Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a very important distinction here that seems to get overlooked a lot of the time, especially during heated debates.
An argument in favor of the adoption of theism or a particular doctrine such as Christianity does not need to depend on the actual existence of God.
Let me explain that a bit. Let's say that you believe the following claim: "Atheism is bad because atheists have no moral compass. Therefore, people should believe in God."
That argument is agnostic toward the actual condition of God. Which is to say, the argument does not change if we assume that God does not exist.
That's because it is a purely normative argument. The argument says that belief itself is beneficial. If God does not exist - but people believe anyway - the argument has the same effect.
The problem comes when people confuse these purely normative arguments with arguments that would actually support the existence of God.
Those arguments are quite different.
Imagine a world where God exists, but people who believe in God are overtaken by madness and mayhem and murder.
In such a world, the negative social effects of belief are still irrelevant when it comes to the fact of God's actual existence. Just as positive benefits would be irrelevant. God either exists or does not exist. That would not change due to normative social factors.
I know this thought has been pointed out before by other posters, but I'd like to rehash it in my own words. I just see a lot of confusion that keeps popping up here when it comes to this particular distinction.
Good Logic, i beilve in God of course, i'm a muslim, but your words are lgical
Belief in God has more than one benefit, on of them is being morally better, this does not mean that an atheist would be morally less, it depends on the person
As for my knowledge, there are atheists who are kind, because this is their nature, they believe in human brotherhood, But if you look at an atheist who don't believe this, he will actually do whatever he can to have lust, money, sex, etc, even by crimes, cause this is the only life available for him, especially if he was poor, unless his fear from police exceeds this intention.
there are believers who use religion to justify their crimes, we have seen it in all religions and ideologies, they do not differ from the atheist who do crimes.
Belief in God is a need, it's just like you need air, when you do good while you're believer in God, you combine the love for humanity with the beautiful feeling of gratefulness for God,
You are looking for the benefit in this life and hereafter
While the atheist is looking for the benefit in this life only
So, there are good and bad persons on both sides, so your argument is right to some extend, but not at all, in my opinion.
Good Logic, i beilve in God of course, i'm a muslim, but your words are lgical
Belief in God has more than one benefit, on of them is being morally better, this does not mean that an atheist would be morally less, it depends on the person
As for my knowledge, there are atheists who are kind, because this is their nature, they believe in human brotherhood, But if you look at an atheist who don't believe this, he will actually do whatever he can to have lust, money, sex, etc, even by crimes, cause this is the only life available for him, especially if he was poor, unless his fear from police exceeds this intention.
there are believers who use religion to justify their crimes, we have seen it in all religions and ideologies, they do not differ from the atheist who do crimes.
Belief in God is a need, it's just like you need air, when you do good while you're believer in God, you combine the love for humanity with the beautiful feeling of gratefulness for God,
You are looking for the benefit in this life and hereafter
While the atheist is looking for the benefit in this life only
So, there are good and bad persons on both sides, so your argument is right to some extend, but not at all, in my opinion.
Regards,
mahmoud
There are people who worship in all three Abrahamics that indulge in what you attribute to some Athiests quite well.
It is truely a sad thing if a person required religion to be a good person, ignoring for the moment the theopolitical aspect of religious moral sets.
There are people who worship in all three Abrahamics that indulge in what you attribute to some Athiests quite well.
It is truely a sad thing if a person required religion to be a good person, ignoring for the moment the theopolitical aspect of religious moral sets.
they're indeed religious persons who do the things they accuse athiests of bieng the only kind pf persons who do these crimes, i don't deny this,
The religious morals do not require political aspect,if you're in a country with majority of non muslims, you don't try to force the political view of Islam on this country, as it has been with muslims in Mekka
But when you're in a country with majority of muslims, then the true political view of Islam which is being distorted and lied upon by some non muslims and some muslims as well, is there
The problem is that we don't understand the political view of Islam as it's clear in the prophet's life, it's is broad, and can contain mercifully, justly all non muslims and muslims iin the muslim country. Non muslims have even more rights than muslims, they don't have to join the army, they pay less taxes most of time cause Jezia is less than Zakah, they have the right for unemployment and poverty aid ,as it has been in the muslim hisotry which again is being lied upon
I rather think the OP has been a bit misunderstood since it seemed that the argument - 'argument for god is not the same as argument for theism' - was not actually saying that atheists or anyone without a god- belief has to be bad, but that one could still believe in a god even if it made people behave badly (it often does).
