Would life be worth living if there was no God?

[atheistgirl]

One of the regulars here admitted to me that the only thing stopping him from molesting children, in a Godless Universe, would be the legal consequences.

Well, if that’s true, their details should be passed to the authorities as they are a potential danger to any child they come in contact with

What happens if they lose their religion for some reason???

That’s both shocking, and disgusting!

Sarah x

 

[danserr]

I don’t think one needs a god or God to live a life of moral worth, value and purpose.

I am saying, very clearly, without God, life has does indeed have ‘objective’ value, purpose and meaning.

You can tie me up in knots with your philosophizing, but the fact remains, for me, call it subjective, objective, whatever you like, it doesn’t matter. To me, these are just word games.

My life, and your life, is of value and worth, irrespective of what you or I or anyone else thinks

Again, stop mocking what I am saying as just “my philosophizing,” it’s not “my” philosophy, it’s just plan reason. I am not trying to tie you in knots either, just to show you the implications of your beliefs.

Remember the definitions we are going by:
objective- independent of what people think
subjective- dependent on what people think

Now, I’m glad that you are back to saying that human beings do have moral value “no matter what anyone thinks.” You are contradicting what you said earlier (post 38), when you said:

Everything is subjective and relative. Everything

When I pointed out that it was contradictory to believe that moral values do not exist independent of what people think, but that people have moral value no matter what anyone thinks. You agreed (post 123):

Ok, well, I guess it is then.

but then said we needed to believe that we have moral value because otherwise the world would be ugly (same post):

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.

This is why I said that you deny that objective moral values (independent of what anyone think’s) exist, but think that we need to pretend they do anyway. This was the position of Dr. La Rue who agreed that “intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case” and said that we should deceive ourselves by a Noble Lie into thinking that we and the universe still had value.

So, now you have changed your position to affirm that objective moral values do exist, (no matter what anyone thinks) even though God does not exist. I agree that objective moral values do exist, but I don’t see how this could possible be true if God does not exist.

If does does not exist the moral values we guide our lives by would just be a matter of social convention (like driving on one side of the street or another), or evolutionary forces. This is why the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse say that morality is just a biological adaptation like hands or feet.

So if atheism is true, I don’t see how we can have objective moral values, but if we cannot have objective moral values, then we have no way to say that people have moral value “no matter what anyone thinks.”

Yet, as you recognize, we cannot live happily with that view. You are on one hand don’t want to believe that God exists, so on one hand claim that everything is relative and subjective, but on the other hand, still want to maintain that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks.

If Christianity is true, though, then we do have a basis for affirming that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks because God exists as an objective standard of this value. And this is easy to see. If a God who created man in his image, who loved man, suffered and died for him and wants man to enter into a loving relationship with Him exists, then it is easy to see how we can affirm that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks.

You raise a couple objections to this (the OT image of God). That will be the subject of my next post.

 

[danserr]

I don’t think I’m being unfair. I’m skeptical in all aspects of my life to do with people and things I don’t intimately know.

It was you who said that the OT writers might have got things wrong, not me. On that basis, I asked isnt it possible they got other things wrong, like the nature of God. It’s a fair question, and I think the answer is yes.

Sarah x

You said that since the Bible might be wrong is some ways, we should not trust it in any ways.

I objected to this as radical skepticism that looks like you are looking more for an excuse to disbelieve the Bible than fairly considering the issue. The reason I say this is that you would not hold any other source to this standard. Think about it. No source is perfect, even modern ones. If you used the same logic you are using here and applied it to modern sources, you could never trust any source or know anything.

Believers know God’s nature from where? The Bible? And the Bible was written by men, inspired as they may have been, but according to you, most likely making errors.

I answered this. We don’t only know God from the OT, but also from the NT. Just because the OT might be mistaken in some ways, it doesn’t mean that the NT is. It was written by different authors at a different time when people knew more.

Second, we confirm much of our picture of God by philosophical and theological reasoning. So it is not just reading the OT that we find out what God is like.

Now, your main objection to God not being able to be the source of objective moral value was that he seemed so mean in the OT, in my post 137 and 138, I gave an extended answer of this.

