Is There a God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

i too am quite offended by the thought that because i lack religous belief i lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions. I don't need religon to tell me not to kill, steal, discriminate or how to treat people generally. general common decency is plenty of a grounding, relying on someone elses "anchor points" just seems to be refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions or decisions imo.

---

I know that you do not lack the grounding to make moral or other decisions, precisely because you are a person. That grounding is innate. To be honest I think that Mr Mateo's position is a little myopic.

The difference between you and I on this subject I suspect is where we each think morality derives from. I would suggest that the fact that morality exists is the hallmark of some moral being which was responsible for the universe in the first place, whereas you would suggest that it exists due to a series of symbiotic evolutionary reasons - both of which are perfectly rational but ultimately both also require an a priori position.

I do not think for a second that deists and theists have a monopoly on morality and it's certainly evidenced by the utter hideousness perpetrated by mankind, including inside institutions supposedly upholding standards of morality. Then again I also see this as evidence of a fault in human nature. In that respect in some instances I've seen atheists uphold a far better standard of morality than some theists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The difference between you and I on this subject I suspect is where we each think morality derives from. I would suggest that the fact that morality exists is the hallmark of some moral being which was responsible for the universe in the first place.

---

I just find that explanation/argument inadequate. It simply doesn't answer the question of where that 'being' got its morality from.

If morality had one source it would suggest that morals are absolute. But this can't be true as morals are constantly evolving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I'm afraid I consider your point of view quite offensive, personally. In no way do I consider my own atheism 'nihilistic'. What do you, with respect, know of the motivation behind my lack of religious belief?

And, quite honestly, how dare you suggest that the sense of judgement of someone who has made up their mind that there is no higher being must be rendered somehow inferior to that of any believer? I would rather people, including politicians, took decisions based on fact and reason rather than religious belief of any form. Your sense that religious belief makes an individual superior to a non-believer is not just patronising, but also groundless. In the context of politicians, how sad that you, and those like you, would ignore any good an atheist politician had ever done in favour of a spurious moral judgement in which their lack of religious beliefs overrides all other personal qualities they may have.

---

I find it interesting that you have taken such offense to statements Alexamateo has never made. Just where does he state that lack of religion means that people have no moral fiber or ability to pass sound judgement? He does not state such things, only that for him it is an anchor point in his thought process and decisions.

Every person has some anchor point for their decisions. If not I would be very worried about their thought process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

And therein is perfectly encapsulated the problems of religion in policy.

Some, because they have picked a few things to fixate on and who rationalise ignoring huge portions of their own sacred commandments, believe that they are superior and have superior judgement---in advance---because ultimately they believe their ONE WAY is the ONE WAY for all people, all questions...

While others who see their extremely selective concentration on just a few points in their Holy Book, while utterly ignoring direct commands from their Savior, believe those people to be cynical hypocrites at best, and dangerous and delusional people ready to do anything somebody might convince them is their Gods Will"

In short: "those that can make you believe in absurdities and concince you to commit atrocities".


You are a dangerous person Alex M. Your belief in a Zombie Jesus puts my liberty, my 2 little girls liberty and indeed the political process in this country in danger.

Why do you hate America?

---

Just a reminder, but the above post with some substitutions on point of view, could easily be expected to come out of Bob Reibe's mouth. Not only do you insult his belief system, but also the God he chooses to believe in. You then equate such beliefs to erosion of your freedom and dangerous to the country.

Bravo Bob, Bravo!

Well, I have been gone afternoon. I am in the nursery business and spring is the busy time of course. I'll just say there has been quite a bit of overreaction and defensiveness to things not actually said.

I first posted the Slate article about the Gallup poll showing that over 1/2 of all Americans would not vote for an atheist.

Then studiose said if a politician started mentioning faith, they would be seen as nuts.

Then knock-on said "I want my politicians to make decision based on reason, facts and logic, not some 'belief'. That scares me."

