God that He would command such things, then we can reasonably infer that the ancient Israelites were mistaken in thinking that He did.

 

[danserr]

How do you gradually introduce the idea of ‘dont murder people!’???

Careful, you’ll use up all the question marks

My second suggestion for a way to explain those OT passages is:

**2. God has to gradually introduce his moral commands to a hard-hearted people (I believe stiff-necked is the term often used in the Bible), and so initially tolerates less than ideal behavior because asking too much too soon would only hurt. **

Now you suggest that this is wrong because people already knew that murder was wrong. Well that doesn’t work.

• even if people thought that murder was already wrong, they might still not have thought certain things counted as murder. For instance, if a murderer stands over my sister, about to plunge his knife into her chest, it is not murder if I shoot him to prevent that. It would be murder if he stole my lawnmower. But this is precisely what the code of Hammurabi allows! It does not consider this murder! ! ! Nor did many other ancient cultures. So, sure, other cultures might have thought murder was wrong, but disagreed on what counted as murder.

Actually, Paul Copan shows, the Israelite commands, when compared to other ancient cultures are actually far more mild and lenient. Other cultures were far worse! And surely, this makes sense. You yourself admitted how different ancient culture was from today’s.

You suggest that people knew these things were wrong anyway. But if this were true, then we should expect other cultures to be morally better than the ancient Jews. But the were not! Ancient cultures were far harsher. This supports that people did have to be gradually brought to know God.

So this takes us to my second suggestion. Let me try to explain it better. We know that ancient culture was very different from today, and most ancient cultures far worse than Jewish culture. We know that first the Jews believed in many gods and gradually came to believe Yahweh was the only one.

Now suppose God wants to bring this people to come to know him. At this point they are not too different from their neighbors, so He gradually introduces the idea that they are called to a more moral life and to place a higher value of human life and love of God. Instead of responding to a neighboring killing their cow by killing their neighbor, they are to only return an eye for an eye and kill the cow. (You see, an eye for an eye, was a first step designed to set limits on vengeance, not encourage it). Likewise with other commands. When you compare them to surrounding ancient cultures, Jewish culture is far more mild and lenient. Over time, God gradually brings this people to greater and greater awareness of his moral commands, culminating in His revelation of Himself in Jesus of Nazareth.

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).

Remember, what God wants is that we should come to know and love Him in this life, so that we can enter into a loving relationship with Him forever in the next. In order to attain this eternal good, He is willing to take into account human stubbornness (and you know people are), in order to gradually lead them to know Him.

So, the Old Testament does not give any reason for thinking that God could not the the source of objective moral value.

 

[danserr]

YES. im a catholic i just want to make that clear. but sometimes i wish there was no God. think about it, if theres no God, then WE are Gods. we would be masters of our own destiny and free. we wouldnt have God and angels and demons bossing us around! im completely serious, i dont like being told what to do, i don like being told that i cant masterbate or else ill burn in hell forever. but unfortunately i know too much to become an atheist. i dont understand these other catholics who say “man if theres no God id be so saaaad”, or these atheists who say " man i wish there was a God". im a catholic and if i found out tomorrow that there was no God, id rejoice because that would be the day i find out that im FREE.

youtube.com/watch?v=muLMGHh34jk

 

[Robert_Sock]

YES. im a catholic i just want to make that clear. but sometimes i wish there was no God. think about it, if theres no God, then WE are Gods. we would be masters of our own destiny and free. we wouldnt have God and angels and demons bossing us around! im completely serious, i dont like being told what to do, i don like being told that i cant masterbate or else ill burn in hell forever. but unfortunately i know too much to become an atheist. i dont understand these other catholics who say “man if theres no God id be so saaaad”, or these atheists who say " man i wish there was a God". im a catholic and if i found out tomorrow that there was no God, id rejoice because that would be the day i find out that im FREE.

I think the following quote pretty much covers why life in the Hereafter will be glorious. You’re thinking of Heaven in worldly terms.

*Just as a blind man is unable to form any idea about colors, or a deaf person to fathom what it means to hear sounds… so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul… For we live in a material world, and the only kind of pleasure we can understand is that experienced through our body. But the joys of the spirit are everlasting and ceaseless. There is no resemblance of any kind between the enjoyments of the soul and those of the body. (Maimonides) *