Why don’t you believe in God?

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fact remains that belief in a theistic god doesn't continue because people happen to like it. I'm not even sure what you're proposing that has to do with anything. Christianity and Islam are still around because of support from powerful states. Otherwise, they'd have died out with many other ancient theistic belief systems.

If yo disagree, you can provide something of substance. If you're just going to use words like "bizarre" and "damn cynic" to dismiss things you don't like, then why bother?

Here is my problem. Your claim is as far as I can tell a "just so story". It is not based on any actual test, because that is not possible and it doesn't account for that theism in effect could make sense to some poople. Further on a deeper level, there is the problem of what religion is and if it is not just cultural, but rather natural as a form of human social and psychological behaviour.

So as an atheist, I recognize your variant of understand religion and as far as I can tell it is subjective and itself cultural in part.
Now I don't reject reject religion, I simply just have another worldview.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

Any reason that I should believe in what scammers say and do not provide any evidence for?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Did I say I reject them?
As to faith, yes duh, I don't believe in faith as a useful term in understanding reality.
It certainly exists, but it's utility is questionable.

Well, if you can with science as natural science give evidence for utility as per actual natural science, you would be the first human in recorded history to do so.
So if you have no evidence for utiliy, you in effect if you trust it to be real, have faith as a non-supernatural vairant.
We can go through how it ends being faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any reason that I should believe in what scammers say and do not provide any evidence for?

Any reason I should believe that scammers claim that the universe is physical and have no evidence for? And as far as I can tell, you are one of those scammers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe the question should be; Do you have anything that you can show me that does not require my faith in it to support your claim as a theist?

Do you have any evidence for your personal belief in what you consider utility?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is objective evidence that morals have declined

Ow? Share that evidence.

and that can be correlated to the steady decline of religion, as more and more people drop out of Christianity or are not even raised in it.

It seems to me that the society I reside in today is much more moral with less christianity then it used to be 80 years ago with a lot of christianity in it.
Less misogyny, less oppression, less homophobia, less psychological abuse, less domestic violence,...

For example, in the 18th century and the early 19th century, even to the mid-19th century, the sexual mores were a lot different, and that was because most people were Christians and they really believed in the Bible and followed it.

Now all you need to show is how those "sexual mores" where objectively more moral.
Good luck with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, there is no objective evidence for any standard of morality

By saying that, you have just undermined your entire argument.

, since the standards come from religion

No they don't.

which is not objective evidence.

IOW, your claim that with the decline of religion there was an objective decline in morals, is thus wrong.

What you REALLY mean is that as religion declines, people care less about rules imposed by that religion which it is trying to sell as being "moral rules".

This is obvious. Religion comes with religious rules. As people care less about said religion, it follows they will care less about the rules exclusive to that religion also. This does not mean they become less moral. It means they become less religious.

And I would argue that in many cases, it actually makes people MORE moral.

For example, I would say that homophobia is immoral.
Bible beliefs promote homophobia.
So less bible influence means less promotion of homophobia.
So in that case, less bible makes society more moral.

See? This wasn't even hard to argue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And if your side loses?

Then it's on like donkey kong

 

[Aupmanyav]

Any reason I should believe that scammers claim that the universe is physical and have no evidence for? And as far as I can tell, you are one of those scammers.

I have not come across any evidence of a non-physical universe. Have you?

 

[Magic Man]

Here is my problem. Your claim is as far as I can tell a "just so story". It is not based on any actual test, because that is not possible and it doesn't account for that theism in effect could make sense to some poople. Further on a deeper level, there is the problem of what religion is and if it is not just cultural, but rather natural as a form of human social and psychological behaviour.

So as an atheist, I recognize your variant of understand religion and as far as I can tell it is subjective and itself cultural in part.
Now I don't reject reject religion, I simply just have another worldview.

My claim is that the two biggest theistic religions in the world have survived due to support from powerful states. It is based on the evidence of history. So many ancient theistic religions died out without such support.

Obviously, theism makes sense to some people, but as with anything not supported by evidence, it would be a fringe type of thing, if it wasn't the official belief system powerful states.

The problem of what religion is, whether or not it's only cultural or natural of human social and psychological behavior is irrelevant to my point. My claim is not subjective or cultural. It's simply based on history.

Whether or not you reject religion or have another worldview is irrelevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My claim is that the two biggest theistic religions in the world have survived due to support from powerful states. It is based on the evidence of history. So many ancient theistic religions died out without such support.

Obviously, theism makes sense to some people, but as with anything not supported by evidence, it would be a fringe type of thing, if it wasn't the official belief system powerful states.

The problem of what religion is, whether or not it's only cultural or natural of human social and psychological behavior is irrelevant to my point. My claim is not subjective or cultural. It's simply based on history.

