Athiests vs The Religious Conspiracy... Explain to Me Why Believers Believe.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Woodcarver

I disagree that any untestable claim can be inserted, there has to be something at stake for the wager to have a point to it, at the very least. If we take Russel's Teapot for example, that doesn't work here. I have nothing to loose or gain by believing or disbelieving in the teapot.

Honestly, I'd say Pascal's Wager absolutely requires this asymmetry between risks and rewards; you've got the eternal reward and earthly sacrifices of believing, and the earthly gains but eternal loss of not believing. Of course it doesn't have to be a specific God, I never said that and AFAIK Pascal never specified any particular God, but there are some assumptions made about his nature. Also, if you have many, jealous Gods then it invalidates Pascal's Wager to some extent.

I'm just saying; Pascal's Wager doesn't prove God. And it's kind of really specific, so I think you can't apply it to the original comment that started this subtopic.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Well I don't have any knowledge of God or faith in him, so can't really help you there. To be fair I'm agnostic, but I'd say I'm still off the hook for this one.

The consequences could just as easily be made up. Christianity has an claim of hell, or at least The consequence of being removed from the presence of God. I certainly don't believe these things but some people do.

Pascals wager is not a proposition which aims to prove God exists, but rather to influence people to accept a claim whether they believe it exists or not.

Consequence is the prime motivator for pascals wager. If I were to say that I have a sandwich that is laced with poison, that is not an unbelievable proposition. You would not likely risk eating the sandwich. But if I say do not go into my garage because there is a man eating dragon there, how likely are you to avoid my garage based on that claim alone? The claims that Christianity does make, Are comparable to the claim of my man eating dragon. There is just no good reason for you to believe that I have a man eating dragon. Of course you could go out there and look, but Christianity does not offer that option. I can always say that this is an invisible uncorporeal Dragon, just like Christians claim that their God cannot be seen or touched, and exist outside of the physical realm. It just seems like a handy place to hide things.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Yep. Consequences could be made up which is why you cannot compel faith. Fear is a poor motivator when you cannot demonstrate that there is any real reason for it.

Ultimately, it comes down to who appears to be living the better life. We are all looking for that path that makes us content and fulfills.

I see a lot of threads working very, very hard to convince us that those with faith live horrible, miserable lives. That we're nothing but a nest of hypocrites. That we're too stupid to understand our own source material. That we live in constant fear and self-loathing. All kinds of things.

None of that has been my experience of life with faith. But someone has to open their eyes to look beyond the pictures they paint.

I'm not asking you to walk my way only to stop lying about it.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: Woodcarver

Why do christians use their beliefs to push legislation through our government?

Why are you asking me,I can't explain 90% of the stuff people do??
Ask them.

That is a perfect example of people not living and letting others live though.
People push their stuff outwardly onto people...doesn't that say something about them not allowing or respecting others right to have their own opinions?

People are busy looking at others instead of themselves,that is the problem.
Don't worry about other's afterlife experiences or beliefs are....worry about yours.

Its a personal thing.

To be fair...other religions do it too,so don't be banging on just one religious group.

I don't only speak about christians. My point is that people do use their religious influence to push legislation. Do you disagree with this somehow? Are you saying that everyone should just be able to do whatever the # they want? Or should we be able to Judge whether other people's actions are acceptable and make laws to prevent actions that are unacceptable?

The Notion that I should not pay attention to what other people are doing is outlandish and absurd. If people were left to their own devices, with no one watching over them, or judging their actions, What sorts of things do you think they would get up to? do you think that God does a fine job already of keeping the evil at bay?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neutronflux

The "Golden Rule" does not depend on the existence of God. There is a clear Humanistic morality that exists with or without God.

I don't need to believe that God exists for me to know that humans should treat each other with respect and to value life.

That did not answer the question. Do you believe in good or evil. Without a morale authority, there is not a “way” person should treat each other? Why would child labor be wrong? Especially in a culture that promotes child labor?

In a purely evolutionary context, was Hitler wrong to put himself in a position of dominance? In the context of evolution, how is what Hilter did evil? Or wrong? With no God, why does it even matter?

The question is; “not you know how to treat people”, but “Why does it matter how you treat people?”

I'm sorry, what does Hitler have to do with evolution? As for morality, can someone please explain why theists think that atheists have no morality, or are in themselves immoral?
I am an atheist. I have my own moral compass that tells me to be nice to other people and which does not require me to live in fear of an imaginary bearded face in the sky, whose believers are very hypocritical when it comes to magic, who tells people how to live. Can I also point out that in the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus 25 44-46, condones slavery. How moral is that?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Woodcarver

Yep. Consequences could be made up which is why you cannot compel faith. Fear is a poor motivator when you cannot demonstrate that there is any real reason for it.

