Better to have no god than a god and eternal hell. (gospels, Christ)
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.
Isn't it much better and safer for there to be no god and no afterlife than a god and a hell? Just by the numbers most religions can't be right since there are so many, and most religions say you go to hell for many reasons including not being that religion or other things. Lets say Islam or Catholicism is correct, then most of the world is going to eternal hell with no way to know which religion is correct. Logically its safer for there to be no god.
Does it have to be either/or?
How about a god and an afterlife, and no hell?
Or is that not allowed? And if it's not, which god says so?
I think you are misreading BF. He is not asking how we became moral, he is asking why something such as murder is immoral.
But you are correct, this has been answered before. There are also many philosophical arguments BF can Google explaining this.
Another problem is that BFs answer does not explain why something is wrong. A god declaring it is wrong does not explain why it is wrong. If we asked why god declared something was wrong, BF can not answer 'because it is wrong' as that means it is outside of God's control, and that is for BF not allowed.
A third problem is if a god decides what is good, then it could decide the holocaust is good, which is the opposite of what we know is good.
I got him ok. And maybe there is a philosophic argument as to why something is intrinsically wrong or right.
But to me, since morality is based purely on human evolution, there is no why other than how morality grew out of our instincts to live together or get into conflict. The 'how' is the only 'Why' and Bapfun and the others can't see it because they Do believe in an intrinsic right and wrong that exists apart from what humans have developed. But atheists don't so the question is as pointless as 'What is the Right flavour of Ice -cream, intrinsically'.
Of course, Ice cream doesn't matter as much as human morality (unless it's coffee Ice -cream) but it would if we went to war over it. That's as simple but easily overlooked as 'There are no a -philatelists' But there would be if stamp -collecting was as social a problem as religion.
303 is right. It all comes down to ...., based on what? And it comes down to what processes do we use to determine the reliability of a claim.
Based on all of us see it. Better stated as "based on how many of us see it."
Baptist is actually right ...
we have to remove how we feel about it. The suffering we see is what it is. We all see it but we all feel differently about it. Now we have to objectivity, as best nuts like us can, determine if the claim of a deity like the one in the bible (I just assumed Baptist meant a god of the bible) is reliable based on "we see suffering"
Its kind of backwards, but thats what we are dealing with here. The Deity meme is in our brains, like a habit. so now are we back tracking to see if its a "reliable" habit.
so, one approach is, and you will all see where I am going, we assume that suffering is not right or wrong.
Thank you. I appreciate the logical thought here.
Lots of people are saying that various things are wrong, as if it's obvious to a human being with a subjective mind, and then judging God by it.
I'm asking, how does anyone know what right and wrong is? What is the standard? What is the thing that everyone relies on to determine that? How do you know it's correct?
The closest thing I've seen to answer it is that we all agree on it, so it MUST be..... But the issue with that is that is that at it's core, that's merely opinion and groupthink. It's subjective and it is not an objective measuring stick. And you have no way to know if it's actually correct.
Nope. It's the old problem. God -belief a priori with the assumption that it is an absolute for everything (never mind that others have different gods and different givens) is screwing up your parameters. You demand an answer to a question that actually has no validity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
303 is right. It all comes down to ...., based on what? And it comes down to what processes do we use to determine the reliability of a claim.
Based on all of us see it. Better stated as "based on how many of us see it."
Baptist is actually right ...
we have to remove how we feel about it. The suffering we see is what it is. We all see it but we all feel differently about it. Now we have to objectivity, as best nuts like us can, determine if the claim of a deity like the one in the bible (I just assumed Baptist meant a god of the bible) is reliable based on "we see suffering"
Its kind of backwards, but thats what we are dealing with here. The Deity meme is in our brains, like a habit. so now are we back tracking to see if its a "reliable" habit.
so, one approach is, and you will all see where I am going, we assume that suffering is not right or wrong.
There is a difference between factually correct or not and human preference. Logic and science have the best track record in the facts. I have said enough about the science -deniers (only when it suits them) so I won't labour that point.
Human preferences are a different matter, and we should not go to war over which end of an egg to open. In a complex society, reciprocity becomes the basic (the golden rule) that is the nearest to a basic mechanism for making human empathy work.
A good analogy is like playing games. Games are good...if that's what one likes, but the rules are devised; they are not intrinsic, but without respecting the rules we cannot possibly play the games and we have no games, sports, or indeed workable society. That's why the rules matter. Not because they have intrinsic value but because we cannot have a complex society without.
Cue...'but people don't respect the rules'.
True. And it is an ongoing problem of how to get people to play by the rules rather than break them (to get an advantage) if they think they can get away with it.
The Believers can see clearly how nice it would be if there was a celestial CCTV and a flawless judicial system. But they cannot see that the evidence is that there is no such thing (1) and we have to do the best we can and not expect the rippers to get their desserts in the afterlife, so we needn't bother.
They also have the argument that if everyone believed it, we'd have order. Well, we've seen how that worked in the past and I'd say that a lack of belief (secular society) and respect for human rights has created a better world. So that argument doesn't work either.
