I have no use for God

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would that be a criteria for belief?

Because it is his criteria and it works for him.

 

[Trailblazer]

"God", can go about existing and doing whatever a God does but I have no need or use for them. I think for some, God has some psychological/emotional/motivational benefits.

I think that is true for some people but not for all people.

I can handle my own psychological/emotional/motivational needs.
At one time, in the past, maybe I needed God for these things. Now I don't

I also handle my own psychological/emotional/motivational needs.
I pray to God for assistance and hope for guidance but I am always doing the footwork.

 

[stvdv]

for some is a fact.
for all is not a fact.

Yes, I replied to the question "some"

For all I don't know
I rather speak for myself

 

[Sheldon]

I'm in constant pain. I've just learn how to deal with it. Painkillers don't work for me for long.
Some of pain is mental attitude. I find ways to distract myself from the pain, though truthfully sometimes it isn't pleasant.

I can empathise, I have live most of my adult life with chronic back pain, so I know what you mean. Most people don't understand how relentlessly exhausting it is to be in constant pain.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, I surrendered to Sai Baba (God) ca. 30 years ago,

The Indian living god, the paedophilia claims

"For decades male former devotees have alleged that the guru molested them during so-called "interviews"."

"participants in a BBC programme, The Secret Swami, two years ago, accuse him of abuse, claiming he massaged their testi***s with oil and coerced them into oral sex.

Sai Baba has never been charged over the sex abuse allegations. However, the US State Department issued a travel warning after reports of "inappropriate sexual behaviour by a prominent local religious leader" which, officials later confirmed was a reference to Sai Baba."

"His followers say Sai Baba is a God on Earth, and they generously support his multi-billion-dollar religious empire. But some former adherents are coming forward with dark tales of the guru sexually molesting young men."

 

[Sheldon]

By maintaining all of reality. In him, we live and move and have our being.

That's just a repletion of the claim, not an explanation of, or evidence or that claim.

Do you fear and love the giant invisible dragon? You should as it maintains your existence.

Now can you point out any objective difference between my claim and yours?

 

[Sheldon]

Possibly, Jesus said some objectively true things about morality (or "how best to treat another person") in his Sermon on the Mount.

I hate to be a pedant, well maybe not but here it comes anyway... I agree that those texts may contain some moral claims that might have a broad consensus, though I'd be dubious without sufficient objective evidence. I don't believe Jesus said those things though, as there is naught but unsubstantiated hearsay.

Though there may have been an historical figure called Jesus, who may have said some or most of those things. I have little confidence this is true though.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's just a repletion of the claim, not an explanation of, or evidence or that claim.

Do you fear and love the giant invisible dragon? You should as it maintains your existence.

Now can you point out any objective difference between my claim and yours?

In that case you just agreed that something has to maintain reality.
If you prefer to think of him as a dragon so be it, that's probably as legit as a turtle on a turtle on a turtle. More civilized studies suggest that an omniscient, invisible, eternal being is more likely.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I hate to be a pedant, well maybe not but here it comes anyway... I agree that those texts may contain some moral claims that might have a broad consensus, though I'd be dubious without sufficient objective evidence. I don't believe Jesus said those things though, as there is naught but unsubstantiated hearsay.

Though there may have been an historical figure called Jesus, who may have said some or most of those things. I have little confidence this is true though.

Well, yeah. Those are excellent points.

Your second point (maybe Jesus never existed, or maybe he did exist and his words have been distorted over the ages, or the like) is worth discussing, but I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether some of the claims which are attributed to him might be true or not.

I don't really care about Jesus' historicity. Maybe Jesus existed. Maybe he was a fictional character developed by multiple authors across centuries. I simply do not and never will care whether Jesus actually existed or not.

My point was that, certain moral propositions were posed by somebody in the Gospels. And whether or not it was Jesus or some spurious Jewish or Roman author, we can analyze those moral propositions and determine if they may be true or not.

Similarly, an atheist can read Dante's Inferno, and while completely rejecting the claims that Hell, Heaven, or Purgatory exist, still come away with the impression that the text says something substantive on a number of things that are decidedly real. Even though Dante wrote an obvious work of fiction, certain moral and philosophical claims lie within the text. And it's perfectly fine to consider the truth or falsity of each claim presented, even if you realize that the work itself is a fictional account.

The more interesting question to me was addressed in your first point: can a moral claim or proposition be objectively true or accurate? Or can it only be a matter of broad consensus? Good arguments on both sides of this issue. I think the matter is far from settled. An atheist has no reason to conclude that just because God doesn't exist there is no truth to any moral proposition. I don't think it has been figured out one way or the other, but I consider it entirely possible that God doesn't exist and yet, there are objective determinations that can be made about the moral value of our actions.

It's an interesting topic, anyway. One worth discussing IMO.