Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Of course, they are wrong. They harm people and cause suffering.

People like you terrify me. You are basically saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would run amok and cause great harm and suffering to other people. You project your lack of control onto atheists.

No, you are constructing a straw man. Obviously, atheists can be good without a BELIEF in God. But there can be no such thing as good or bad without God. God is the ultimate GOOD, the real Truth, the complete perfect standard.

Your standard of "wrong" is harming people, causing them suffering. That's to be commended--you are not a sadist. Unfortunately, a great deal of humanity would disagree with your standard of "wrong." Indeed, some of the happiest and most successful humans got to where they are/were by harming other people. But they don't care. They do not see humans as anything special. And after all, if we are just another primate, the result of a mindless evolutionary chain, with a life that ends with the destruction of our bodies, we are nothing special.

And if preventing suffering is a standard, then I assume mercy killing of human beings would fit? If the person did not know it was coming, and was emancipated from a painful or unhappy state, what's the harm? There are too many old people in the world right now--soon, it will be a crisis. Why not terminate every old person who has no one who cares about him/her? Or maybe just the ones who are alone and out of their minds?

Hmmm...some people would think that was an excellent idea. Other people would think it was barbaric. Who is right? Who is wrong? Why do we have a notion of justice when there is nothing but injustice all around us?

We all violate the moral law. But there is, in fact, violation.

The "of course" at the start of your post is your acknowledgement of that reality.

If you are a good Catholic, you know that God reveals himself in Natural Law, which means that we can observe the truth about right and wrong from the nature of the universe itself. If good is observable through nature, then the atheist has a plausible argument for a priori good without God.

Yes, again, an atheist can observe, discover, and realize the difference between good and evil without BELIEF in God, because there is Natural Law. But without an ACTUAL God, there would be no good/evil to find. There would just be the brute fact of existence, no more or less.

An atheist could not even entertain the concept of right and and wrong without there being an ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong, which is God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's dumb; I just don't believe. To me, it's akin to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I haven't "wrestled with it" and it doesn't bother me. It also doesn't bother me if others believe. To each their own.

My thought too.

I am small "R" religious, in that I am spiritual and believe in karma and the golden rule. But the idea of a divine being, especially a benevolent one, strikes me as a load of crap if you see the world around us. And the story of Jesus strikes me as a quaint fairy tale based on some historical events that don't at all add up to the story being peddled.

So --- treat everyone well, what goes around comes around, yes. Don't do this or that or God will send you to hell - I don't think so. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

^^^^

pp here, forgot to add that in all matters of religion (organized religion) I am truly a Marxist: Religion IS the opiate of the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An atheist could not even entertain the concept of right and and wrong without there being an ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong, which is God.

Let's assume that this is true, for argument's sake. So, now we have the following: "God is the absolute standard of right and wrong".

That's just a definition, another way of saying things. So how does that prove anything? How does it prove that the Koran is right? Or the Bible? Or neither? Or that Jezus died for our sins? Or didn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, sweetie... when I look at the God question rationally, I see absolutely no room for God. It is clear to me that we evolved and morality is a function of our inherent nature as primates who live in troupes.

OK, let's assume you are correct. There is a high price to pay for that position. If morality is just something that emanates from the mishmash of atoms that comprise a particular human being's perspective, then nothing is actually wrong. Child rape, genocide, wife beating...not actually wrong. Sure, you personally may find those things wrong, and you might even get a coercive power to say they are wrong, but they are not wrong independent of you and your henchmen. Another powerful group comes along who disagrees with you, and they will then have their list of things that are wrong, like women having the right to vote and black people having equal rights to white people. And so on and so on.

Morality means nothing if it is dependent on human perspective and power. Without an Absolute Authority, it's all the same, from Gandhi to ripping hearts out of living children.

Of course, they are wrong. They harm people and cause suffering.

People like you terrify me. You are basically saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would run amok and cause great harm and suffering to other people. You project your lack of control onto atheists.

No, you are constructing a straw man. Obviously, atheists can be good without a BELIEF in God. But there can be no such thing as good or bad without God. God is the ultimate GOOD, the real Truth, the complete perfect standard.

Your standard of "wrong" is harming people, causing them suffering. That's to be commended--you are not a sadist. Unfortunately, a great deal of humanity would disagree with your standard of "wrong." Indeed, some of the happiest and most successful humans got to where they are/were by harming other people. But they don't care. They do not see humans as anything special. And after all, if we are just another primate, the result of a mindless evolutionary chain, with a life that ends with the destruction of our bodies, we are nothing special.