Whether or not you reject religion or have another worldview is irrelevant.

As for this claim: "... but as with anything not supported by evidence ..." there is no human method of strong evidence as far as I can tell. That is how we got methodological naturalism. That it seems you don't understand the limit to evidence, tells me at least something about you.

As for what religion is, that has an effect aabout what you claim has happened. Because you effect treat human behavior as with or without evidence for what humans do and that that with evidence is in effect more effective. The problem then end in your subjective beleif about what evidence is.

 

[Magic Man]

As for this claim: "... but as with anything not supported by evidence ..." there is no human method of strong evidence as far as I can tell. That is how we got methodological naturalism. That it seems you don't understand the limit to evidence, tells me at least something about you.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that there is no evidence for a theistic god. That it seems you don't understand that tells me at least something about you.

As for what religion is, that has an effect aabout what you claim has happened. Because you effect treat human behavior as with or without evidence for what humans do and that that with evidence is in effect more effective. The problem then end in your subjective beleif about what evidence is.

I can't parse this. If you want to restate for clarification, that would be helpful.

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems to me that the society I reside in today is much more moral with less christianity then it used to be 80 years ago with a lot of christianity in it.
Less misogyny, less oppression, less homophobia, less psychological abuse, less domestic violence,...

I was not referring to those things. I was referring to the lax sexual morals and the disintegration of the family unit.

 

[Trailblazer]

IOW, your claim that with the decline of religion there was an objective decline in morals, is thus wrong.

What you REALLY mean is that as religion declines, people care less about rules imposed by that religion which it is trying to sell as being "moral rules".

This is obvious. Religion comes with religious rules. As people care less about said religion, it follows they will care less about the rules exclusive to that religion also. This does not mean they become less moral. It means they become less religious.

It means that people become less moral when they are not following the laws of God.
I am not suggesting that the laws of God in the Bible are what people should be following but that is another subject.

And I would argue that in many cases, it actually makes people MORE moral.

For example, I would say that homophobia is immoral.
Bible beliefs promote homophobia.
So less bible influence means less promotion of homophobia.
So in that case, less bible makes society more moral.

See? This wasn't even hard to argue.

i would say that homophobia is wrong, but that does not mean that homosexuality is moral.

 

[ChristineM]

It means that people become less moral when they are not following the laws of God

I personally think that is total bull and insulting.
What it means is people have to think for themselves what is right or wrong because they don't have a monkey on their shoulder telling them what to do

I also think taking an example from the most evil, nasty, hurtful, violent being in literature is not the way to good morals

 

[Trailblazer]

I personally think that is total bull and insulting.

Insulting to who? I said 'people.' I was not referring to atheists, I was referring to anyone who does not follow the laws of God.

What it means is people have to think for themselves what is right or wrong because they don't have a monkey on their shoulder telling them what to do

No, it does not mean that. Most people know right from wrong without a religion telling them what to do.

I also think taking an example from the most evil, nasty, hurtful, violent being in literature is not the way to good morals

The Bible is not 'literature' nor does it represent the actions of God. The OT is stories that men wrote about God.

 

[ChristineM]

I was referring to anyone who does not follow the laws of God

Exactly. Insult everyone not of your liking. And i too said people

Most people know right from wrong without a religion telling them what to do.

Really? Then why all the 'those following god are more moral'

nor does it represent the actions of God

Tell that to the couple of billion people who think otherwise

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. Insult everyone not of your liking. And i too said people

I said I think people become less moral when they are not following the laws of God
This has nothing to do with what I like, it is all about what God likes.
There was no insult stated or implied.

Really? Then why all the 'those following god are more moral'

I did not say "those following god are more moral."
I said "people become less moral when they are not following the laws of God."

Tell that to the couple of billion people who think otherwise

Do you think it would do any good?
The only thing I can do is present an accurate depiction of God according to my religion and after that my job is done.

 

[ChristineM]

said I think people become less moral when they are not following the laws of God

Interesting how the crime/under age sex/ teen pregnancy/sti/prison statistics of bible belt show the complete opposite

There was no insult stated or implied.

No? Denigrating those who don't follow a god with statistical bull is not an insult?

I did not say "those following god are more moral."
I said "people become less moral when they are not following the laws of God."

What???

Do you think it would do any good?

Not much because most would remain the condescending, insulting people they have been indoctrinated to be

 

[Eli G]

It is an irrefutable fact: if a person does not fear God, when one of his interests is at stake, he is more likely to violate any moral principle (if any exists) than a person who fears God to avoid personal damage.

The materialist principle of survival of the fittest is based on achieving the end regardless of the consequences. Evidently this is the philosophy that most of the world's wealthy people have adopted, since they do not care about the damage they do to their workers or the planet, if their profits increase.

Offended with the obvious truth?