That is what I was responding to. If the person doesn't believe in anything, What are his reasons, facts and logic based on? What are they grounded in? When a person is an atheist, I don't know. That is all I intended. :)

My apologies if I have offended anyone, it was never my intent. Forgive me for not being clear. Thank you Airshifter and Rollo for your excellent posts, I agree with them completely (well, except for the myopic part :p )

A while back. Carrie Fisher said something about wishing she could believe in God, but she just couldn't. I'm feeling the exact same. The more I live, the more I observe, and the more I learn, the less I can believe that there is some particular order to things. Science and random chance explain things so much better than the idea that the is a benevolent creator who chooses to have things work just like random chance. I'd like there to be something more, I'd like their to be some grand purpose, and I'd like to matter to the creator of the universe (yeah, I know, some ego trip, eh?) but my observation of the world just won't let me. It probably doesn't help that I was raised in a Christian tradition that holds out the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, and that I find the Christian mythology so difficult to believe.

Speaking of Christian mythology, let me detail what bothers me about it. It all starts with God creating the universe, and the earth, and all that's on it. (picked that up from the Nicene Creed) Also, God hates sin. If God hated sin, why did he create it? Then, God creates man and woman, puts them in a garden with a tree that they're not supposed to eat the fruit of. God, having made people, would have to know that they are curious. Then, on top of all that, one of the angels he created goes rogue, and God lets him into the garden to nudge the people to eat that fruit. I'm sorry, but doesn't God know how this is going to come out before it happens? Doesn't God seem a little conflicted? For a perfect being, he seems rather mediocre.

Quite honestly, it gets weirder. So God picks out one small tribe, the Israelites, and decides they are his favorite, kind of like picking out a football team to cheer for. He lets them get away with all kinds of atrocities, then decides to redeem them by sending part of himself to be born as a man, and having them kill him. After that, things will be all better. Now, this is the most important event in all of human history, but it's only observed by a subset of this small tribe, and it isn't even written down until decades after it occurred. Now, most of the rest of the Israelites don't accept this person as their Messiah as none of the events that are supposed to occur when their Messiah arrives actually happen. Now after all this, those followers are supposed to spread the word, and those who don't find it compelling are to be tossed into the lake of fire once they die. And, after this event, there are others who are convinced that they've received divine revelation and continue to create new faiths. Am I the only one for which this makes no sense?

Having said all that, I'm very impressed with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, I'm just not convinced he's God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I would rather people, including politicians, took decisions based on fact and reason rather than religious belief of any form.

---

Perfectly legitimate. Would you please elaborate then on how you tell fact and reason from their opposites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FormerFF

Quite honestly, it gets weirder. So God picks out one small tribe, the Israelites, and decides they are his favorite, kind of like picking out a football team to cheer for. He lets them get away with all kinds of atrocities, then decides to redeem them by sending part of himself to be born as a man, and having them kill him. After that, things will be all better. Now, this is the most important event in all of human history, but it's only observed by a subset of this small tribe, and it isn't even written down until decades after it occurred. Now, most of the rest of the Israelites don't accept this person as their Messiah as none of the events that are supposed to occur when their Messiah arrives actually happen. Now after all this, those followers are supposed to spread the word, and those who don't find it compelling are to be tossed into the lake of fire once they die. And, after this event, there are others who are convinced that they've received divine revelation and continue to create new faiths. Am I the only one for which this makes no sense?

---

Despite this tivial interpretation your post makes me think why the christianism managed to become a worldspread religion. Because after Jesus's doctine, God is no longer the God of a single "tribe" ( liked this term! ). According to christianism all nations are equally entitled to enjoy the love, care and protection of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I find it interesting that you have taken such offense to statements Alexamateo has never made. Just where does he state that lack of religion means that people have no moral fiber or ability to pass sound judgement? He does not state such things, only that for him it is an anchor point in his thought process and decisions.

---

Same difference, surely? He said that he feels people who do not have religion in their lives do not, in his opinion, have sufficient 'anchor points' when it comes to decision-making. Argue about semantics all you like, but this is what was said, and I consider it offensive to non-believers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Perfectly legitimate. Would you please elaborate then on how you tell fact and reason from their opposites?

---

A fair example would be going to war on the basis of a military assessment of a threat rather than 'because God told me to'.