Evidence for God

[Bro Deal]

Why do you believe a high moral standard is needed if a god is not there. What is wrong with killing someone for no reason if there is no afterlife?

What's the problem with killing someone if you know they are going to hell? According to Dubya, anyone who doesn't accept Jesus will spend eternity getting poked by a red guy with a trident. Thus killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis doesn't really matter; they are doomed anyway.

Heck, if you are convinced that this time spent on earth is insignificant compared to the time you will spend in heaven then why bother to improve life on this planet? This religion bunk sounds like a call for laziness. Why don't we all live in caves and die young so we can quickly get to the promsied land? Why should we put any effot into curing diseases? Or improving the standard of living? Or doing anything other than sit on our asses--while living good, upstanding moral lives. of course?

 

[Doctor.House]

No effort is invested in cures for disease. That is unprofitable.

In the USA:
1) heart disease
2) Cancer

Very profitable business models. Drug treatments = $$$$$$

What's the problem with killing someone if you know they are going to hell? According to Dubya, anyone who doesn't accept Jesus will spend eternity getting poked by a red guy with a trident. Thus killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis doesn't really matter; they are doomed anyway.

Heck, if you are convinced that this time spent on earth is insignificant compared to the time you will spend in heaven then why bother to improve life on this planet? This religion bunk sounds like a call for laziness. Why don't we all live in caves and die young so we can quickly get to the promsied land? Why should we put any effot into curing diseases? Or improving the standard of living? Or doing anything other than sit on our asses--while living good, upstanding moral lives. of course?

 

[adrian knight]

Are you saying that the only reason you don't kill is because you want to go to 'heaven'? I really don't understand your argument that if there is no consequence to our actions then we would not behave morally. If you look for an answer outside of the existence of an omnipotent, caring (really?) entity nice enough to let us into his Kingdom if we do as he says (who's he/she to dictate what is right or wrong, anyway) then my argument is that there is a consequence to our actions....here on Earth. If we went around killing, stealing, raping then others would do the same to us. We do not do it because we do not want it done to us. There has to be structure for society to work, look at ant/bee colonies as prime examples - they work for the welfare of the colony yet do not believe in God (I hope). Can you see it from my point of view? Please tell me you don't believe in the same God as your parents, nothing worse than smothering free-thinking and religious indoctrination! Hope I haven't gone too far...sorry if I have.

Good luck with the medication...

Why do you believe a high moral standard is needed if a god is not there. What is wrong with killing someone for no reason if there is no afterlife?

My original post was mis-wrote or misinterpreted. I did not want to convey the meaning that athiests are bad. If we do not have to answer to a higher authority, then what determines "bad "? Is there really damage to the universe if we "kill someone for no reason?"
[Isn't this the way a pyschopath thinks ? I gotta go...The authorities are here to take me away. But I will be out...I mean back soon...... ]

 

[wolfix]

Are you saying that the only reason you don't kill is because you want to go to 'heaven'? I really don't understand your argument that if there is no consequence to our actions then we would not behave morally. If you look for an answer outside of the existence of an omnipotent, caring (really?) entity nice enough to let us into his Kingdom if we do as he says (who's he/she to dictate what is right or wrong, anyway) then my argument is that there is a consequence to our actions....here on Earth. If we went around killing, stealing, raping then others would do the same to us. We do not do it because we do not want it done to us. There has to be structure for society to work, look at ant/bee colonies as prime examples - they work for the welfare of the colony yet do not believe in God (I hope). Can you see it from my point of view? Please tell me you don't believe in the same God as your parents, nothing worse than smothering free-thinking and religious indoctrination! Hope I haven't gone too far...sorry if I have.

Good luck with the medication...

To be honest with you, I don't have a handle on what I believe. I find the issue of morality to be interesting though.......
I read a excellent book on the subject of morality and the belief of of God . I loaned it to a friend and he told me is looking for it to give it back to me. It raised some interesting points..... I was hoping to get it when this thread was posted.
I did not come from a religious family.