Ultimately, it comes down to who appears to be living the better life. We are all looking for that path that makes us content and fulfills.

I see a lot of threads working very, very hard to convince us that those with faith live horrible, miserable lives. That we're nothing but a nest of hypocrites. That we're too stupid to understand our own source material. That we live in constant fear and self-loathing. All kinds of things.

None of that has been my experience of life with faith. But someone has to open their eyes to look beyond the pictures they paint.

I'm not asking you to walk my way only to stop lying about it.

I have never made any of those claims, so I don't know why you're talking to me about them. Would you like to refute some of my arguments or do you just want to invent words and put them in my mouth?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Woodcarver

Yep. Consequences could be made up which is why you cannot compel faith. Fear is a poor motivator when you cannot demonstrate that there is any real reason for it.

Ultimately, it comes down to who appears to be living the better life. We are all looking for that path that makes us content and fulfills.

I see a lot of threads working very, very hard to convince us that those with faith live horrible, miserable lives. That we're nothing but a nest of hypocrites. That we're too stupid to understand our own source material. That we live in constant fear and self-loathing. All kinds of things.

None of that has been my experience of life with faith. But someone has to open their eyes to look beyond the pictures they paint.

I'm not asking you to walk my way only to stop lying about it.

I do not care who appears to be living the better life because this is completely subjective. I don't even know what that means. What I am concerned with is whether people's claims are believable or whether they can be proven to be true or not.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neutronflux

The "Golden Rule" does not depend on the existence of God. There is a clear Humanistic morality that exists with or without God.

I don't need to believe that God exists for me to know that humans should treat each other with respect and to value life.

That did not answer the question. Do you believe in good or evil. Without a morale authority, there is not a “way” person should treat each other? Why would child labor be wrong? Especially in a culture that promotes child labor?

In a purely evolutionary context, was Hitler wrong to put himself in a position of dominance? In the context of evolution, how is what Hilter did evil? Or wrong? With no God, why does it even matter?

The question is; “not you know how to treat people”, but “Why does it matter how you treat people?”

I'm sorry, what does Hitler have to do with evolution? As for morality, can someone please explain why theists think that atheists have no morality, or are in themselves immoral?
I am an atheist. I have my own moral compass that tells me to be nice to other people and which does not require me to live in fear of an imaginary bearded face in the sky, whose believers are very hypocritical when it comes to magic, who tells people how to live. Can I also point out that in the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus 25 44-46, condones slavery. How moral is that?

Hitler? Morals are completely subjective, what is not subjective is people's well-being. If your actions harm another person then it could be argued that it is an immoral action. On the other hand if you were to harm someone who is about to hurt others, this could be seen as a moral action. Therefore morals are subjective unless you want to add 1000 caveats to make your position more clear. There is no moral authority. Unless you can prove one to exist.

a reply to: BStoltman

Since God is in control, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. No harm done. It's called Free Will.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neutronflux

The "Golden Rule" does not depend on the existence of God. There is a clear Humanistic morality that exists with or without God.

I don't need to believe that God exists for me to know that humans should treat each other with respect and to value life.

That did not answer the question. Do you believe in good or evil. Without a morale authority, there is not a “way” person should treat each other? Why would child labor be wrong? Especially in a culture that promotes child labor?

In a purely evolutionary context, was Hitler wrong to put himself in a position of dominance? In the context of evolution, how is what Hilter did evil? Or wrong? With no God, why does it even matter?

The question is; “not you know how to treat people”, but “Why does it matter how you treat people?”

I'm sorry, what does Hitler have to do with evolution? As for morality, can someone please explain why theists think that atheists have no morality, or are in themselves immoral?
I am an atheist. I have my own moral compass that tells me to be nice to other people and which does not require me to live in fear of an imaginary bearded face in the sky, whose believers are very hypocritical when it comes to magic, who tells people how to live. Can I also point out that in the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus 25 44-46, condones slavery. How moral is that?

Hitler? Morals are completely subjective, what is not subjective is people's well-being. If your actions harm another person then it could be argued that it is an immoral action. On the other hand if you were to harm someone who are about to hurt others, this could be seen as a moral action. Therefore morals are subjective unless you want to add 1000 caveats to make your position more clear.

Morals can be complicated (as your hypothetical "harm someone before they hurt others" illustrates), but that doesn't mean that they still don't ultimately boil down to "Treat others the same way I wish to be treated" and/or "Treat others with respect".

For me to follow those simple rules does not depend on me doing so only because I think God would be pissed at me if I don't; I would be pissed at myself if I don't. By the way, "harm someone before they hurt others" doesn't require a belief in God, nor does it require one to be atheist.

If there is a God who rewards me for common decency or punishes me for immoral acts, then so be it. However, even if there is NOT a God around to punish me for disrespecting my fellow humans, I would want to still keep following the path of general common decency because I personally would not be able to excuse myself if I acted otherwise.