My first possible answer was that:

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 object that God should have prevented any errors:

God is God - right? If people got his message wrong, He could have so easily corrected them, right

This is what Christian fundamentalists think, but I am not one and don’t take that view. Certainly, he could have, I don’t see that he had to or even that it would have helped to (more on that below).

As to your other objection:

And I dont think these’s any part of the NT where Jesus says these people got it all wrong when they were murdering women and babies wholesale, killing witches and homosexuals and naughty children, is there? I could be wrong on that though.

Yes, you are mistaken here. Jesus repeatedly expressed his love of children and his pardoning of the woman caught in adultery (let he without sin cast the first stone) would have applied to homosexuals as well. So yes, this supports what I have said about Jesus suggesting that the OT commands were only temporary commands for a stubborn people. Again, this is just a distraction, but I still wanted to answer it.

 

[danserr]

Now to my central point:
**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. **

You are skeptical, so let me lay it out very clearly:

1. The ancient culture surrounding Israel were actually far harsher than Israel.

• Now you try to deny this when you claim that people didn’t need to be told gradually that murder was wrong. Maybe, but in different cultures, different things counted as murder.
• For example, the code of Hammurabi, which you refer to, did not consider it murder to kill a person for theft. Ancient Israel did consider that murder (Copan p.93).
• Ancient Egyptian law included punishments where the nose or ear was cut off, while the Code of Hammurabi included cutting off the tongue, breast, ear, or nose as certain punishments.

1. (from my post 138)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, at this point, you object:

Pointing the finger at someone else and saying they’re worse than us is no defense or justification.

I totally disagree with you, and never agreed with you, that God needed to slowly introduce things. I think that’s complete nonsense. He didnt. I said very clearly He could have just said it straight. Like he did with no more worshipping of strange gods.

So, why did God introduce his commands gradually? Well as I say (post 138):

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).

In this case, the God would not have been able to bring the Israelites to know and love Him, so he has to introduce His moral laws gradually. Even today, the demands of Christianity are too much for many people. How much more the case then in a totally different social context!

So, it is not about pointing the finger and saying “well they are worse, so we are not that bad,” it is about why God accepted less than ideal behavior from his people at first. He knew asking too much too soon would not help and might hurt, so he gradually revealed Himself to them.

 

[buffalo]

Not according to many articles I’ve read.

I

I don’t know? Was that the first time God instructed his people? I thought the commandments were God’s first instruction, written in stone, but I’m prepared to be corrected if they’re not.
Are there earlier references to God instructing his people not contained in the Bible, because I thought the Biblical account was the first, and in that case, we know we have much earlier codes concerning murder, theft, false witness, divorce, property etc that came from kings and rulers, not from God. That’s why I mentioned the co-incidence of the commands matching up nicely with what we already knew - before God got involved!

Sarah x

You gotta get out more…

The Bible records God graced Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts.

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   ] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   ] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.) **
   ] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.) **
   ] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.) **
   ] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) **
   ] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) **
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] *Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) **
   ] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.) **
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

 

[buffalo]

You are honestly saying that some one believing in God would stop them from murdering some one?

Sarah x

Indeed. We are born with concupiscence, but with the help of God we strive for self mastery.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t be so surprised - this is a very common (if altogether stunning) admission by Believers. One of the regulars here admitted to me that the only thing stopping him from molesting children, in a Godless Universe, would be the legal consequences.

If everything is relative, what would be the problem? The more powerful take what they want.

And in a Godless universe what would be the issue? Pagans did it all the time. Believers did it even though they knew it to be wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Well, if that’s true, their details should be passed to the authorities as they are a potential danger to any child they come in contact with

What happens if they lose their religion for some reason???

That’s both shocking, and disgusting!

Sarah x

I would like you to really think about this. Why is it shocking and disgusting? Why does it affect you this way?