 

[adrian knight]

If we have a moral code because we believe in God then why do we commit genocide in the name of God. Is it right to kill millions of people because we are doing it in the name of God? At least we will still go to heaven and that's the main thing....isn' it?

I believe it's called 'Self Delusion.'

If we evolved so highly to create a moral code for self-interest than why haven't we evolved to not need the moral code and just be good instead of lying, committing adultery, murdering, stealing, rebelling against our parents, and coveting others possessions? Not to mention wars, genocide, indifference to suffering, etc that is so characteristic of the history of the world.

How do we even conceive of "good" or "bad" if we're just animals living an accidental existence. This is where stevebaby usually jumps in with his thoughts on how the love of his children (that I assume exist because he knows who The Wiggles are) or family is just biological so we reproduce. As if people who don't love each other can't reproduce.

By the way, it's in my self-interest to procreate over the weekend, but I'm going to need to steal your car to get to the desired genetic material. I'm sure you won't mind - it's not like it's "wrong" or anything.

 

[nns1400]

If we have a moral code because we believe in God then why do we commit genocide in the name of God. Is it right to kill millions of people because we are doing it in the name of God? At least we will still go to heaven and that's the main thing....isn' it?

No, no and no.

"We" don't have a moral code because we believe in God.

Many people follow a moral code that do not believe in God, or believe in different sorts of spirituality, etc.

I am saying that there is a moral standard that exists outside of ourselves because there is in fact a God. It's more like moral laws that exist in addition to physical laws. Murder is wrong. Every culture would hold that murder is wrong. In fact, when they commit genocide, or slavery, or abortion, they dissemble by usually redefining the victims as being not fully human in some way, so that they aren't really committing murder. They try to make a loophole as it were.

Genocide is committed by people who try to claim the victims are less human or somehow inferior to themselves (an idea that is better supported by Darwinism than religion). Death camps were run by people who believed themselves of a superior race. Radical Islamists say that Jews are pigs. Slavery in the US was continued after the Supreme Court decided that a slave was only 3/4 of a person (or 9/10 or some other fraction). So-called Christians decided to believe that slaves didn't have souls, so that what they were doing wouldn't be wrong. Abortion continues as the arguments swirl over whether or not the unborn child is a person or not. People in favor of abortion would agree with others that murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder. Opponents disagree.

We can discuss the fact that killing people in the name of God is wrong, because a moral law exists that says murder is wrong. If not, then all morality is subjective, and you have no standing to say that people who want to kill in the name of God are wrong. Why are they wrong and you right? What gives you the "right" to say that genocide is wrong? Because you don't like it?

 

[wolfix]

The greatest evidence of God is beer.

 

[jhuskey]

The greatest evidence of God is beer.

Damn Wolf! You have opened "Pandora's Box",the query about which beer God partakes of.
I hope you know what you have unleashed!
The debate could go on for years, and you thought "is Lance doping" was a debate.
Oh... the humanities!

 

[Bro Deal]

The greatest evidence of God is beer.

Does that mean the greatest evidence of a devil is Budweiser?

 

[adrian knight]

and is this 'moral standard' predisposed in us or did God tell the high priest of x amount of religions to dictate it to us (and each to give it their own twist just to keep things confusing). The fact that one's moral standard can differ so significantly from another is further evidence of their not being a God as surely he would want us all to follow his Law to the letter, wouldn't he? If it is predisposed then I reiterate that it is not down to God but evolution (not necessarily genetic but largely social).

We all know why leaders of religions preach what they do so I won't go into that.

A very interesting topic of discussion but alas we will never agree on the origin of morality.

No, no and no.

"We" don't have a moral code because we believe in God.

Many people follow a moral code that do not believe in God, or believe in different sorts of spirituality, etc.