(1) as Bapfun says above, that God Himself looks bad compared to his own moral system let alone a human -devised one doesn't help belief, and just saying 'He can do what he likes' just makes Christianity that bit more disgusting.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2020 at 07:30 AM..
Nope. It's the old problem. God -belief a priori with the assumption that it is an absolute for everything (never mind that others have different gods and different givens) is screwing up your parameters. You demand an answer to a question that actually has no validity.
That you cannot see that it is BOTH - God belief and No God belief - " a priori with the assumption that it is an absolute for everything (never mind that others have different gods and different givens)" that is the problem because ""WE DO NOT KNOW." Why do you not see that, Arq?
Quote:
There is a difference between factually correct or not and human preference. Logic and science have the best track record in the facts. I have said enough about the science -deniers (only when it suits them) so I won't labour that point.
Human preferences are a different matter, and we should not go to war over which end of an egg to open. In a complex society, reciprocity becomes the basic (the golden rule) that is the nearest to a basic mechanism for making human empathy work.
A good analogy is like playing games. Games are good...if that's what one likes, but the rules are devised; they are not intrinsic, but without respecting the rules we cannot possibly play the games and we have no games, sports, or indeed workable society. That's why the rules matter. Not because they have intrinsic value but because we cannot have a complex society without.
Cue...'but people don't respect the rules'.
True. And it is an ongoing problem of how to get people to play by the rules rather than break them (to get an advantage) if they think they can get away with it.
The Believers can see clearly how nice it would be if there was a celestial CCTV and a flawless judicial system. But they cannot see that the evidence is that there is no such thing (1) and we have to do the best we can and not expect the rippers to get their desserts in the afterlife, so we needn't bother.
They also have the argument that if everyone believed it, we'd have order. Well, we've seen how that worked in the past and I'd say that a lack of belief (secular society) and respect for human rights has created a better world. So that argument doesn't work either.
(1) as Bapfun says above, that God Himself looks bad compared to his own moral system let alone a human -devised one doesn't help belief, and just saying 'He can do what he likes' just makes Christianity that bit more disgusting.
I agree with everything you say here but I am astounded that you do not see its applicability to your views as well Your atheism is a PREFERENCE, Arq NOT "factually correct."
(1) as Bapfun says above, that God Himself looks bad compared to his own moral system let alone a human -devised one doesn't help belief, and just saying 'He can do what he likes' just makes Christianity that bit more disgusting.
You're like every 3 year old whining that Mom and Dad get to stay up past 8 while telling you at the same time to go to bed early. You think the same rules apply to them. Then you think they're bad when they don't obey them.
That you cannot see that it is BOTH - God belief and No God belief - " a priori with the assumption that it is an absolute for everything (never mind that others have different gods and different givens)" that is the problem because ""WE DO NOT KNOW." Why do you not see that, Arq? I agree with everything you say here but I am astounded that you do not see its applicability to your views as well Your atheism is a PREFERENCE, Arq NOT "factually correct."
Your failure to accept the materialist default and burden of proof is your problem, not mine. And I strongly suggest that you stop the continual off -topic peddling of your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
You're like every 3 year old whining that Mom and Dad get to stay up past 8 while telling you at the same time to go to bed early. You think the same rules apply to them. Then you think they're bad when they don't obey them.
A good analogy. But it fails because you are assuming that there is a mom/Dad god that knows best even if humanity doesn't understand. But you haven't shown that the god exist let alone that it knows best.
And the analogy fails if we get the parents being abusive or teaching them tinfoil hat stuff. They aren't right to find fault with that on the grounds that Mom and dad know best? I don't even need to have an analogy. What about kids being taught to believe in Santa up to about age 7 +/- a year. They are wrong to disbelieve? No because the parents fess up and say it was all a hoax.
But they can't do that if their authority figures have kept the mth going. Then the kids have to tune in to Atheist Experience or maybe, browse websites like his to be able to make the choice that the peddlers of religion would like to deny them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2020 at 08:25 AM..
Your failure to accept the materialist default and burden of proof is your problem, not mine. And I strongly suggest that you stop the continual off -topic peddling of your beliefs.
I repeated YOUR words, Arq. How can that be off-topic? Stop peddling YOUR beliefs. Your materialist default has become a millstone around your neck. As long as WE DO NOT KNOW there can be no default.
I repeated YOUR words, Arq. How can that be off-topic? Stop peddling YOUR beliefs. Your materialist default has become a millstone around your neck. As long as WE DO NOT KNOW there can be no default.
Pack it in, Mystic. You took my words and wrenched them into a peddling of your Beliefs, which are not the topic which is, I remind you a god with a hellthreat. Now stop trying to hi -jack the thread and your smokescreening. .
Pack it in, Mystic. You took my words and wrenched them into a peddling of your Beliefs, which are not the topic which is, I remind you a god with a hellthreat. Now stop trying to hi -jack the thread and your smoke screening. .
The hell threat is an absurdity which is why you focus on it to make belief in God an absurdity. THAT is smoke screening, NOT my clarifications.
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.