 

[buffalo]

Now to my central point:
**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. **

You are skeptical, so let me lay it out very clearly:

1. The ancient culture surrounding Israel were actually far harsher than Israel.

• Now you try to deny this when you claim that people didn’t need to be told gradually that murder was wrong. Maybe, but in different cultures, different things counted as murder.
• For example, the code of Hammurabi, which you refer to, did not consider it murder to kill a person for theft. Ancient Israel did consider that murder (Copan p.93).
• Ancient Egyptian law included punishments where the nose or ear was cut off, while the Code of Hammurabi included cutting off the tongue, breast, ear, or nose as certain punishments.

1. (from my post 138)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, at this point, you object:

So, why did God introduce his commands gradually? Well as I say (post 138):

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).

In this case, the God would not have been able to bring the Israelites to know and love Him, so he has to introduce His moral laws gradually. Even today, the demands of Christianity are too much for many people. How much more the case then in a totally different social context!

So, it is not about pointing the finger and saying “well they are worse, so we are not that bad,” it is about why God accepted less than ideal behavior from his people at first. He knew asking too much too soon would not help and might hurt, so he gradually revealed Himself to them.

I was about to get to some of the problems with the Code of Hammurabi. Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Can’t answer – question is self-defeating! God is the source of all life.

 

[atheistgirl]

If Christianity is true, though, then we do have a basis for affirming that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks because God exists as an objective standard of this value. And this is easy to see. If a God who created man in his image, who loved man, suffered and died for him and wants man to enter into a loving relationship with Him exists, then it is easy to see how we can affirm that human beings have moral value no matter what anyone thinks.

Forgive the way I express myself at times - I most certainly am not mocking anything you say.

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.

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

 

[atheistgirl]

, but I am not one and don’t take that view.

Perhaps Im a fundamentalist Christian at heart

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.

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.

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.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

The ancient culture surrounding Israel were actually far harsher than Israel.

• Now you try to deny this when you claim that people didn’t need to be told gradually that murder was wrong. Maybe, but in different cultures, different things counted as murder.
• For example, the code of Hammurabi, which you refer to, did not consider it murder to kill a person for theft. Ancient Israel did consider that murder (Copan p.93).
• Ancient Egyptian law included punishments where the nose or ear was cut off, while the Code of Hammurabi included cutting off the tongue, breast, ear, or nose as certain punishments.
  .

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

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

These were the people who had God’s ear!!! Directly!!!

God told them to stop worshiping other gods over night!!! Simple.

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

And as I said, these actions, keeping women as property, slaves, multiple wifes, all tided in very nicely with what they were doing anyhow - odd how God didnt command them to stop doing the things they very much enjoyed at the time!!!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I would like you to really think about this. Why is it shocking and disgusting? Why does it affect you this way?

With respect, it’s not me you need to talk to.

You need to talk to the believer here who said they would have sex with children if he didnt believe there was a God!!!

The believer who’s only reason for not molesting children is because he thinks God is watching.

That person has just admitted to being a pedophile.

It’s him you need to talk to!!!

And Report!!!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I would like you to really think about this. Why is it shocking and disgusting? Why does it affect you this way?

I have serious problems with an individual who has to ask why having sex with children is shocking and disgusting!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

The Bible records God graced Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts.

All church documents that back up the church position? I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take from that. It would hardly be otherwise would it?

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

I have serious problems with an individual who has to ask why having sex with children is shocking and disgusting!

Sarah x

I think you are proving my point.

Just because I asked you to answer why you react with shock and disgust in no way implies that I think it is OK. It isn’t.

I know why you really don’t want to answer directly.

 

[buffalo]

All church documents that back up the church position? I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take from that. It would hardly be otherwise would it?

Sarah x

Well you make the same case that Hammurabi is first and so that makes your case?

And no it wouldn’t. Catholics understand the record to be well preserved.

Again, you discredit a book you like becuase the original is lost? Perhaps Hammurabi is a corruption as the Epic of Giglamesh is? It is irrational to believe the corrupted source is truer than the original.

 

[atheistgirl]

I know why you really don’t want to answer directly.

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

 

[atheistgirl]

Again, you discredit a book you like becuase the original is lost? Perhaps Hammurabi is a corruption as the Epic of Giglamesh is? It is irrational to believe the corrupted source is truer than the original.

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