If you don’t believe in God, why are you mad at religious people or religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

well most peoples have a version of the golden rule. That is pretty much universal. and the 10 commandments, at least nos. 5-10 aren't far off either

Nonsense. The “values” you reference typically apply only within the “self” group. Countless cultures and peoples, past and present, have considered all sorts of dreadful behavior perfectly acceptable and even desirable when directed at “suitable” targets.

Pretty sure "do unto others" is more or less universal. Of course it's only an ideal, or aspiration. You're correct of course that in practice many peoples have done dreadful things, but I don't think that's inherent in their cultures. Can you name a couple?

No it really isn’t. Look at feudal Japan with its rigid social classes and the ability of one class in particular to kill on the spot anyone who displeased them. Or certain native cultures that valued and rewarded dishonesty, brutal violence and the like. Or slave-owning cultures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

"Coming up with" is pretty easy, but "living with" is something completely different. See the history of the Jews in the Old Testament for example. How many times dis they disobey God? But they're only human, after all. Created in God's image and all that, so what do you expect?

Actually, the God’s image part is the good part. The darkening of the intellect and the corruption and misuse of free will attributable to human choices is where problems arise.

But God gave them free will and then punished them for using it. That's always been a conundrum to me.

“Allowed their freely chosen actions to have their natural consequences” is probably a better term than “punished,” I think. You have to recall (while bearing in mind the allegory involved) that prior to the Fall, our first parents had perfect intellects and uncorrupted will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

How about justice? That's a universal concept pretty much worldwide. Of course it will manifest itself in different ways, but it's still a universal moral principle.

Universal, perhaps, in the sense of people creating definitions to justify their behavior. Slavery has been considered “just” under any number of grounds through the ages. Extermination of native peoples has been considered “just.”

[Anonymous]

I believe in God, but I don't like how some religions or religious people try to force their beliefs onto others, making religion is a source of division and conflict. How many wars have by caused or directly influenced by religion...The Crusades, Thirty Years War, The French Wars of Religion, The Reconquista, Israel-Palestine, Yugoslav Wars, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe in God, but I don't like how some religions or religious people try to force their beliefs onto others, making religion is a source of division and conflict. How many wars have by caused or directly influenced by religion...The Crusades, Thirty Years War, The French Wars of Religion, The Reconquista, Israel-Palestine, Yugoslav Wars, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, etc.

I don't get this complaint against religion. I mean, it has a nice ring to it at first glance but it doesn't make logical sense. Do you expect religions to just be nonchalant about whether it spreads, about whether it is forced into extinction? Any serious religion will believe that it holds some truth that is important for human flourishing or salvation. People will want to defend and spread that truth. Someone who just thinks "well this is my truth and works for me but to each their own" is not talking about a religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Tell you what:

Why don’t you explain the source of the “basic human morality” referred to by PP, if you believe in the same, and how the specifics thereof can be derived without a universal reference point?

Be sure to cite evidence lest your thoughts be “summarily dismissed.”

Again you fail at logic. Whether or not someone else can prove a different idea does not have any bearing on whether or not you have proved yours.

You have not proved yours.

100% fail.

[Anonymous]

Your sister may be depressed. This can lead to disorganised thinking. She needs professional help. Encourage her to talk to her doctor, even if it's just about the weight gain. This can get the ball rolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Tell you what:

Why don’t you explain the source of the “basic human morality” referred to by PP, if you believe in the same, and how the specifics thereof can be derived without a universal reference point?

Be sure to cite evidence lest your thoughts be “summarily dismissed.”

Again you fail at logic. Whether or not someone else can prove a different idea does not have any bearing on whether or not you have proved yours.

You have not proved yours.

100% fail.

Different poster but it seems totally logical to demand an explanation from your side first. Way I see it, first question is: do you believe in basic human morality? If no, then no point in discussing. If yes, then logical assumption is it must come from some universal reference point. If you disagree with that logical leap, you need to come up with an alternative logical conclusion. You haven't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Tell you what:

Why don’t you explain the source of the “basic human morality” referred to by PP, if you believe in the same, and how the specifics thereof can be derived without a universal reference point?

Be sure to cite evidence lest your thoughts be “summarily dismissed.”

Again you fail at logic. Whether or not someone else can prove a different idea does not have any bearing on whether or not you have proved yours.

You have not proved yours.

100% fail.

I'm not sure whose side I'm on in this (boring) controversy, but let's face it, one of the first things that happened in the OT was Cain slew Abel (out of jealousy no less), then Jacob stole Essau's birthright (for personal gain) -- and the human behavior in the Bible just get's worse and worse after that. Maybe there are certain indicators of basic human morality (like loving your parents, family kinship) but those, of course, don't stop humans from being awful to each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Tell you what:

Why don’t you explain the source of the “basic human morality” referred to by PP, if you believe in the same, and how the specifics thereof can be derived without a universal reference point?

Be sure to cite evidence lest your thoughts be “summarily dismissed.”

Again you fail at logic. Whether or not someone else can prove a different idea does not have any bearing on whether or not you have proved yours.

You have not proved yours.

100% fail.

Different poster but it seems totally logical to demand an explanation from your side first. Way I see it, first question is: do you believe in basic human morality? If no, then no point in discussing. If yes, then logical assumption is it must come from some universal reference point. If you disagree with that logical leap, you need to come up with an alternative logical conclusion. You haven't.

