Do You Believe In God?

[Jack Daniels]

Morality is not actually a complicated issue. Morality comes from:

1. Our ability to reason what's conducive to well being (this is objective, not subjective)
2. Our biological predispositions to behaviors and feelings that evolved when we became a social species

Religion likes to pretend it has a monopoly on morality, but it doesn't even have a claim on it. Religious proclamations of morality are not actually where morality comes from, and secular morality is in fact the only kind of morality. This is evidenced by the fact that your moral position on a person having the open ability to have sex with a slave because she's one's property differs from the Quran's position. Many, if not most, religious people have moral positions that differ from their holy book, which is evidence for secular morality as the only morality. Morality also cannot come from a god without morality being completely arbitrary.

the slavee sex is commonly in at least 3 religions, and 2 yewish and christians that i know of for sure say it's okay to mass murder an entire nation if said so by god, this moment in time is not because of sins of this nation, it's because of thier possesion... i don't know if this part of history is also in the islam teachings... so that's why i keep it on at least 2 religions... but i know most of the history is the same in all 3 books... a religion is just there to keep you from asking questions... to have you follow a leader to without thinking for yourself... religion keeps you from fighting for your rights, thinking of those who differ, give higher people easy answers for when there's need for someone to blame...
religion in many countries even here in the west are the main reason for people to not feel accepted because they got feelings for someone with the same sex, religion is most commonly used to scam people, bribing them for thier money...
as long as we have the excuse of it's god's will there will be torture, murder without any reason.
if there's a god who gave you everything, then he should have thought about the possibility to use those tools to find out truth for ourselves, if a god made us he made gay people aswell wich is wierd cause he hates part of his own creation, if god is real then why didn't he prove wich religion was the truth one? did he wanted us to have war over such a thing? if this so called al mighty person excists, he is really the most cruel person to belive in since he made sicknesses, he's responsible for the harm of the innocent cause he doesn't do anything about them... these tools we were given if used for real will eventually get everyone to the point that you can't keep up all in the books as being real...

how can it be that people keep each other in the name of god keep each other from searching for peace and joy? i've joined chirch for 15 years all versions you could think of, even read other reliogious books... they don't differ much...

please start using the tools you have... for it's not only for yourself, it's for your children, your wife/husband, your brother and your relatives, your neighbors...

the madness needs to stop!

 

[Foxchild]

Interesting how our assumptions color our arguments. Things like "God is immoral" or "If God is the source of morality, it would be arbitrary" are only true if the assumption that there is no god were true. If there IS a (benevolent, omniscient) God, then, of course, His moral law would not be arbitrary, but would be the most beneficial way to live for the species He created it for. IF God exists, by definition He could not be immoral because He would determine what was moral and what was not (it wouldn't be up to us) - for instance, the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie. Now, is that because, if He attempted to, the words would get caught in His throat, or is it because as soon as He uttered them, they would just become true, with history rewriting itself so that it had always been true. IF God exists, I'd say it's likely the latter, so whatever God did or decided would automatically become moral. Further, people disagreeing with their own religion on certain points is just evidence of people being human; it has nothing to do with the origin of morality, as this would surely still occur either way. Really, it's less about whether or not God exists, and more about whether you decide to serve Him, fight Him, or ignore Him.

 

[JoostinOnline]

I notice the OP has been banned.

Since this seems to have turned into a debate on evolution, I'll point out that Christianity and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive. That's creationism, which represents a fairly small portion of the Christian community (unless you restrict yourself to the USA).

 

[Foxchild]

A quick google shows a 2014 gallop poll that 42% in US are creationists (of the population, not just Christians). Couldn't find anything on percentage of Christians worldwide are creationists, but I'd be interested to see.

Also in this debate it's important to remember the distinction between micro evolution (evolution within a species) that is observable and accepted by creationists (at least the ones that know what they're talking about) and macro evolution (evolution between or from one species to another) which is not observable (because it takes too long) and therefore still unproven by scientific method (by definition).

 

[JoostinOnline]

Also in this debate it's important to remember the distinction between micro evolution (evolution within a species) that is observable and accepted by creationists (at least the ones that know what they're talking about) and macro evolution (evolution between or from one species to another) which is not observable (because it takes too long) and therefore still unproven by scientific method (by definition).

Darwin's finches were a complete different species. They couldn't mate with the species of finches that they came from.

Micro and macro evolution are actually the exact same thing.

