Are you saying that other than the flippant "skydaddy" remark you otherwise agree with the statement?

Rocag said:

---

Bribe might not be the best descriptor for all beliefs, but seems pretty accurate for others. Plenty of versions of Christianity out there explicitly offering personal wealth, health, and success in exchange for belief and tithes.

And it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider Christianity without an afterlife. What if God were to say that yes, he designed and created you but that death was the end of human experience. No heaven, no hell, just an end. Would that religion's moral laws no longer be worth adhering to?

---

Interjecting here: Our ability to connect with God in any way is through our consciousness. Christianity proposes that through our consciousness, we grow closer to God in order to be with Him in a perfect way in the end. By rejecting Him (also through our consciousness) we separate ourselves from Him, which will be hell to endure. The moral laws He lays out are done so precisely so we can understand what gets us closer to Him and what moves us further away.

The proposal you offer is to say that God made us to know Him only to wipe out that consciousness later would mean that this God has no desire for us to move closer to Him and no concern about us moving further away. I would say it's much more likely that this God would provide no moral laws at all, than to provide laws for no real reason.

Rocag said:

---

Are you saying that other than the flippant "skydaddy" remark you otherwise agree with the statement?

---

I am simply saying I don't understand how being atheist leads to anything other than a life completely devoid of anything transcendent. I don't see how it can be otherwise if the scientific materialist view is true. I am not suggesting that I know your personal beliefs or experiences. I wouldn't dare to do so based on a shallow, momentary internet interface.

And I owe you a response to this question:

What if God were to say that yes, he designed and created you but that death was the end of human experience. No heaven, no hell, just an end. Would that religion's moral laws no longer be worth adhering to?

In this hypothetical scenario you seem to be describing the life of an enlightened animal. So for this hypothetical the best I can predict is that we would all just live according to our animal instincts and that morality would have nothing to do with any of it, just like there's nothing moral or immoral about a lion eating a gazelle.

Rocag said:

---

I certainly agree there are philosophical implications for a world without gods versus one with them, including how a society creates moral standards. I don't think it works as a proof for god, as some have attempted, but it is a valid point.

In my opinion, morals and standards for behavior arise naturally from even small examples of human society. I'd argue that religion serves as a post hoc justification for those rules rather than a true source for them. You see these even in Christian societies. Take slavery, for example. For centuries the Bible was used as justification that slavery was acceptable, until morals changed and scripture was reinterpreted to define it as unacceptable. Or monarchs justifying their reigns by appealing to the divine right of kings. Same thing. There's obvious power in saying that not just are your claims right but that the gods themselves have declared you're right.

I believe the basis of all human morality is empathy. That and being aware enough to realize that if you don't want something to happen to you then you probably should disapprove when it happens to others. If you don't want to be murdered then you probably ought to do your part to create a society in which murder isn't acceptable, that kind of thing. No appeals to a deity needed. Now certainly there are moral debates in any society, even ones in which people all claim to believe in the same religion. Does it matter that we can't say one is objectively right verses objectively wrong? No. In practice they are functionally the same. I don't see two arguing people both insisting they are objectively right as intellectually superior to the alternative.

And you can't raise a boogey man of the Chinese surveillance state without at least mentioning the morality police of the theocratic alternative of which there are plenty of examples. If there is a race to the bottom, isn't that where yours leads?

---

Isn't what you are saying basically the Golden Rule? And that is Biblical.

Rocag said:

---

I certainly agree there are philosophical implications for a world without gods versus one with them, including how a society creates moral standards. I don't think it works as a proof for god, as some have attempted, but it is a valid point.

In my opinion, morals and standards for behavior arise naturally from even small examples of human society. I'd argue that religion serves as a post hoc justification for those rules rather than a true source for them. You see these even in Christian societies. Take slavery, for example. For centuries the Bible was used as justification that slavery was acceptable, until morals changed and scripture was reinterpreted to define it as unacceptable. Or monarchs justifying their reigns by appealing to the divine right of kings. Same thing. There's obvious power in saying that not just are your claims right but that the gods themselves have declared you're right.

