Without God(s), what is the point?!

[George-ananda]

No it isn't. It is opinion based on anecdote.

Call things anecdotes but a quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotes can influence my view of reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. You are still only doing it because your religion tells you.

If a person stops stealing or lying because that is what she believes from the Bible is the right thing to do, how would you classify that? As good or bad? Some people would think ah...that's not necessary...even atheists don't steal or lie, so what's the big deal? Perhaps some people need to be told by what they consider is a "higher power." And what they believe is right and wrong.

 

[KWED]

No, I'm not saying that. So let me reiterate. I'm saying that I believe my experiences are genuine in that I attribute these certain events to God answering me in a way that's more than coincidence. I don't have a signed, sealed document mailed from heaven with a notary's stamp on it. But they're mine. I don't ask others to accept them as true coming from me. I only know what I experienced. Nothing observable as a vision but circumstances. Others may relate experiences to me and while they were not my experience, I can understand it and feel it's their experience within the realm of my belief. Then there are other experiences that people may have had they may relate but I do not think they came from God.

What you are basically saying there is "My experiences are genuine, while the experiences of others are not."

Yes, it is my decision to make as to what I currently believe. Kind of like science. ?

No, not at all "like science".
Iron oxidises in the presence of oxygen and moisture. It is irrelevant whether you decide to believe it or not. It is a repeatably demonstrable fact. Iron will rust whether you believe it or not.

 

[KWED]

I am making my point. We all make decisions in life, religious or not, as to what's good. There are atheists and purported religious people who do not do good to others, right? There are people teaching their children how to lie and steal yet go to houses of religious worship. They may even help someone in need. So at a certain point, you figure it out.

Nope, sorry. Still none the wiser.

If you are saying that there are atheists and religious people who do good, and others from both groups who do bad, and some may do both... then duh! Obviously. The point here is the motivation for doing good. For the atheist it is only to help others. For the religionist it is to avoid punishment or gain reward, so an act of self interest rather than a selfless good deed. A religionist may also do good because it is the right thing to do - but god is not needed for that, as atheists prove.
Some religionists are hypocrites and don't follow their own claimed moral code. Again, no **** Sherlock. And the point there is that atheists aren't hypocrites if they don't help others, etc because there is no "atheist moral code" that they are expected to follow.

 

[KWED]

Again -- regarding reward or punishment, there are some things people may think are good, doing good for others, that may not be so good. There was a circumstance where a father taught his children how to steal. They were all put in jail. Yet the children mentioned also the fun they had with their father outside of the stealing activities. Your sense of morality may not be the same shared by others, atheists or not.

Again, your point eludes me. Are you claiming that the man genuinely thought that stealing was good?
Also, yes, there are religionists who think that intolerant or even violent behaviour towards others is "good" when any rational person can see it isn't. But that just further demonstrates the shaky foundation of religious morality.

 

[KWED]

Sometimes learning a hard lesson by hitting rock bottom is the beginning of getting up.

This is just the flawed concept of "suffering is good because it's nice when it stops".

So again -- there are levels in everyone no matter who they are in doing good to one's neighbor.

Lost me again.

Now the question -- are we all neighbors?

You didn't say what you would do.
And no, obviously we are not all neighbours.
Neighbour: A person living next door to or very near to the speaker or person referred to. (OED)

 

[KWED]

Call things anecdotes but a quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotes can influence my view of reality.

There is a famous expression... The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

When none of those people are able to demonstrate their supernatural claims under controlled conditions, all their anecdotes can be dismissed as fabrication or delusion.
I understand that you really want them to be true, but that isn't how the world works.

 

[KWED]

If a person stops stealing or lying because that is what she believes from the Bible is the right thing to do, how would you classify that? As good or bad?

It's better that they stopped, but they shouldn't have started in the first place. If they stop through fear of punishment/desire for reward, then it is an act of self interest rather than genuine goodness. Of course, if someone believes in the concepts of Abrahamic heaven and hell, it is impossible to separate the two motives.

Some people would think ah...that's not necessary...even atheists don't steal or lie, so what's the big deal? Perhaps some people need to be told by what they consider is a "higher power." And what they believe is right and wrong.

It's like the gangster who stops smashing up your business because you started paying protection money. Was their stopping a good act?
Or the thief who stops trying to break into your car because the police drove by. Was their stopping a good act?

 

[George-ananda]

There is a famous expression... The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

In my 'all things considered' thinking, anecdotes are indeed evidence for consideration.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Disagree. The reality is that ethics are flexible. The reality is that you will change your ethics to fit a new situation.

The reality is that human ethics changes with the situation. When circumstances are easy, I extend grace to everyone. When my survival is threatened, it goes only so far as those others that will support my survival.

This is reality. Moral and ethical systems are fictions to justify what we do, what humans do. We are the human animal. We do what we evolved to do. All life evolves to support the species survival. An individual life has evolved to pass on it's genes. It cooperates with others in the species inasmuch as that cooperation doesn't interfere with its own gene transmission.

It is what it is. Systems of ethics and morality are fictions to justify what we will do simply because we are human.