 

[Lacius]

Interesting how our assumptions color our arguments. Things like "God is immoral" or "If God is the source of morality, it would be arbitrary" are only true if the assumption that there is no god were true. If there IS a (benevolent, omniscient) God, then, of course, His moral law would not be arbitrary, but would be the most beneficial way to live for the species He created it for. IF God exists, by definition He could not be immoral because He would determine what was moral and what was not (it wouldn't be up to us) - for instance, the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie. Now, is that because, if He attempted to, the words would get caught in His throat, or is it because as soon as He uttered them, they would just become true, with history rewriting itself so that it had always been true. IF God exists, I'd say it's likely the latter, so whatever God did or decided would automatically become moral. Further, people disagreeing with their own religion on certain points is just evidence of people being human; it has nothing to do with the origin of morality, as this would surely still occur either way. Really, it's less about whether or not God exists, and more about whether you decide to serve Him, fight Him, or ignore Him.

If you're going to define morality as that which God says is moral, then you're right. However, that's not what morality is. Morality actually refers to behavior that is conducive to well being, and what a god allegedly says on the topic is irrelevant. Earlier, I linked to information on the Euthyphro dilemma. It asks if something is moral because God says it is, or does God say something is moral because it is? If it's the former, then that necessarily means that a god could say murder is moral, and that's objectively untrue. If it's the latter, then a god is not the source of morality.

Regardless, there is no reason to think a god exists, and as I already explained, secular morality more than accounts for morality, and it is the only morality that can exist.

I notice the OP has been banned.

Since this seems to have turned into a debate on evolution, I'll point out that Christianity and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive. That's creationism, which represents a fairly small portion of the Christian community (unless you restrict yourself to the USA).

I agree with you that the debate about evolution is pointless because a.) A person can believe in evolution and also be Christian, and b.) Disproving evolution has no bearing on whether or not it's rational to believe a god exists. However, one could argue that if evolution is true and the fall of man didn't occur, then the resurrection and the rest of Christianity falls apart.

A quick google shows a 2014 gallop poll that 42% in US are creationists (of the population, not just Christians). Couldn't find anything on percentage of Christians worldwide are creationists, but I'd be interested to see.

Also in this debate it's important to remember the distinction between micro evolution (evolution within a species) that is observable and accepted by creationists (at least the ones that know what they're talking about) and macro evolution (evolution between or from one species to another) which is not observable (because it takes too long) and therefore still unproven by scientific method (by definition).

We have plenty of scientific evidence for speciation. Something does not need to be observed for there to be scientific evidence for it. To use an example I used earlier, we have evidence of how long it takes Pluto to orbit the Sun even though it takes longer for it to orbit the Sun than we've known about Pluto's existence. Regardless, we also have plenty of observational evidence for speciation. Rates of speciation vary.

 

[JoostinOnline]

However, one could argue that if evolution is true and the fall of man didn't occur, then the resurrection and the rest of Christianity falls apart.

The general consensus outside of the US is that the first part of Genesis is allegorical.

 

[FAST6191]

Well that particular god type sounds like a bollocks job if you can't speak in metaphor, let alone anything more fun. On the other had if the god with a capital G is the programmer of the universe then the inability to have comments is why certain things have some very iffy logic. Fortunately there are infinite versions of the deity concept out there. That is not just me playing with logic either -- the fact the idea of words is so important within that is of considerable interest to all sorts of fields, go look at some of the tribal religions that might not have had written word until somewhat recently and words are not he thing the lord spoke and magic and religion and superstition have a somewhat different basis.

Also speciation not proven? Did all those fossils, genetic analysis with retroviruses, genetic analysis with certain sequences, chromosomal analysis of plants, isolated life form studies and so forth all vanish?

As for the source of morality I would say it is a nice survival trait to help with group/herd living (sharing is good and also rather nice for not dying if you happen to get an epic case of the squirts and can't go hunter gathering for a week, sharing also means you can specialise which is definitely helpful in the civilisation bit, not having to worry about being killed all the time is nice, not having your tools go walkabout is something I enjoy to this day, being fairly sure your offspring are yours is kind of helpful if the sex drive is going to be as high as it is, equally while coughs and sneezes spread diseases crotch rot is also not pleasant so best to contain that, is it well known that a lot of dietary restrictions in the various Abrahamic religions (and many minor ones too) tends to be a nice way to dodge Maslow's hierarchy of needs when you are poor in a hot desert that does not have fridges and I could probably continue this for a while). It got a bit more codified and strange as societies/empires grew but for my money still started as a survival trait and continues along those lines.

 

[Lacius]

The general consensus outside of the US is that the first part of Genesis is allegorical.

One could argue that if some parts of the Bible are allegory, others are literal, and the distinction between the two is arbitrary, then there's no reason to think any of the Bible is literally true.

To be clear, this isn't my argument. There are as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians.

 

[JoostinOnline]

One could argue that if some parts of the Bible are allegory, others are literal, and the distinction between the two is arbitrary, then there's no reason to think any of the Bible is literally true.

To be clear, this isn't my argument. There are as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians.

True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.

 

[evandixon]

Looks like evolution has come up again. First I'll point out that it doesn't matter how life formed, all that matters is that God is the cause.

Now about micro vs. macro evolution: micro evolution has been confirmed by observation. Macro evolution has not. There has never been any observation of a change in kind by evolution. Note that I said "kind". When the finches evolved into a different species, they're still finches, and they're still birds, and are still of the same "kind". Evolutionists like to say all life formed from a common ancestor, a single cell organism. However, there is no direct evidence for this. To say that it did and treat it 100% as fact requires faith, while many evolutionists think it's obsurd to have faith that God exists, despite the lack of direct evidence.

True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.

By the standards of other books and sources, events in the Bible can be treated as historic fact. Even athiests recognize this (when they ignore the parts God).

 

[Lacius]

True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.

Whether or not the Bible includes some history is irrelevant to whether or not any of the rest of the Bible is true. Plenty of mythologies include some history. Spider-Man comics include some contemporary people, places, and events. But I don't think that's what you're arguing here. You do, however, still appear to be describing a situation in which the Bible itself cannot be distinguished between fact and allegory. What you described as the method of distinguishing between fact and allegory is the historical verification, not the Bible. If you're going to discuss the importance of historical verification, then what's the point of the Bible with regard to figuring out what's true? If the fall was allegory, was the resurrection? Was the entire concept of a god?

Looks like evolution has come up again. First I'll point out that it doesn't matter how life formed, all that matters is that God is the cause.

I will agree that, concerning whether or not it's rational to believe in a god, it doesn't matter how life formed. Evolution also has no bearing on the topic of how life formed since it concerns itself with the diversification of life after life formed. However, there is no reason to think a god exists or caused anything. We do not know for sure how abiogenesis occurred because all evidence from that time has likely been lost, but we're aware of plenty of ways it could have happened naturally. Even if we weren't aware of how life could have formed, the absence of a possible explanation is not evidence for another.

Now about micro vs. macro evolution: micro evolution has been confirmed by observation. Macro evolution has not. There has never been any observation of a change in kind by evolution. Note that I said "kind". When the finches evolved into a different species, they're still finches, and they're still birds, and are still of the same "kind". Evolutionists like to say all life formed from a common ancestor, a single cell organism. However, there is no direct evidence for this. To say that it did and treat it 100% as fact requires faith, while many evolutionists think it's obsurd to have faith that God exists, despite the lack of direct evidence.

First, both micro-evolution and speciation (i.e. macro-evolution) have been confirmed through direct observation. Even if we didn't have direct observation of speciation, it wouldn't matter; evidence does not need to come in the form of direct observation. I have numerous times in this thread used the example of Pluto's orbit around the Sun: We know it takes Pluto 248 years to orbit the Sun, but that's longer than we've even known about the existence of Pluto. We also sometimes know how murders occurred because of forensic evidence, even if there are no witnesses to the murder.

Second, we actually have evidence of the common descent of all life on Earth. It does not matter that nobody has been around 4 billion years to directly witness it. Nobody can claim with absolute certainty (i.e. 100%) that this is the case, but we can be maximally certain (i.e. around 99.9%) that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor given the evidence. A belief does not require absolute certainty, and since the belief in common descent is evidence-based, it has nothing to do with faith. By definition, it is only absurd to believe something without or contrary to evidence.

By the standards of other books and sources, events in the Bible can be treated as historic fact. Even athiests recognize this (when they ignore the parts God).

I'm not aware of any standard for historical evidence that would include the Bible. The authorship of the Gospels is anonymous, and the Bible is not a primary source, for starters.

 

[mashers]

To say that it did and treat it 100% as fact requires faith, while many evolutionists think it's obsurd to have faith that God exists, despite the lack of direct evidence.

Ahh, 'faith'. The great swindle of religion which basically says:

Only true believers escape hell
To be a true believer you have to have faith
If you question your beliefs you don't have faith
Ergo anybody who questions their beliefs is damned to hell

What better way to keep the 'believers' in check than to threaten them with eternal torture if they dare to demand evidence for the existence of the god they are told exists and which demands to control every aspect of their thought and behaviour?

Faith is an excellent scam. Science does not operate on faith. It works on hypotheses. The difference is that religious faith DEMANDS that you DO NOT search for evidence for your beliefs as that would show lack of faith, while science REQUIRES that you search for evidence to either support or refute your hypotheses. To conflate religious faith with scientific hypothesising shows a lack of understanding of one or the other (or both).

 

[FAST6191]

Choice video

Ergo anybody who questions their beliefs is damned to hell

I mentioned it elsewhere and wish I got a picture but ergo is a bit too indirect for some of the things I have seen. We found a bunch of my grandma's old mormon books and one of the lines in it was something like "when people question the church leadship they lose sight of the faith", and this was bolded and quote styled as well.

 

[mashers]

ergo is a bit too indirect for some of the things I have seen.

Well I intended it to mean 'therefore' which I think is quite direct unless I have misunderstood.

We found a bunch of my grandma's old mormon books and one of the lines in it was something like "when people question the church leadship they lose sight of the faith", and this was bolded and quote styled as well.

The hilarious thing about religion's attitude to faith, and use of it to suppress free thought, is that the same attitude in any other context would be considered ridiculous, untenable, outdated or even illegal.

If you question a management decision you will be fired immediately.
If you question the government you will be imprisoned indefinitely.
If you question a teacher you will be disciplined.
If you speak against the monarch you will be hanged.

These are all things which used to happen, and still do in some less fortunate cultures. They are all examples of attempts to control the population by making expression of doubt and free thought illicit. We recognise these as despicable now, but for some reason it still seems to be seen as OK within the context of religion.

 

[FAST6191]

Indeed most are indirect or constructed or inferred, or the semi informal "why are you questioning the word?" said off the record, but that was a nice case of direct which I saw.

On the government thing I was watching that containment show the other day and a line in it went "Remember when you were a kid and you thought grown-ups knew everything and the President was the smartest man on the planet?".
I was stunned, never thought or even conceived that people thought that about presidents at all. Certainly never met the logic anywhere else in the world I have been. I imagine it could have been possible before journalists adopted the adversarial position to politicos (arguably happened somewhat after the introduction of TV). There is weak writing and that show is hardly top notch but damn. Realising the fallibility and/or lack of omnipotence of your parents is an important part of life and I feel sorry for those that never get there, that said the last prime minister of the UK that have ended with reasonably popular support/approval is probably a bit before my time -- give or take Gordon Brown (which was hardly great) you are back to what 1976 and Harold Wilson?
That said it would make sense of some of that Jesus camp film I saw and the whole Dixie Chicks thing.

 

[Deleted User]

No, and I don't really care about religion. I chose to not get myself into any religion. I guess the closest thing I am is a Agnostic. I really have no business getting into religious debate because of my age (and the people my age trying to get into a "muh belief is atheism" or "muh god exists because" debates turns into a shitshow because they don't know anything and trying to sound edgy/all knowing) so I'll just stay outta this one.

tl;dr No

 

[FAST6191]

I really have no business getting into religious debate because of my age

That might fly in real life but this is the internet -- the ability to present a rational and cogent argument counts for basically everything, indeed age would probably be a cop out excuse rather than a valid one. It might be that you have not had enough time to read everything and learn the basis for the science or something (it took me years to read all the major religious books and compared to what else I know my knowledge of biology is really quite limited) but that some of those lacking years seem to be able to, and those some are not all composed of people with rare and hard to come by abilities, so it is not really an excuse.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Well I intended it to mean 'therefore' which I think is quite direct unless I have misunderstood.


The hilarious thing about religion's attitude to faith, and use of it to suppress free thought, is that the same attitude in any other context would be considered ridiculous, untenable, outdated or even illegal.

If you question a management decision you will be fired immediately.
If you question the government you will be imprisoned indefinitely.
If you question a teacher you will be disciplined.
If you speak against the monarch you will be hanged.

These are all things which used to happen, and still do in some less fortunate cultures. They are all examples of attempts to control the population by making an expression of doubt and free thought illicit. We recognise these as despicable now, but for some reason, it still seems to be seen as OK within the context of religion.

I don't know where it says in the Torah or Quran where you can't have doubts about god. Rather that if you have doubts you should research further and come to a conclusion.

 

[Lacius]

No, and I don't really care about religion. I chose to not get myself into any religion. I guess the closest thing I am is a Agnostic. I really have no business getting into religious debate because of my age (and the people my age trying to get into a "muh belief is atheism" or "muh god exists because" debates turns into a shitshow because they don't know anything and trying to sound edgy/all knowing) so I'll just stay outta this one.

tl;dr No

If you don't believe god(s) exist, then it sounds like you're an atheist in addition to being an agnostic. The two are never mutually exclusive.