No no no no no. This is not how logic works. This is not how any proof works. This is not how trials work. This is not how debates work. And most importantly this is not how anyone, including YOU, determines the answer to any seemingly unknowable question.

For instance, if I claim “The moons of Jupiter have delicious caramel centers” , do you accept that unless you can prove that they are made of something else? Of course not. I can’t say “Well unless you can tell me what IS at the center of the moons of Jupiter you will have to accept they are made of delicious caramel!” That would be ridiculous.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

I could simply say “I don’t know”. And guess what? I do. You are the one making the claim. You are the one beginning with an unproved presupposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe in God, but I don't like how some religions or religious people try to force their beliefs onto others, making religion is a source of division and conflict. How many wars have by caused or directly influenced by religion...The Crusades, Thirty Years War, The French Wars of Religion, The Reconquista, Israel-Palestine, Yugoslav Wars, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, etc.

Religion unfortunately is prone to exploitation for political reasons. The Northern Island situation you mention is an example. The real issue there was/is sovereignty/independence. If the religion labels weren’t available the people behind the conflict would have to find some other label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Tell you what:

Why don’t you explain the source of the “basic human morality” referred to by PP, if you believe in the same, and how the specifics thereof can be derived without a universal reference point?

Be sure to cite evidence lest your thoughts be “summarily dismissed.”

Again you fail at logic. Whether or not someone else can prove a different idea does not have any bearing on whether or not you have proved yours.

You have not proved yours.

100% fail.

That you are unable to comprehend the logic inherent in the proposition that a moral absolute requires some overweening authority beyond the relativistic assertions of one group or another does not invalidate the proposition.

You reject Aquinas as “presuppositional” and “nonsense,” both pretty big pills to swallow, but fail to recognize that in the example given there is no “presupposition.” Aquinas uses inference from observed reality to draw conclusions about things that cannot be directly scene. He does not “presuppose” God; he adopts the label “God” for the being that inferential reasoning reveals from that being’s effects.

None of this debate, however, relates to the fundamental principle that there is a choice between relativism and absolutes in the moral sphere and that an absolute must come from an absolute source, hence from God. The “proof” for this proposition (if any can be demanded) is inherent in the proposition itself and in the application of reason to the question.

So you are free to reject whatever you like but unless you in fact are that final arbiter of right and wrong that is labeled for convenience sake as “God,” you’ll need to come up with some refutation if you hope to move the discussion beyond the capricious confines of “is too; is not; is too.”

And as a PP observed, debating a proposition typically requires either an alternative proposition or an admission of not knowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

That is a claim you have to prove or it is easy to dismiss BS.

You’re not paying attention.

The very idea of “right,” “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” require some authoritative reference point, some “lawgiver.” Otherwise relativism takes over. What one person thinks is good (typically for them) someone else will decide is evil (typically because it has a negative effect on them). All sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West disapprove of on grounds of “basic human morality” used to be thought of as perfectly OK in the West, and still are in other places. Likewise, all sorts of behaviors that present day people in the West think are fine used to be roundly condemned in the West and still are in much of the world.

If history proves anything it is that human beings are very poor at coming up and living in accord with any sort of “universal morality.”

It is a common philosophical error to blame some human-defined “god” for this or that. Philosophically, “God” is the label people have come up with for a being with a certain set of immutable attributes that exist independent of that label. What is right or wrong can only be measured by comparison to some objective perfection — one of the attributes of “God.”

That’s a lot of words, which started with an unnecessary insult. And yet no evidence of your claim is presented, and it can be therefore summarily dismissed.

Wow. “Summarily dismissed.” How about that.

Aquinas will be heartbroken.

Aquinas’ presuppositional nonsense has been disassembled many times. There are many links, I will post some if you don’t want to google them.

But your assertions are by no means as thoughtful as his, and for yours we only need Hitchens’ Razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

In your defense I don’t think your point is weak because you aren’t intelligent or thoughtful. It’s because your presuppositional position is not defensible with logic, whether you are you, or Aquinas.

Tell you what:

Why don’t you explain the source of the “basic human morality” referred to by PP, if you believe in the same, and how the specifics thereof can be derived without a universal reference point?

Be sure to cite evidence lest your thoughts be “summarily dismissed.”

Again you fail at logic. Whether or not someone else can prove a different idea does not have any bearing on whether or not you have proved yours.

You have not proved yours.

100% fail.

That you are unable to comprehend the logic inherent in the proposition that a moral absolute requires some overweening authority beyond the relativistic assertions of one group or another does not invalidate the proposition.

Correct. What invalidates your claim is the fact that you have not proved it in any way. You are simply stating the claim and demanding it be accepted. Not how logic works. Proved that claim above first, then we can move on to the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She raises a good question, if God can control it all, why he just sits and watches whole chaos for entertainment?

But she doesn’t believe in God.

She's exasperated by YOUR belief since it defies logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they keep it to themselves. Meaning: stop making laws based on your holy book and not on basic human morality.

There is no “basic human morality” without the reference point people refer to as “God.”

If the only reason you are a good person if the ongoing threat of divine retribution, then you aren't much good at all.

+1. Anyone saying there is no purpose to being moral, no ability to be moral, no compass point to morality without god, are just brainwashed into thinking so.