I believe the basis of all human morality is empathy. That and being aware enough to realize that if you don't want something to happen to you then you probably should disapprove when it happens to others. If you don't want to be murdered then you probably ought to do your part to create a society in which murder isn't acceptable, that kind of thing. No appeals to a deity needed. Now certainly there are moral debates in any society, even ones in which people all claim to believe in the same religion. Does it matter that we can't say one is objectively right verses objectively wrong? No. In practice they are functionally the same. I don't see two arguing people both insisting they are objectively right as intellectually superior to the alternative.

And you can't raise a boogey man of the Chinese surveillance state without at least mentioning the morality police of the theocratic alternative of which there are plenty of examples. If there is a race to the bottom, isn't that where yours leads?

---

I think slavery is actually a fantastic example of Christianity pushing back on societal rules. One of the first few popes was a freed slave. There are a number of examples of early Christians switching places with slaves so that they could be freed. Slavery was an economic reality of pre-market economy, not an ideal condition. So the Christian perspective was to try and elevate their status as much as possible. There is no doubt that later, predominantly protestant, Christians used this as a reason to keep slavery, but from the Catholic perspective, we had papal encyclicals saying that perpetual slavery was wrong. What little slavery was signed off on was slavery as a tool of war. Again, in a pre-market economy, it was less than ideal, but never was chattel slavery ok'd.

This may sound like a copout, but the fact is that, after the fall of Rome, 6th-11th century Europe had largely eradicated slavery until it was re-popularized during the slave trade. A fuller, more historical view of slavery shows the church was never "for" it, but understood it as a condition of the times. Christianity has pressed against the societal norms for quite along time.

Now to the bolded: we're still appealing to an immaterial value source for our morality. Empathy is not something we can hold in our hands, touch, measure, etc. It's not even something that all people naturally have. Some have none and never will. Many struggle in the matter and have to be taught how to be empathetic. Some people aren't worried about the golden rule because they are bigger and badder than everyone else (cartels, mobs, etc). And the golden rule is still an immaterial idea that we're appealing to. Even if we can scietifically prove the golden rule is the best way to build a society, you'd have to help convince all those people that care more about themselves that they should adopt it. You're actually making their life harder in order for other people's lives to get better. You're still having to appeal to something greater than the person and outside of humanity itself in order to assert that the values should be enforced in society.

And I didn't mean to appeal to a boogeyman with China. I think that is genuinely the best case scenario for atheistic governments, whereas theocracies are the lowest form. Our country is a great example of one that has created peace in our homeland by appealing to christian values and personal policing, without becoming a theocracy.

Various versions of the golden rule have popped up in many cultures throughout history and Christianity was far from the first to express it. For example, we were discussing Confucianism earlier in the thread. Almost 500 years before Jesus he taught "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

I don't think it takes some divine insight to see that in practice most people respond according to how they're treated. If you're nice to someone they're more likely to be nice to you. If you're mean to them you shouldn't be surprised when they respond negatively. Just human nature.

Rocag said:

---

That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.

---

Given that God is love and a universe, it would be surprising if love was not possible in the world God made. Given that even atheists and agnostics are image bearers is also not surprising that you love your kids.

Processing...

If God does not exist, what is the origin of 'love'? How do we define it? What's the standard?


If God does not exist our kids the next proposed alternative is that kids are products of chance with no design, no objective value, that share our DNA. They suck up the earths resources, suffer, and die. Why not love yourself or your wealth or your hobbies more than your kids? Why not be as unfaithful to their mother as possible and pursue all of the pleasures of your nature with the understanding that love is ultimately meaningless? There's no reward for how well you love or hate your kids if there is not God. There's not judge, no accountability. By loving your kids who have no objective value are you doing what's called living as a hypocrite of the atheistic worldview?

If these questions cause a brief pause or feel uncomfortable (it does to me writing these out) it could be that there's a moral law written on the hearts of humanity in which love has an objective value that transcends chemical reactions.

Rocag said:

---

Various versions of the golden rule have popped up in many cultures throughout history and Christianity was far from the first to express it. For example, we were discussing Confucianism earlier in the thread. Almost 500 years before Jesus he taught "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

I don't think it takes some divine insight to see that in practice most people respond according to how they're treated. If you're nice to someone they're more likely to be nice to you. If you're mean to them you shouldn't be surprised when they respond negatively. Just human nature.

