Why don't you believe in God?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why is ripping out the hearts of babies or any other action like that wrong? A Christian may say "because my god says so", I say "because it hurts the baby and it's loved ones".


We'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which position is more "moral".
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OK - I put my hand up - I only understand half of what you say. And even then your logic is weird to me.

Isn't the question based on morals? And you don't need to be a skeptic or subjectivist to have decent morals ... i.e. do unto others, etc.

Which brings me to the reason I am a non-believer. Because I don't need a religion to teach me how to behave. I have an innate sense of it. Much like an ant knows how to fit into that complex march.


So morality as instinct? Objective truth about right and wrong is "independent of the knower and his consciousness" and "is what is" because it is just there, instinctual.

But this does not fit our experience of right and wrong. No instinct in itself is always right. But morality is always right. Therefore, morality is not just an instinct.

Think of our instincts as notes. Morality tells us when to play them, and how. Morality is a law which tells our instincts what they SHOULD do in different situations. Instincts "are," while morality is what "should be."

An instinctualist says "This is my innate sense," then "Therefore, this is what ought to be done." That syllogism needs one more step to be true: "All innate senses should be followed." But that second step is obviously false.


Not the pp... but morality is always right? While there may be some common trends, morals vary from society to society and change over time and I can think of some times when a society's perception on what was morally acceptable would be considered wrong by today's standards and my own.

I mentioned this before but many common trends in morals have an evolutionary purpose. Some people jump to "they're the same therefore it's god!!!" but I think that's flawed considering that gods aren't even proven to exist.


#1 If cultures differ about morality, then morality is subjective and relative.
#2 Cultures do differ about morality.
#3 Therefore, morality is subjective and relative.

#1 Is false. Cultures can err, just like people. What is culturally relative is opinions about morality, not right and wrong itself.
#2 is false in a more nuanced way. No culture has ever existed that lived an entirely, universal set of alternate values. Courage, wisdom, kindness, temperance, faithfulness, loyalty, steadfastness were never all thought to be WRONG, just as lying, cheating, raping, killing, selfishness, arrogance, and laziness were all thought to be RIGHT.

Anthropology does not discover a diversity of morality, just opinions about morality. Morality is objective truth about right and wrong.


Ah, right! Morality is objective. How do we know this? Because while different times and people come to different conclusions, that just means the people have erred. In fact, "what is culturally relative is opinions about morality, not right or wrong. Why? Because morality is objective. Why because God says so. This is also why God exists.

I don't mean to be harsh, but...seriously? This is an argument?
Anonymous
The bible has been the same for 2,000 years, give or take a few translational changes. The general consensus on morality has not been a constant.

Also, killing is only wrong most of the time. So, it's also subjective. Killing someone for personal gain? Not ok! Killing someone to keep them from killing you or someone else? Ok! Mercy killing? Hmm, maybe ok. Honor killings? Not ok here. It's all the same act of taking the life of another.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.


I'm sorry, but your last sentence is begging the question: "skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof. It just logically is.". You assume your conclusion.

"Objective" does not mean "impersonal.". It is not an attitude--you are right.


You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.


Not at all. But first, can you define a skeptic (of objective truth regarding God and right and wrong) in a way that satisfies you without begging the question?


I am not assuming my own conclusion. You are free to provide proof of God's existence. If you do, the conclusion cannot be begged.


PP, I am sorry about the brevity of my last post. I tried texting while elliptical-ing, and my experiment failed

Presenting all of the arguments for the existence of God in this forum is pretty much impossible, and my little mind is not the best one to present them. A book on my nightstand offers 20 arguments, beginning with Aquinas' five ways, and including some that claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. I will defer to greater minds.

But I have a confession to make. I started this thread because I have been struggling with doubt. And so I wanted to go back to the beginning. And for me, that starts with one question: is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies? Is anything actually wrong?

God has filled the earth with evidence of His existence, but not His direct presence. (Hence, the PPs' request that God just open up the skies and give His morning report). His existence is reasonable, but not obvious. That ambiguity is the space for our freedom. There is a difference between proving a preposition and accepting a preposition. I might be able to prove God exists, and that there is objective right and wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt. But you could still choose to reject those prepositions.

To fall back on C.S. Lewis (sorry if that annoys anyone):

"The Irresistable and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of [God's] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo."

I can see how if a believer already takes for granted the existence of gods, that CS Lewis--who seems to do a good job string together a lot of reasonable-sounding assertions into the appearance of a rational underpinning--would be quite compelling.

Each of these quotes take the same form: "First, assume God exists. Further, clearly he's a Christian. Therefore, ignoring his existence would be like ignoring the symptoms of cancer. You wouldn't ignore cancer, right? You'd go to a doctor! Therefore, belief in God is rational."

It's a fig-leaf of rationality.
Anonymous
We demand the truth from our spouses, our doctors, our employers, and the labels on our food. But many PPs insist there is no objective truth for morality, right and wrong. This seems to be more on volitional, rather than intellectual, grounds. No reasonable alternative for objective truth about right and wrong has been offered yet. But everyone here wants to say that at least one thing is wrong...killing an innocent child in cold blood, violent rape, cheating on a spouse...why is anything objectively, truly wrong?

Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate the truth when it convicts us. That was my problem. I chose not to accept the evidence presented to me because I did not want to have to submit to an ultimate, objective authority.

That recalcitrance does not do away with the objective truth that an ultimate Authority exists.
Anonymous
I think if people were better at accepting the finality of death and the fact that there is no guarantee of justice or fairness, we would not have religion. Being social creatures, we also have a hard time with the thought of being alone on our planet.

As a matter of human nature, we want to think of things as fair. We also have a hard time letting go of the people and relationships we cherish. If someone needs the idea of a higher power to work through these feelings, more power to them.
Anonymous
I think the matter of morality is a matter of how we can relate and empathize.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:We demand the truth from our spouses, our doctors, our employers, and the labels on our food. But many PPs insist there is no objective truth for morality, right and wrong. This seems to be more on volitional, rather than intellectual, grounds. No reasonable alternative for objective truth about right and wrong has been offered yet. But everyone here wants to say that at least one thing is wrong...killing an innocent child in cold blood, violent rape, cheating on a spouse...why is anything objectively, truly wrong?


Again, you haven't got an argument here. Just that you would really, really like for "truth" (which you haven't defined) to be "objective". Therefore it is. No idea what you're talking about when you say "this seems to be more volitional rather than intellectual".

Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate the truth when it convicts us. That was my problem. I chose not to accept the evidence presented to me because I did not want to have to submit to an ultimate, objective authority. That recalcitrance does not do away with the objective truth that an ultimate Authority exists.


You've presented no evidence whatsoever. Except your continued assertions that there's evidence.

More circularity: a Christian god exists because truth is objective. Truth is objective because Augustine said so. Did I mention Augustine was really smart?

You say "truth" is objective. I don't think you're clear on what "truth" is.

You argue that because truth is objective, there must be an "ultimate Authority". That doesn't follow: morality could very well be a biological imperative. It could be instinctual. Why isn't that more plausible?

You wave away evidence that morality differs from place to place and culture to culture. You say that since there's an objective reality, any deviation from that objective reality must be an "error". But you don't say why that has to be the case. Should gays be stoned? Should women be consigned to the home, and prevented from working? Which is the obejctively moral position? Who says so? The "ultimate Authority".

Okay, so I don't believe your "ultimate Authority" exists, you've given no evidence that truth is objective, all you've done is point out that "everyone here wants to say at least one thing is wrong". That is, individual humans have opinions on what is proper, and improper behavior. That hardly seems a relevatory point to make.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.


I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.


I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.


I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.


I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."


Puh-leeze. You're so full of shit.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.


I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.


I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."


If true, my guess is they wanted to let you feel like you were doing something, and that since they knew you were religious, figured that would be a nice thing for both of you. Similar to how I would tell one of my atheist friends, "We'll be thinking about you."

The fact that you seem bitter and resentful about it kind of shows more what a horrible Christian you are than anything about your acquaintance. Weird how most self-professed "Christians" so often engage in this kind of anti-proselytizing. How come you never see, for example, a Bhuddist Fred Phelps?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.


I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.


I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."


Also, kudos for your loss: I'm sure it was quite hurtful when that person's child died, and she wasn't as gracious as she could've been. That must've been so tough for you.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.


I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.


I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."


Also, kudos for your loss: I'm sure it was quite hurtful when that person's child died, and she wasn't as gracious as she could've been. That must've been so tough for you.



"kudos" == "deepest sympathies". Again, I hope you can get past this difficult memory.
Anonymous
I find this conversation fascinating. I love it. The question for me is not why do I need believe in God, but rather when did I begin to doubt there really was this all knowing benevolent God that I used to worship. I was raised a southern baptist with all the prejudices that the religion carries. Everybody was going to he'll accept the baptist. I guess a few Methodist would slip through the pearly gates. I was taught that as long as I confessed my sins, no matter how heinous I would see Jesus. As a child this did not make sense. Why would a rapist, murderer, racist or practicing skin head receive deliverance on his dying bed by using huis last breath to say "father I believe in your son. In the name of Jesus, forgive me". Yet, someone in Cuba who is a good, decent, forgiving loving person is condemned because of their beliefs or lack thereof. It is when I began questioning. Throughout the years as I vacillated back and forth I think it finally hit me that something about religion period was a crock. I sat in church and a deacon said "the reason there is so much suffering in those other countries (Haiti, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.) is because they are heathens. They don't have God. They don't know Jesus". The preacher agreed That was enough for me. Funny thing, in those countries the people are big believers in God. They pray incessantly. They may call God by different names, but they believe they can pray the misery away. I guess it is hard to imagine a loving god that would require a mother to choose one child over another to save from starvation. Is it free will for the child or the mother when we discuss free will.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.


I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.


I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."


That's interesting. My father and I are very close. He was diagnosed with a terribly aggressive and deadly form of cancer. I didn't ask anyone to pray for him and I said no prayers. My mother, though, told me I didn't really love or care about him if I wasn't praying for his full recovery.
post reply Forum Index » Religion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: