The End of Religious Debates

[Valerian]

Eh, my gods demonstrably and obviously exist, I just don't give a crap about proving anything to anyone. The religious traditions that obsess about that are the "one true way" paths that want to convert you to their path. Not how I roll. But it's pretty par for the course for polytheists to be "meh, you do whatever, I'll do my whatever" and leave it at that.

Not really. For someone like me it is this: "What evidence I am certain is proof for God, you reject as proof." Which is different than me saying I do not have proof.

Not all that similar, but still worth noting. Many out there are certain that we evolved from dirt and they are certain because they have proof. As for me, (and for a segment of scientists too) we do not accept your findings as proof. In fact, we think the dearth of evidence is proof we did not evolve.

 

[Quintessence]

If there were many gods, don't you think they would of had some kind of a competition?

Of course they do. Competition is, however, only one possible outcome of relationships. There are plenty of others, ranging from cooperation to mutualism and so on. In observing the relationships amongst the gods, the stories we tell are usually framed in human terms or anthropomorphisms because that is how we know how to think about things. These anthropomorphisms shouldn't be mistaken for the true nature of relationships amongst the gods, though. Put another way, our map isn't the territory.

 

[interminable]

Only I don't think that it is necessary, and indeed science would even counter infinite existence. For instance, this universe will end. When it reaches it's farthest expanses, regresses, and collapses in on itself, it will cease to be. What comes after is up to greater debate, but the point being that even this existence is not infinite. Yet here we are, for quite some time still yet.

Not even for the existence of gods is infinity always a necessity. Many religions have no opinion on the matter, where some even hold that the gods will even die when all ends.

Did I say something about matter and this universe??? Nope


I say logically u can't find somewhere that is non-existent because non existent doesn't exist clear?????

So existence is everywhere and u can't find somewhere and tell your friends I found somewhere that doesn't exist or tell them I wanna show u non existent.
It's impossible. Right?

So this infinite can't be made of matter or energy because they aren't endless.

 

[Neo Deist]

Sounds sensible to me. I've made the point before that I don't argue with deists, panentheists, etc.

I have a quote from you floating around here somewhere...something to the effect of "it is nigh impossible to debate against a deist"...loved it!

Edit: and I know what you meant by it. It's not because we are superior (well, some of us are... ), but because logically or scientifically you can't disprove the deist position. There's nothing to attack.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Once again, we can condense these conversations down to one premise or pretext. I have evidence that God exists and that god is the God of the Bible. You and yours contend no such evidence or proof exists.

Given my premise, all my answers and rationale flow from that. If God created man then, yes, man is one trillion times more valuable to God than any other animal. Anything less is inane.

But if you insist there is no proof this God exists, then you reject any value put on man except that he is a miraculous accident risen from a pile of rocks. That, to me, makes zero sense in every stretch of the imagination.

And yet, it is the ONLY position displaying any true humility.

 

[Valerian]

And yet, it is the ONLY position displaying any true humility.

What is, atheism? Oh, please.

In many cases it can also be called "the religion of convenience" because of its lack of obligation or accountability.

But I am not here to blame anyone for their beliefs or choices... I just could not let your statement go without having it clarified.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is, atheism? Oh, please.

In many cases it can also be called "the religion of convenience" because of its lack of obligation or accountability.

But I am not here to blame anyone for their beliefs or choices... I just could not let your statement go without having it clarified.

Certainly not atheism, no. I meant the understanding that you (even as a human) are no "better" than the animals that also inhabit the Earth. And, in fact, not objectively more important than a stone. Are you, a fellow human, more important to me than a stone? Yes, I would definitely state so. However, are you, a human being, more important to the universe than a stone? I would argue that no, no you are not.

To believe that you were created specially, with specific intent, and that everything else was created for you... where can you find ANY humility in that stance?

From your posts you seem to believe that you are, objectively, "trillions" of times more important than an animal. And I believe you have no valid basis for this belief.

 

[Valerian]

Certainly not atheism, no. I meant the understanding that you (even as a human) are no "better" than the animals that also inhabit the Earth. And, in fact, not objectively more important than a stone. Are you, a fellow human, more important to me than a stone? Yes, I would definitely state so. However, are you, a human being, more important to the universe than a stone? I would argue that no, no you are not.

To believe that you were created specially, with specific intent, and that everything else was created for you... where can you find ANY humility in that stance?

From your posts you seem to believe that you are, objectively, "trillions" of times more important than an animal. And I believe you have no valid basis for this belief.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

What you are referring to I might suggest is a disordered worldview and also harmful. (imo) Yes, humanity is a trillion times more valuable to man itself and surely to God than any and all animals. What mother would sacrifice her child to save a herd of 10,000 deer? No one. The loss of one child far outweighs the destruction of a herd of animals. If our God is God, and He created us in His own image, what does that mean? Well given the fact God Himself is infinitely more supreme to his human creation it means us being in His own image are infinitely more valuable to God than animals or plants without a soul or a conscience or thoughts that resemble ours.

This overvalue upon animals creates situations such as in central California where the federal government stopped irrigation to 10,000 farmers fields in the San Joaquin valley because the process would destroy the habitat for this type of minnow found only there. So it was a value judgment here. What is more important, saving the future of some insignificant minnow species or saving the livelihood of 10,000 farmers and 30,000 estimated other jobs dependent on those farmers. The feds stopped the irrigation. Californians lose 800,000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

What you are referring to I might suggest is a disordered worldview and also harmful. (imo) Yes, humanity is a trillion times more valuable to man itself and surely to God than any and all animals. What mother would sacrifice her child to save a herd of 10,000 deer? No one. The loss of one child far outweighs the destruction of a herd of animals. If our God is God, and He created us in His own image, what does that mean? Well given the fact God Himself is infinitely more supreme to his human creation it means us being in His own image are infinitely more valuable to God than animals or plants without a soul or a conscience or thoughts that resemble ours.

This overvalue upon animals creates situations such as in central California where the federal government stopped irrigation to 10,000 farmers fields in the San Joaquin valley because the process would destroy the habitat for this type of minnow found only there. So it was a value judgment here. What is more important, saving the future of some insignificant minnow species or saving the livelihood of 10,000 farmers and 30,000 estimated other jobs dependent on those farmers. The feds stopped the irrigation. Californians lose 800,000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows

In my opinion, yours is the disordered world view.

In no way do I advocate letting humans die in order not to upset animal-kind. I am a human after all, and as I already stated, your life would mean more to me than an animal's life if it came down to making that choice.

But I am not talking about viewing things from the human perspective. I am talking about accepting the fact that, taken from a view external to all of it, what true, UNDENIABLE worth is there in a human being versus an animal, or even a stone? Take, for example, the perspective of a common house fly - what has more worth to the house fly: a dead human, or a living one? Obviously, the fly would prefer the corpse of a human over a living human. Which, in and of itself, proves without a doubt that a living human has no objective value over a dead human - otherwise even the fly would be forced to acknowledge that value or worth - but it doesn't at all.

This sort of shift of perspective offers quite a bit more than you probably realize. Especially in the way of manifesting humility. For example, in your "minnow" example - who are we, really, to force our will on the minnows? To make the decision to wipe them out to save our farmlands? Is it our place to make that decision? Unless it is an absolute necessity to save lives, I don't believe we even have a case. Which is the very reason why it was up for debate in the first place. You also have to take into consideration the unchecked nature in which we continue to grow our population to inhabit Earth. At some point it is obvious that the Earth will be unable to sustain us in our current configurations (frequency and modes of resource use, land-mass taken to feed, clothe and shelter a human being, etc.). Is it our place to dominate the Earth, casting all other creatures aside as we do so? Is it our place to ruin this planet, and make it uninhabitable even by our own kind? Is that the sort of dominion we hold?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What is, atheism? Oh, please.

In many cases it can also be called "the religion of convenience" because of its lack of obligation or accountability.

But I am not here to blame anyone for their beliefs or choices... I just could not let your statement go without having it clarified.

You're assuming obligation and accountability come from religion and religion only. I can assure you, despite my lack of religion, I have both.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, humanity is a trillion times more valuable to man itself and surely to God than any and all animals.

What makes you think we have any value to God?

 

[psychoslice]

The worst part is, if "nothing happens after you die" (which I, honestly, wholeheartedly believe), then you can't "discover" it. You aren't there to comprehend that there is "nothing" or that you are no more.

The reason this is bad is because it means all the "holier than thou" types don't even get the spanking they deserve when there ends up not being an afterlife. They just disappear.

I feel sad for you with that belief.

 

[psychoslice]

Right. But I am not talking about after I die how I might feel. I am talking about right now. If I had no idea if God were real and what might lie after the grave I would go mad.

I have no fear of death. However, if I thought like you did that all existence and consciousness ended at that point of death, then, yes, I would be in abject despair right now knowing that.