I am saying that there is a moral standard that exists outside of ourselves because there is in fact a God. It's more like moral laws that exist in addition to physical laws. Murder is wrong. Every culture would hold that murder is wrong. In fact, when they commit genocide, or slavery, or abortion, they dissemble by usually redefining the victims as being not fully human in some way, so that they aren't really committing murder. They try to make a loophole as it were.

Genocide is committed by people who try to claim the victims are less human or somehow inferior to themselves (an idea that is better supported by Darwinism than religion). Death camps were run by people who believed themselves of a superior race. Radical Islamists say that Jews are pigs. Slavery in the US was continued after the Supreme Court decided that a slave was only 3/4 of a person (or 9/10 or some other fraction). So-called Christians decided to believe that slaves didn't have souls, so that what they were doing wouldn't be wrong. Abortion continues as the arguments swirl over whether or not the unborn child is a person or not. People in favor of abortion would agree with others that murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder. Opponents disagree.

We can discuss the fact that killing people in the name of God is wrong, because a moral law exists that says murder is wrong. If not, then all morality is subjective, and you have no standing to say that people who want to kill in the name of God are wrong. Why are they wrong and you right? What gives you the "right" to say that genocide is wrong? Because you don't like it?

 

[wolfix]

Has anyone considered maybe God made man for entertainment purposes?

 

[adrian knight]

No, but I have considered that man made God for such.

Has anyone considered maybe God made man for entertainment purposes?

 

[Hein-Verbruggen]

Yes:

Disney Holdings/ESPN
GE-NBC Olympic Games for profiy
Nike, LIVE WRONG, Cheat to Win
Doping, steroids, ecstasy, LSD, heroin, meth, crack
Alcoholism, beer, wine, spirits

Cycling heroes, myths, cover stories, fantasy

 

[fscyclist]

Does that mean the greatest evidence of a devil is Budweiser?

Although Budweiser is not a Belgian Abbey Ale, it is still beer and worthy of consumption. In fact the more that is consumed, the better it tastes.

Satan sent his wrath upon the earth in the 1980's with the invention of O'Doul's. The drink with as many calories as beer but without the taste or alcohol. Forever consumed but never satisfies. It is the exclusive drink in Hell.

 

[stevebaby]

I believe it's called 'Self Delusion.'

If we evolved so highly to create a moral code for self-interest than why haven't we evolved to not need the moral code and just be good instead of lying, committing adultery, murdering, stealing, rebelling against our parents, and coveting others possessions? Not to mention wars, genocide, indifference to suffering, etc that is so characteristic of the history of the world.

Evolution is a continuing process. Why didn't your omnipotent god/gods just make everybody perfect to start with?

How do we even conceive of "good" or "bad" if we're just animals living an accidental existence. This is where stevebaby usually jumps in with his thoughts on how the love of his children (that I assume exist because he knows who The Wiggles are) or family is just biological so we reproduce. As if people who don't love each other can't reproduce.

Actually you have it back to front. People don't have children because they love them.They might love the idea of having children, but they can't love a child who does not yet exist. They love their children because they have them. Love between parents is one strategy to ensure the survival of their offspring. There are others, such as simply reproducing as many times as possible in the hope that some of the offspring will survive and prosper genetically. Different strategies work in different conditions. It's called Natural Selection. It's all a gamble. The Universe plays dice with all of us.
Social Darwinism (Ayn Rand's "philosophy")is a perversion of the actual thoughts of Darwin, but you would have to read him to see that.

By the way, it's in my self-interest to procreate over the weekend, but I'm going to need to steal your car to get to the desired genetic material. I'm sure you won't mind - it's not like it's "wrong" or anything.

If nobody minds you taking their car, and you don't mind anybody taking yours...then it's not stealing and it's not wrong.
And it's not your self interest that causes you to reproduce...it's your genes that reproduce themselves. You're just the gene-carrier.