---

Not sure about that. Narcissists exist. Plenty of people love taking advantage of others kindness. Strong empires love decimating and accumulating the weaker nations. I would suggest that the whole reason why philosophers had to teach these things to begin with is because of how contrary this thought is to our natural, selfish desires. If we were all naturally empathetic and applied the golden rule, why do we have to work so hard to teach it to people?

That argument about the necessity of moral teachings can easily be turned right back around on you. If god's moral law is so clear and we all somehow inherently know it why does any Christian priest or leader need to spend time talking about them at all? Because in practice it isn't so simple.

The point I was making is that, in general, people don't want bad things to happen to them and hope good things will. And that people tend to react based on how they are treated, good for good and bad for bad. This isn't some law set in stone, we're more talking probabilities here. Yes there are people who will do harm without cause, no denying that. Given those two points, what can we conclude?

And to follow up on your previous post, I wouldn't want an atheistic government to begin with. Like I said, any state that strictly controls the religious beliefs of its people is in my opinion flawed to begin with. And there is nothing inherent to atheism that people who accept it should want it enforced on others.

Rocag said:

---

That argument about the necessity of moral teachings can easily be turned right back around on you. If god's moral law is so clear and we all somehow inherently know it why does any Christian priest or leader need to spend time talking about them at all? Because in practice it isn't so simple.

The point I was making is that, in general, people don't want bad things to happen to them and hope good things will. And that people tend to react based on how they are treated, good for good and bad for bad. This isn't some law set in stone, we're more talking probabilities here. Yes there are people who will do harm without cause, no denying that. Given those two points, what can we conclude?

And to follow up on your previous post, I wouldn't want an atheistic government to begin with. Like I said, any state that strictly controls the religious beliefs of its people is in my opinion flawed to begin with. And there is nothing inherent to atheism that people who accept it should want it enforced on others.

---

I don't think any Christian sect teaches that God's moral law is super clear. I think it's more accurately stated that God's moral law is unchanging, but we struggle to get it right because of the fall of man in the garden. We aren't born pure and holy. We would use the word "corrupted", and in Christian context it isn't meant to be offensive. Just stating that we were made to follow the moral law perfectly but we've lost that connection to a degree.

I would agree that, in general, people tend to act based on how they are treated, but how much of that is taught? For example, my 3 year old doesn't want ANY toys taken from him. But he's perfectly fine taking toys from his siblings. Sometimes he takes their toys just to take them. Has no intent on playing with them. As parents, we teach him right from wrong, and in time, he will learn to share. But that parenting, by the time they hit 5 or 6, often sounds like, "would you want your brother to do that to you? No? Then don't do it to him". This concept literally has to be taught to all but the kindest of children. Like top 10%. And those nice kids are the ones that have to be taught to stand up for themselves because people will take advantage of them. I don't think it's as natural as you make it out to be. It is true, no doubt. But we don't naturally incline ourselves to it.

and fair enough about the atheistic government. I didn't mean to suggest you'd want to enforce that on others. You have never come across that way.

2girlsdad said:

---

I've gone from Atheist to Agnostic to now believing there has to be a higher power out there. When I look in my little girl's faces, the feeling of love consumes me. If I try hard, I could probably explain it away to dopamine or some other brain chemistry, and/or to evolutionary adaptations for protecting your young. But the love I feel for them, the pure adoration and fact that I almost come to tears looking at their pictures at work (digital frame FTW!), I just don't think that is a natural response.

Having kids has changed me, made me realize it's ok to say I was wrong.

Plus c'mon, the vastness of the Universe, the concept of infinity, that's hard to reconcile without a higher being.

---

No doubt about it.

Read or look into Intelligent Design and the debates that Christian scientists have with Atheists.

There are so many things that could not have happened by 2 space rocks hitting together and causing the Big Bang.