"An argument in favor of the adoption of theism or a particular doctrine such as Christianity does not need to depend on the actual existence of God....That argument is agnostic toward the actual condition of God. Which is to say, the argument does not change if we assume that God does not exist.
That's because it is a purely normative argument. The argument says that belief itself is beneficial. If God does not exist - but people believe anyway - the argument has the same effect."
The argument is that argument for theism does not require a god to be real. However, the validity of that argument does require theism to have some real benefits, and that is arguable.
argument 1 "what is there that people who believe in a god can do that cannot be done by people who don't believe?" That charity work is generally in the hands of theists is a circular argument here.
argument 2 "what evidence is there that theism actually makes people, at large, behave better?" That is an arguable one as the debate about the stats on prison and divorce figures shows.
argument 3 "Even if there were demonstrable benefits from believing in a god, even if it wasn't real, isn't it better to reserve belief for what is pretty well known to be true?"
So the distinction is a real one but one that can easily be scooped up in the debate. It requires a different sort of argument from 'reality of god' and actually can be knocked down pretty easily as shown above.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-19-2010 at 04:22 AM..
I don't think it's valid even if there were some real emotional benefits to theism, defining reality that way is just madness. It's like removing all references of death and genocide from history books simply because knowing about them is depressing.
I don't think it's valid even if there were some real emotional benefits to theism, defining reality that way is just madness. It's like removing all references of death and genocide from history books simply because knowing about them is depressing.
Quite so. My point 3.
argument 3 "Even if there were demonstrable benefits from believing in a god, even if it wasn't real, isn't it better to reserve belief for what is pretty well known to be true?"
argument 3 "Even if there were demonstrable benefits from believing in a god, even if it wasn't real, isn't it better to reserve belief for what is pretty well known to be true?"
If you reserve knowing only for the objectively provable then you'll be in the dark for the most important issues in your life.
I sought God to save my soul and learned my rear end is connected to my soul.
There is a very important distinction here that seems to get overlooked a lot of the time, especially during heated debates.
An argument in favor of the adoption of theism or a particular doctrine such as Christianity does not need to depend on the actual existence of God.
Let me explain that a bit. Let's say that you believe the following claim: "Atheism is bad because atheists have no moral compass. Therefore, people should believe in God."
That argument is agnostic toward the actual condition of God. Which is to say, the argument does not change if we assume that God does not exist.
That's because it is a purely normative argument. The argument says that belief itself is beneficial. If God does not exist - but people believe anyway - the argument has the same effect.
The problem comes when people confuse these purely normative arguments with arguments that would actually support the existence of God.
Those arguments are quite different.
Imagine a world where God exists, but people who believe in God are overtaken by madness and mayhem and murder.
In such a world, the negative social effects of belief are still irrelevant when it comes to the fact of God's actual existence. Just as positive benefits would be irrelevant. God either exists or does not exist. That would not change due to normative social factors.
I know this thought has been pointed out before by other posters, but I'd like to rehash it in my own words. I just see a lot of confusion that keeps popping up here when it comes to this particular distinction.
yeah, milli mentals, known as anti religion types will not make that distinction. they will not talk about any data that "they there theists" can use. so they they keep the waters muddied so rational people can't talk.
as a matter of fact, the anti-theists are exactly like the fundymentals. they ignore or use science selectivity to meet their belief statement or agendas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the alien/demon/angel half breed reptilian exposées. 