 

[jhuskey]

Satan sent his wrath upon the earth in the 1980's with the invention of O'Doul's. The drink with as many calories as beer but without the taste or alcohol. Forever consumed but never satisfies. It is the exclusive drink in Hell.[/QUOTE]

This is too scary for the internet and should be moderated.

 

[adrian knight]

Have you ever thought why we believe in God(s)? To me it is simple. We are an inquisitive species with the capacity for rational thinking thus in our ignorance (historically speaking) and need for answers we make up God(s). There we have it, an answer to everything...so nice to live in this idyllic world where you not only get to live on Earth but even better than that, you never really cease to exist you just go to heaven (or many of the other convenient paradises stipulated in other religions). Just think how horrible it would be if we just had the one life. Scary, eh? Hooray for the imagination of man. I feel so much better knowing I am not going to die and have been put on this planet for a purpose (still trying to work out what that is - I used to think it was winningn the TDF but at 40 yrs old, I may be past it).

Atheists are realists. We accept the reality that there is no God. I for one frown upon those that have not independantly thought it through. If you have and you believe in God then fair do's. I know people who claim to believe in God yet refuse to look more closely at their belief for fear of the truth. Shame on them.

Have I gone off on a tangent? Sorry.

 

[bkaapcke]

OK, so the bible provides a 'god given' moral code. How come it doesn't even work with christians? Christian behavior really does prove that the bible is not divinely inspired. Simply put, its moral code hasn't worked. bk

 

[limerickman]

Have you ever thought why we believe in God(s)? To me it is simple. We are an inquisitive species with the capacity for rational thinking thus in our ignorance (historically speaking) and need for answers we make up God(s). There we have it, an answer to everything...so nice to live in this idyllic world where you not only get to live on Earth but even better than that, you never really cease to exist you just go to heaven (or many of the other convenient paradises stipulated in other religions). Just think how horrible it would be if we just had the one life. Scary, eh? Hooray for the imagination of man. I feel so much better knowing I am not going to die and have been put on this planet for a purpose (still trying to work out what that is - I used to think it was winningn the TDF but at 40 yrs old, I may be past it).

Atheists are realists. We accept the reality that there is no God. I for one frown upon those that have not independantly thought it through. If you have and you believe in God then fair do's. I know people who claim to believe in God yet refuse to look more closely at their belief for fear of the truth. Shame on them.

Have I gone off on a tangent? Sorry.

Dangerous assumption to make that only atheists are realists.
This goes down the Richard Dawkins line that only "rational" people can see the futility of believing in God.

How does one define "rational"?
Dawkins definition fails to take in to account several issues.

What may appear "rational" to Dawkins - may not be "rational" to another person.
To try to equate belief or disbelief in God, as Dawkins tries to to do, to "rationality" is in itself irrational.
How can a subject which is metaphysical (God is not subject to human boundaries and human measurements) be explained or argued on a "rational"
(Dawkins definition) basis?
It is "irrational" for Dawkins or anyone else to try to dismiss the argument of faith in God using human measurements or human adjudicates boundaries.


In addition, one cannot dismiss the beliefs of others using "rationality" when it is evident that many peoples belief in God is formulated by the combination of objective and subjective values.
What may seem "rational" to Dawkins is subjective to Dawkins.
Just as what may seem "rational" to me is subjective to me.
And so on.

It is subjective because the criteria for "rationality" differs from person to person.
For example, what might persuade me that something is factual - may not persuade you that something is factual.
Does that mean my criteria is wrong or that your criteria is wrong?
And how does one decide which criteria is right/wrong - given that such a decision is premised upon some element of subjectivity?
Complex issues.

 

[willocrew]

OK, so the bible provides a 'god given' moral code. How come it doesn't even work with christians? Christian behavior really does prove that the bible is not divinely inspired. Simply put, its moral code hasn't worked. bk

Society has laws governing its people. Why then are there criminals despite statutory provisions instructing them to do otherwise?