And if preventing suffering is a standard, then I assume mercy killing of human beings would fit? If the person did not know it was coming, and was emancipated from a painful or unhappy state, what's the harm? There are too many old people in the world right now--soon, it will be a crisis. Why not terminate every old person who has no one who cares about him/her? Or maybe just the ones who are alone and out of their minds?

Hmmm...some people would think that was an excellent idea. Other people would think it was barbaric. Who is right? Who is wrong? Why do we have a notion of justice when there is nothing but injustice all around us?

We all violate the moral law. But there is, in fact, violation.

The "of course" at the start of your post is your acknowledgement of that reality.

If you are a good Catholic, you know that God reveals himself in Natural Law, which means that we can observe the truth about right and wrong from the nature of the universe itself. If good is observable through nature, then the atheist has a plausible argument for a priori good without God.

Yes, again, an atheist can observe, discover, and realize the difference between good and evil without BELIEF in God, because there is Natural Law. But without an ACTUAL God, there would be no good/evil to find. There would just be the brute fact of existence, no more or less.

An atheist could not even entertain the concept of right and and wrong without there being an ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong, which is God.

That is not true. The universe contains an objective reality. Therefore you cannot say that it does not contain an objective morality. You may find it difficult to discern but that is clearly also a difficult thing for religions even with the same bible. I think the bigger question is why God does not make his objective morality undebatably clear. It would be so simple for an omnipotent being to do.

[Anonymous]

I only believe in things that are scientifically proven through unbiased research and tested over and over again. I can't believe something just b/c someone "tells" me it's true. Plus, i don't believe in ghosts, why would I believe in God? Also, there are a million different religions, they can't ALL be right, so the conclusion is that they are all wrong. That makes more sense to me.

I believe in Nature and the force of nature. that is my "god".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only believe in things that are scientifically proven through unbiased research and tested over and over again. I can't believe something just b/c someone "tells" me it's true. Plus, i don't believe in ghosts, why would I believe in God? Also, there are a million different religions, they can't ALL be right, so the conclusion is that they are all wrong. That makes more sense to me.

I believe in Nature and the force of nature. that is my "god".

Do you believe your children love you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only believe in things that are scientifically proven through unbiased research and tested over and over again. I can't believe something just b/c someone "tells" me it's true. Plus, i don't believe in ghosts, why would I believe in God? Also, there are a million different religions, they can't ALL be right, so the conclusion is that they are all wrong. That makes more sense to me.

I believe in Nature and the force of nature. that is my "god".

Do you believe your children love you?

No wonder you believe in God. Apparently your kids can't love you if he does not exist. What a feeble representation of faith.

[Anonymous]

Once more, only bigger to see if someone notices.....

If God is the author or morality, why are his Old Testament actions so immoral??

[Anonymous]

oops, of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oops, of

There is quite a big gap in between absolute standard, therefore God, and Old Testment God, therefore no God.

Biblical discussions can come well after a decision about morality, right and wrong.

For me, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how there can be an absolute standard for human behavior without God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
For me, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how there can be an absolute standard for human behavior without God.

Well, maybe there is no absolute standard for human behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oops, of

There is quite a big gap in between absolute standard, therefore God, and Old Testment God, therefore no God.

Biblical discussions can come well after a decision about morality, right and wrong.

For me, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how there can be an absolute standard for human behavior without God.

Morality comes from society, IMO. Feel free to read any of the monotheistic texts, they're all about as moral as the OT. Are we not talking about a god attributed to any particular religion? Does he just send his moral norms and natural law through space to our brains?

[Anonymous]

Also, you never answered my question about the lack of morality in god's actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oops, of

There is quite a big gap in between absolute standard, therefore God, and Old Testment God, therefore no God.

Biblical discussions can come well after a decision about morality, right and wrong.

For me, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how there can be an absolute standard for human behavior without God.

Thomas Aquinas clearly outlined the path. He believed that God wrote morality into the fabric of the universe and that we could learn right and wrong from it. This is the concept of natural law.

So suppose you are a theist and I an atheist. (This is not true btw I am Catholic). If we both observe the same objective universe we can obtain the same moral truths. Yet the atheist firmly believes this universe to be possible without God.

So this puts the theist in the tough position of arguing that there must be a God for this universe to exist. Problematic given the tendency of cosmologists toward atheism.

So yes to answer your question in a nutshell, the most famous philosopher of Christian History says that objective morality exists within the very construction of the universe and does not require aGod to speak in order to convey it