And there it is folks! Atheism doesn't actually have any ethics because it's a system where ethics are completely relative.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And there it is folks! Atheism doesn't actually have any ethics because it's a system where ethics are completely relative.

non sequitur and off topic

(n.b., you can't claim atheist have no ethics while simultaneously claiming that those non-existent ethics are relative. And BTW, what do you mean "completely.")

 

[wellwisher]

The idea of God was needed to define concepts like human rights, that apply to all. Without a God, that is higher than humans, humans will set the bar lower, to their own level. Without the idea of God, some humans would never willingly give up power, but rather would form dual justice systems and stop there.

As another contrast, say you committed a crime but was found innocent. Those who believe in God, will see a higher standard of justice than man's law and may still feel guilty even if called innocent by the law of man.The godless will feel innocent or lucky since the law said so; no record means innocent. The God fearing, by their guilt to a higher standard, will learn a lesson sooner.

Say you were poor and had no belief in a higher power. You depend only on your five senses, like a scientist. You look around and conclude you are screwed in life. You become depressed and/or angry and desperate. The God fearing person who believes in heaven and after life may live in a positive fantasy reality, beyond sensory reality, that allows them to make the best of the situation; blessed are the poor. They may work and will become prey to the godless, but they continue on.

The God concept expands the mind beyond the five senses and their physical inferences and conclusions. This can help alter realty beyond the conclusions one may draw with only sensory reality. All innovation benefits by living outside the box where the senses can no longer perceive; imagination.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If everyone has a moral compass, even if they are atheists, then why is belief in god needed for a moral compass?

It's not and I never said it was. The only reason we have a moral compass is because we are made in God's image.

 

[Wildswanderer]

non sequitur and off topic

(n.b., you can't claim atheist have no ethics while simultaneously claiming that those non-existent ethics are relative. And BTW, what do you mean "completely.")

You just affirmed that they are completely relative to the situation. You would perhaps give the homeless guy down the street a cup of coffee, because it doesn't really cost you anything significant. But if you were on your last loaf of bread and starving, you would guard it with your life and not share with anyone... and kill if necessary to keep it for yourself.

Jesus turned all that on its head. He said to do good to those who used you and to your enemy.
It's not natural of course. It's supernatural.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you accept that without the control of religion you would be selfish, then you are selfish.

Beliefs cause actions. That's true for everyone.
We don't act apart from our beliefs, we act on our beliefs. If I do something selfish that's the old nature that's natural in all people. If I do something selfless, that's the holy spirit working. I still have to choose which to follow, BTW...it doesn't make me a meat robot.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You just affirmed that they are completely relative to the situation. You would perhaps give the homeless guy down the street a cup of coffee, because it doesn't really cost you anything significant. But if you were on your last loaf of bread and starving, you would guard it with your life and not share with anyone... and kill if necessary to keep it for yourself.

Jesus turned all that on its head. He said to do good to those who used you and to your enemy.
It's not natural of course. It's supernatural.

Jesus was wrong

 

[Wildswanderer]

And yet ex-religionists often say their lives are better since losing their faith.

People say a lot of things. That doesn't make them so.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Jesus was wrong

No, he was truly good, not just when it was convenient for him. He forgave those who were torturing him to death.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, he was truly good, not just when it was convenient for him. He forgave those who were torturing him to death.

... and created the doctrine of hell

 

[Kharisym]

Or maybe it's accurate because of seeing that even the best of us still have faults. It's great that you want to help others. In my world that just means God gives everyone some form of moral compass, and you haven't totally suppressed it because of sin. And of course we don't know if we would descend into barbarians if we were not restrained by society, because we have never had society completely collapse on us. If humans were inherently good there would be no crime, no wars and on and on. It's not hard to see we aren't inherently good.

Your statement here undermines your prior premise: "And, no I don't believe I'd feel any particular caring for others if I thought they were just animals. I think that, like many people, I'd just be selfish. To say what you believe doesn't affect your feelings about others is nonsense IMO. How would you know that if you don't believe in something?"

If everyone has faults but are still basically good and caring, then the idea that you would cease caring about people if you lost faith is undermined. It might be true that *you* could feel that way, but its self evident that such would not be the norm.

I used to be a Christian, so I know what it feels like to have faith, therefore I know that how I feel about people now is actually a *lot* more altruistic and caring than when I was Christian.

Per God giving everyone a moral compass, there's no evidence of this. And just as you called me out for presuming what's in your heart, I'll call you out on this--You have no idea what my motivations or reasoning are. Your claim is tantamount to 'You actually believe in God but just pretend not to' which is pretty offensive because it presumes superior knowledge about *me* than me.

Per your barbarians statement, society is not Christianity. Social behavior is a point of genetic adaptation for humanity. From a beginning of anarchy people would form social units for basic survival.

Per no crime or war if people are inherently good, this is undermined by my prior statement that people can have certain hereditary traits that undermine the essential social caring humans have, and also certain tragedies can undermine this as well.

Overall, I find the doctrine of us all being sinners to be deeply disturbing. It establishes two dangerous ideals: 1) Superiority to those outside the preferred group, and 2) That humans by default are cruel to each other. These are premise that can lead to atrocity.