I don't need God or the fear of going to hell to make me feal bad for doing bad things.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Why would you be superior in morals to another atheist who’s moral compass tells them they are a product of evolution in which man kind is better served in bondage to them? Especially if they see themselves as a benevolent master?

Why is your moral compass more moral than another person’s? Because you made yourself your own god with a little g?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I didn’t say morals are, or are not complicated. I asked why do they matter. Again? If man is only a product of nature and evolution, what do morals matter. If man wipes himself off the face of the earth, or a comet wipes man off the face of the earth, what is the difference? How is man and man’s actions more evil than a comet?

a reply to: neutronflux

Because good morals have sound logic backing up why they are good morals. Don't steal. Why not? Because ownership is important to humans and theft creates rifts in trust. Trust is conducive to a functioning society.

You don't need religion to know a good idea from a bad idea. This is also why religion's fixations with sexuality is bizarre. There is no logical reason to prevent two people from loving each other or expressing themselves how they want to express themselves (provided they aren't violating any other morals that are logically sound that is).

I can flip your reasoning on its head too. Religious types suggest that god provides their morals, so that suggests that the only reason YOU are moral is because god told you to be so. If god wasn't there, does that mean you'd act unrestrained and do every immoral thing in the book?

a reply to: Woodcarver

My point is that people do use their religious influence to push legislation.

Of course.

Are you saying that everyone should just be able to do whatever the # they want?

Again,bad tactic and bad form to either twist my words or try to put them in my mouth.
I have said what I have said and now question your comprehension.

The Notion that I should not pay attention to what other people are doing is outlandish and absurd

You have heard my opinion and I have heard yours.
Time for me to move on,you clearly have your mind made up and I am not going to waste my time to point out what has already been pointed.

Good luck.

The need to believe in something greater than the self without hard evidence seems to be hard wired into many humans. That need could be filled with organised religion. If not perhaps it'll be something more new age or politically dogmatic. It's a hole that something has to fill, for many. What exactly fills it depends on where they are born and the environment they are exposed to.

I suspect there is an evolutionary driver for this. The capacity to believe and continue to strive on the basis of faith may have survival value beyond that provided by reason alone.

It may be that for a successful humanity the believers and the unbelievers are both required. The belief itself being less important (they come and go) than the capacity to believe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If man is only a product of nature? Why is it different if a comet crashing to the earth destroys a city vs a man made missile attack. How is it morally different if a man made event destroys a city vs a natural event? In the context man is only a product of nature?

originally posted by: justwokeup
The need to believe in something greater than the self without hard evidence seems to be hard wired into many humans. That need could be filled with organised religion. If not perhaps it'll be something more new age or politically dogmatic. It's a hole that something has to fill, for many. What exactly fills it depends on where they are born and the environment they are exposed to.

What's hard wired into humans is curiosity and the desire to find meaning in what they don't understand. This includes inventing narratives to explain the unexplainable in lieu of evidence. Then couple this with that life with a brain (including humans) learns through habitual learning. So the longer an idea remains in human society, the harder it is to shake.

You can confuse this with a "being hard wired to believe", but it isn't true. Again, it is just simple curiosity mixed with a 2 times millennium old habit

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Why would you be superior in morals to another atheist who’s moral compass tells them they are a product of evolution in which man kind is better served in bondage to them? Especially if they see themselves as a benevolent master?

Why is your moral compass more moral than another person’s? Because you made yourself your own god with a little g?

You seem to be using the word 'evolution' a lot, as if it's some kind of evil concept. And I'm not claiming to be superior to anyone. Oddly enough the government of the Confederate States of America was completely convinced that they were superior to other people. You know what they based their pathetic justification for it on? The bible.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If man is only a product of nature? Why is it different if a comet crashing to the earth destroys a city vs a man made missile attack. How is it morally different if a man made event destroys a city vs a natural event? In the context man is only a product of nature?

Because we can hold the party responsible for firing the missile responsible. you can't hold anyone or thing responsible for a random comet crashing into the earth. Isn't that obvious?

Why didn't you answer my question about your morality? Are you afraid of the implications of the question or just choosing to ignore what you find inconvenient?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes an idea good or bad? Nature causes suffering all the time. Is that moral? What does it matter if man causes suffering in an universe where black holes swallow whole solar systems. Where gamma bursts from a star can wipe out life on a whole planets?

a reply to: neutronflux

Well true. We could live in utter chaos, throwing our feces around, and waiting for random comets to crash or we could build a society and live in it together. Humans opted for the society aspect. Neither answer is objectively right or wrong. Morality reflects maintaining society. That is all.

PS: Again. When are you going to get around to answering my question? If you require god for your morality, does that mean you'd act like a straight up sociopath and do every immoral action possible without him?