That's very sad to hear.

 

[Valerian]

You're assuming obligation and accountability come from religion and religion only. I can assure you, despite my lack of religion, I have both.

Well I did say “in many cases,” not all.

Question: If there were no speed limits on some open roads, do you think a large number of people would drive somewhat faster than they currently do? If there were no laws against prostitution do you think there would be more prostitutes walking the street and more men willing to engage?

Many Christians alter their behaviors because of rules against it. If we did not feel there were any consequences against engaging in certain acts we might be far more likely to gossip, cheat on our wives, overestimate our charitable givings taxes, engage in sexual activity before marriage, brag or lie, and also less likely to be very generous with our money to the needy in other nations.

I dare say one who has no belief in a higher power or any sense that what they do hear during this life matters later on, they would be more likely to engage in a number of those things I noted above and others not noted.

So no one is saying you do not have personal moral and ethical standards, but I will say without a God to be accountable for it is much easier not to live up to those standards or not worry about it if you do not.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If falls under the banner of "miracles, logic and reason."

Miracles are often far separated from logic and reason. In fact, given that the resurrection was seen by three people, and Jesus' "ghost" was seen by only his closest friends in a single room, logic and reason would suggest - strongly - that they made it all up. Especially considering the accounts were really written down somewhere around a half-century after the events.

What evidence I am certain is proof for God, you reject as proof.

Proof is something that can be shown, tested, and verified. A major theme in Christianity - especially Catholicism - is "no questions allowed" Thou shall not test the lord thy god, and all that. What you call evidence and proof is belief and conviction, and experiences that have swayed and convinced you. Evidence and proof, on the other hand, shows the truth of something regardless of feelings, beliefs, and emotions.

Many out there are certain that we evolved from dirt and they are certain because they have proof.

1. Dirt is not living, and thus does not evolve. It is biologically impossible for anything to evolve from dirt.
2. The "proof" they would claim is a myth in a religious text. Not quite proof of anything, save for a creation myth. If that's the going rate for evidence, then I've proof that the sky dome is the skull of a great giant.

As for me, (and for a segment of scientists too) we do not accept your findings as proof. In fact, we think the dearth of evidence is proof we did not evolve.

A very small, negligible percentage of scientists. Unless you mean Creationists, who do not employ vetted and verifiable scientific measures. And the wealth of findings to support the Theory of Biological Evolution a) does not negate a creative force guiding it, as many Creationists claim, and b) very much so shows a progression of evolution, not just in humanity but in every species that is. It certainly does not show that we did not evolve.

What is, atheism? Oh, please.
In many cases it can also be called "the religion of convenience" because of its lack of obligation or accountability.

Lewis beat me to it, but no. Not at all. If anything, atheists have a purer form of morality and accountability than many theists, in that their mistakes and shortcomings are their own, and their good deeds are done for sake of good deeds, not fear of eternal torment or reward.

Question: If there were no speed limits on some open roads, do you think a large number of people would drive somewhat faster than they currently do?

Currently, there are speed limits, even within city limits. Yet I see many people - even Christians - speeding in excess of ten miles over the speed limit. This isn't really a good example.

If there were no laws against prostitution do you think there would be more prostitutes walking the street and more men willing to engage?

Probably not, because the people who are willing to risk those laws are likely the only people willing to utilize a prostitutes' profession.

If we did not feel there were any consequences against engaging in certain acts we might be far more likely to gossip, cheat on our wives, overestimate our charitable givings taxes, engage in sexual activity before marriage, brag or lie, and also less likely to be very generous with our money to the needy in other nations.

So then, as said above, your only reason for being a good person is the religious rules you hold in place? That makes for a worse person, you know. It should also be noted that Christians are not the only people who give to charity. I also know many Christians who do everything that you listed, so your claim that someone with no belief is more prone to do those things is demonstrably false.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say something about matter and this universe??? Nope

Correct, you did not. I did, as I find it evidence that eternity to us might not be so, and that even that which is far larger and greater than we will end.

I say logically u can't find somewhere that is non-existent because non existent doesn't exist clear?

We are actually quite aware of anti-matter (in essence, non-existence) and that it composes a great deal of the known universe. A blank canvas may be seen in an unfinished painting; though it is not a part of the composition, it still exists. Paradoxical to a point, but there it is.

So this infinite can't be made of matter or energy because they aren't endless.