The tilt of the Earth, High and Low Tide, the distance from the Sun to sustain life, the seasons, photosynthesis, how babies are formed in the womb, the design of the eye, and then leave Earth and start trying to explain the atmosphere to sustain life, the solar system, our galaxy, then the universe.

It takes more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian.

Atheism creation story says Something came from Nothing.

Christian creation story says Something came from God, the Intelligent Designer, who has always been, and always will be.

Nothing comes from Nothing.

Quote:

---

"Nothing comes from nothing" (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical concept first argued by Parmenides and intertwined with ancient Greek cosmology. This concept suggests that there is no transition from a non-existent world to an existent one, as creation cannot originate from nothingness.

In Aristotle's Physics, Parmenides' idea is presented as a question of why something would be created later rather than sooner if it came from nothing, concluding that it must either be created altogether or not created at all.

---

https://www.parmenides.me/nothing-comes-from-nothing


Good luck on your journey.

I would recommend 'Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel.
An Atheist/Agnostic whose wife became saved and he being an investigative reporter decides to prove to her that God doesn't exist. What he found, was not what he expected.

There is also a movie made with the same title which is good, but the book does a much better job of fleshing out most of the questions non-believers have.

Rocag said:

---

That argument about the necessity of moral teachings can easily be turned right back around on you. If god's moral law is so clear and we all somehow inherently know it why does any Christian priest or leader need to spend time talking about them at all? Because in practice it isn't so simple.

The point I was making is that, in general, people don't want bad things to happen to them and hope good things will. And that people tend to react based on how they are treated, good for good and bad for bad. This isn't some law set in stone, we're more talking probabilities here. Yes there are people who will do harm without cause, no denying that. Given those two points, what can we conclude?

And to follow up on your previous post, I wouldn't want an atheistic government to begin with. Like I said, any state that strictly controls the religious beliefs of its people is in my opinion flawed to begin with. And there is nothing inherent to atheism that people who accept it should want it enforced on others.

---

We should at least agree that humans tend to agree that there's right and wrong, even if we might disagree about what exactly is right and wrong, and in some cases it can be harder to know what the right thing is to do.

That's remarkable by itself. Can you explain why humans feel compelled to rationalize our behavior at all? We even will rationalize our behavior to ourselves, because we need to be convinced of our goodness. Where does this desire to do the right thing come from?

For that conversation I think we might be getting into a case where people are using the same words but meaning different things. When I use terms like right, wrong, good, bad and the like I'm not meaning to imply these are based on some objective standard of morality or that they are absolutes. And, in general, I don't think that's how most people use them either.

So on one hand we might say something like "Stealing is wrong" but the question then becomes is that true in all cases? Because I can think of plenty in which stealing would be (in my opinion) the morally superior option.

So yeah, in the end I think terms like those are all subjective. We call moral or ethical decisions we agree with right and ones we don't wrong. Why do we do it? Because any time you are living in a group of people expectations on standards of behavior are going to emerge. What's acceptable to the group and what isn't.

Rocag said:

---

For that conversation I think we might be getting into a case where people are using the same words but meaning different things. When I use terms like right, wrong, good, bad and the like I'm not meaning to imply these are based on some objective standard of morality or that they are absolutes. And, in general, I don't think that's how most people use them either.

So on one hand we might say something like "Stealing is wrong" but the question then becomes is that true in all cases? Because I can think of plenty in which stealing would be (in my opinion) the morally superior option.

So yeah, in the end I think terms like those are all subjective. We call moral or ethical decisions we agree with right and ones we don't wrong. Why do we do it? Because any time you are living in a group of people expectations on standards of behavior are going to emerge. What's acceptable to the group and what isn't.

---

My question is more basic than questions about objective or subjective, or standards of morality. There's no need to establish a standard for goodness. Whatever the standard, people try to rationalize their bad (according to whatever standard you want to use) behavior. Do they not? It's painful for even the most principled of us to admit to ourselves that we've done something wrong.

We can just use your version of consequentialism to explain our behavior toward each other, but I don't think it explains why we feel the need to justify our actions to ourselves outside our interactions with others. It's not merely a desire to be thought about as a good person, we want to BE good, truly.

Do you think lesser animals ponder their relationship with goodness?