By "this infinite" I assume you mean your god. How do you know he is infinite? How can you prove this?

 

[sayak83]

Read this carefully please

And reject it logically

OK

Existence which it is assumed intellectually can be either necessary or possible.

Ok.

intellectually, no existent lies outside these two assumptions and every existent can't be assumed to be a possible existent because a possible existent always needs a cause.

No it does not. Something could come into existence uncaused and random as well. Please demonstrate that it is impossible for a possible existent to exist uncaused?

If all causes were possible existents, each one of them in turn requiring a cause, no existent would ever come into being. In other words an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Therefore an infinite series of causes must be compelled to terminate in an existent that isn't an effect of any other existent for example necessary existent.

You are making a logical error. By definition, an infinite series is beginingless. That is its fundamental property. There is nothing illogical about an infinite regress, it can be easily modeled and analyzed using the negative number series. Asking how a beginingless entity begins is asking an illogical question. An infinite regress of causes is completely possible. In such a case, the universe, made up of an infinite regress of causally connected events will itself be beginingless and eternal, though each and every event within it will have a beginning an end and a cause and an effect. A very simple, elegant and logical universe that can be mathematically modelled using the number line.

All propositions whether simple or complex have two fundamental concepts (subject and predicate) for example in the following axiom the sun shines which establishes signing for the sun the sun is the subject and shining is the predicate. The establishment of a predicate for a subject has no more than three states: it could be impossible such as the number three is greater than the number four or it could be necessary such as the number two is half of the number four or it could be neither impossible nor necessary for instance the sun is above our heads.
In the terminology of logic the first proposition has the state of impossibility , the second proposition is given the attribute of necessity and the third state is considered as possible.
However in philosophy only existence is discussed and those things that are incapable of being ,of occurring and are impossible will never exist in the external world. For this reason philosophy regards existence from an intellectual respective as being either necessary or possible existence.
Necessary existence is known as an existence which exists in itself and doesn't depend upon another existent. Naturally such an existent will have no beginning and no end, because the non existence of something in a particular time is an indication that it's existence isn't from itself. In order for it to come into existence it would need another existent which would be the cause or the condition for its realization. The absence of this condition or cause would be the reason for its annihilation.

Ok.

Possible existence is known as an existent which doesn't exist in itself and depend on another existent in order for it to be realized.

No, it does not. A possible existent is an existent that may or may not exist. Nothing whatsoever can be said about its relations with other existents. There is nothing illogical for there being an existent that can just pop into existence at random without cause or reason. You are assuming that everything that exists must have reason why it exists. Demonstrate this assumption to be true. Some existent may have causes and reasons and others may not. One cannot know apriori that such existents must have causes or reasons.

Finally you are still talking in time. Time itself may be a possible existent. So you have to frame your logic so that it does not use temporal concepts.

These divisions which have been made through intellectual perception essentially disregard impossible existence , but they don't indicate whether a particular existent is a possible or necessary existent.
In other words the principles of this point of view can be conceptualized in three essential forms:
1 every existent is a necessary existent
2 every existent is a possible existent
3 some are necessary and some are possible existents.

OK.

On the basis of the first and third assumptions , the existence of a necessary existent is established

I did not follow how you established this?

Every possible existent needs a cause and it's impossible to have an endless again of causes.

You have failed to demonstrate any such thing. Its entirely possible, logical and rational to have an infinite causal regress and you have not demonstrated at all that every possible existent needs a cause.

Thus the endless chain of causes is compelled to terminate at an existent that isn't in need of a cause for example the necessary existent.
This argument introduces other philosophical concepts which need a brief description.

Cause and effect

If an existent requires another existent and depends upon that other existent for its existence, then in philosophical terminology the caused existent is known as the effect and the other causative existent is known as cause. However it's possible that a cause can also be an effect and be a dependent existent that isn't absolutely free from need. If a cause is absolutely free from need and doesn't depend upon any other existent then it will be the absolute cause.
Possible existent doesn't exist in itself and has no alternative other than to depend upon another existent. Thus every predicate recognized for the subject is either established by itself or by means of other than itself. For example everything either shines in and of itself or requires something else for its illumination or everybody is oily in itself or needs oil for becoming oily. It's impossible for something in itself to not be illuminating or oily and not receive light or oil from something else while at the same time being oily and illuminating!
Hence the establishment of existence for a subject is either through its essence or by means other than itself and when it's not through its essence then it has to be by means of other than itself. Therefore every possible existent that is not realized through its essence is bound to be realized by means of other than itself which implies that it is an effect. This provides us with the fundamental intellectual principle that every possible existent needs a cause.

All of this is based on your unsupported conclusions. You have failed to demonstrate

1) Why an infinite regress is illogical just because its beginingless.
2) Why every possible existent needs a cause or a reason. What is so problematic of things coming and going out of existence without causes or reasons.[/quote]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well I did say “in many cases,” not all.

Question: If there were no speed limits on some open roads, do you think a large number of people would drive somewhat faster than they currently do?

Yes. Those rules are related to safety, though, not morality. But rules impact on behaviour, if that is your point.

If there were no laws against prostitution do you think there would be more prostitutes walking the street and more men willing to engage?

No. But it's possible. I've read mixed studies on it.

Many Christians alter their behaviors because of rules against it. If we did not feel there were any consequences against engaging in certain acts we might be far more likely to gossip, cheat on our wives, overestimate our charitable givings taxes, engage in sexual activity before marriage, brag or lie, and also less likely to be very generous with our money to the needy in other nations.

That's an interesting leap. You might also be more likely to judge homosexuals, shun non-believers, or allow set-up a dichotomy where Christian politicians are vastly more likely to be voted into public office. Let me ask you a question related to this, but in a different way, assuming you see monogamy as a moral behaviour. Christians and non-Christians cheat. Isn't the determination of who is behaving morally related to the action? Ultimately I would agree that living 'morally' requires a level of discipline and sacrifice, and that religion can be a source of this. But why we judge people on claimed associations and not simply their behaviour is beyond me.

I dare say one who has no belief in a higher power or any sense that what they do hear during this life matters later on, they would be more likely to engage in a number of those things I noted above and others not noted.

Why? Is the only reason you don't cheat because of God? That seems...well...sad. I made a promise to my wife. Simple.

So no one is saying you do not have personal moral and ethical standards, but I will say without a God to be accountable for it is much easier not to live up to those standards or not worry about it if you do not.

This line of thinking appears to have the same basic flaw as Pascal's Wager. It makes more sense when considering a form of belief (eg. Christianity) versus non-belief. When considering the various religious beliefs around, it seems to have more issues. Unless you think women should morally cover their heads?

 

[Valerian]

What makes you think we have any value to God?

I don't. It is one reason I value mankind higher than the animals, not you.

 

[Valerian]

Miracles are often far separated from logic and reason. In fact, given that the resurrection was seen by three people, and Jesus' "ghost" was seen by only his closest friends in a single room, logic and reason would suggest - strongly - that they made it all up. Especially considering the accounts were really written down somewhere around a half-century after the events.



Proof is something that can be shown, tested, and verified. A major theme in Christianity - especially Catholicism - is "no questions allowed" Thou shall not test the lord thy god, and all that. What you call evidence and proof is belief and conviction, and experiences that have swayed and convinced you. Evidence and proof, on the other hand, shows the truth of something regardless of feelings, beliefs, and emotions.



1. Dirt is not living, and thus does not evolve. It is biologically impossible for anything to evolve from dirt.
2. The "proof" they would claim is a myth in a religious text. Not quite proof of anything, save for a creation myth. If that's the going rate for evidence, then I've proof that the sky dome is the skull of a great giant.



A very small, negligible percentage of scientists. Unless you mean Creationists, who do not employ vetted and verifiable scientific measures. And the wealth of findings to support the Theory of Biological Evolution a) does not negate a creative force guiding it, as many Creationists claim, and b) very much so shows a progression of evolution, not just in humanity but in every species that is. It certainly does not show that we did not evolve.



Lewis beat me to it, but no. Not at all. If anything, atheists have a purer form of morality and accountability than many theists, in that their mistakes and shortcomings are their own, and their good deeds are done for sake of good deeds, not fear of eternal torment or reward.



Currently, there are speed limits, even within city limits. Yet I see many people - even Christians - speeding in excess of ten miles over the speed limit. This isn't really a good example.



Probably not, because the people who are willing to risk those laws are likely the only people willing to utilize a prostitutes' profession.



So then, as said above, your only reason for being a good person is the religious rules you hold in place? That makes for a worse person, you know. It should also be noted that Christians are not the only people who give to charity. I also know many Christians who do everything that you listed, so your claim that someone with no belief is more prone to do those things is demonstrably false.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Correct, you did not. I did, as I find it evidence that eternity to us might not be so, and that even that which is far larger and greater than we will end.



We are actually quite aware of anti-matter (in essence, non-existence) and that it composes a great deal of the known universe. A blank canvas may be seen in an unfinished painting; though it is not a part of the composition, it still exists. Paradoxical to a point, but there it is.



By "this infinite" I assume you mean your god. How do you know he is infinite? How can you prove this?

>>Miracles are often far separated from logic and reason. In fact, given that the resurrection was seen by three people, and Jesus' "ghost" was seen by only his closest friends in a single room, logic and reason would suggest - strongly - that they made it all up. Especially considering the accounts were really written down somewhere around a half-century after the events.

What has transpired since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ validates its authenticity thousands of times over. (IMO) And you say miracles are separated from logic and reason. Hardly. Here is what Chesterton says about them:

“My belief in miracles cannot be considered a mystical belief: it is founded on human evidence, as is my belief in the discovery of America. It is, indeed, a simple logical fact that hardly needs to be recognized or interpreted. The extraordinary idea going around is that those who deny the miracle know how to consider the facts coolly and directly, while those who accept the miracle always relate the facts with the dogma previously accepted. In fact, the opposite is the case: the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so. The unbelievers deny it (with or without reason) because the doctrine they profess compels them to do so.” – G.K. Chesterton from “Orthodoxy” (1908 a.d.)


>> What you call evidence and proof is belief and conviction, and experiences that have swayed and convinced you. Evidence and proof, on the other hand, shows the truth of something regardless of feelings, beliefs, and emotions.

Sorry, not with you. Benedict XVI said faith without reason is false. The Church’s reason is not faith, it is knowledge and wisdom and sensibility. Refute the evidence all you choose, you do not dissuade me from calling it what it is… proof.

>>Dirt is not living, and thus does not evolve. It is biologically impossible for anything to evolve from dirt.

I must say, answers like that dismay me. That’s almost a red herring. Ok, not dirt then. How about rocks and minerals? How about primordial soup? I will even give you amino acids. The point remains, your religion says that if you trace mankind’s ancestry back far enough that is all you have… dirt. I mean soup. I contend the probabilities of some inanimate “force” --- which is nothing more than chance because it is mindless --- of assembling life building cells with thousands of machines in them, and then organisms, and then organ bearing fur animals, et al. --- the probabilities for that are an insult to consider. Impossible. You need I.D. to perform that.

>>2. The "proof" they would claim is a myth in a religious text. Not quite proof of anything, save for a creation myth. If that's the going rate for evidence, then I've proof that the sky dome is the skull of a great giant.

FYI, the reason I am a creationist is by default. The evidence for evolution is a total FAIL (imo). Yes, God could easily have done it through evolution, but I and others reject it because the proof should be known by now, but it is not, it is all projection of a theory based on similar traits.

>> If anything, atheists have a purer form of morality and accountability than many theists, in that their mistakes and shortcomings are their own, and their good deeds are done for sake of good deeds, not fear of eternal torment or reward.

Sounds nice, but doesn’t mean a thing to me. I reject your hypothesis.

>>Currently, there are speed limits, even within city limits. Yet I see many people - even Christians - speeding in excess of ten miles over the speed limit. This isn't really a good example.

My point was simple. Drivers make for safer drivers because there are laws they need to abide by or consequences follow. Christians make for better citizens and moral neighbors (generally speaking) because we fear the consequences if we break the Lord’s laws, you have no laws to worry about in those same matters.

>>So then, as said above, your only reason for being a good person is the religious rules you hold in place?

No, that is not the only reason. We do a lot of good work and act more honestly because of sheer gratitude to God for creating us and creating heaven. You do not find that to be of reason? Nor is it a coincidence Christian nations tend to be better friends of other nations as well, willing to defend them when attacked as well.

>>That makes for a worse person, you know.

And you believe what you wrote?

>>It should also be noted that Christians are not the only people who give to charity. I also know many Christians who do everything that you listed, so your claim that someone with no belief is more prone to do those things is demonstrably false.

Thanks for your opinion. Again, I reject it, mostly. As far as charitable giving is concerned, I would be willing to bet Christians outgive non-Christians in the same nation.

 

[Neo Deist]

Why? Is the only reason you don't cheat because of God? That seems...well...sad. I made a promise to my wife. Simple.

Same here. I gave a vow to my wife and I honor it because I am an honorable man. I would not want to be cheated on, so I don't cheat in return.

It has nothing to do with an afterlife punishment.