Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
If you were an athiest, knew that you wouldn't be caught by the law, and had no belief in afterlife consequences, what would stop you from doing something immoral? The goodness of your heart? You would behave just as animals do. Animals steal food from eachother because they need to live and are unintelligent. You wouldn't expect an animal to know what morality is let alone fear god; to some extent an athiest is no different.
Other than good will, which most people lack, nothing can get in the way of you and what you want. Know one is born with morals, you are either taught morals by your elders, parents, teachers.. or you are a religious person. No one is born with good will, we are all selfish and if it weren't for consequences, the human race would have been extinct a long time ago.
Our human form of divine punishment is the law. If you do wrong, you go to jail. this is basically enforcing what religious books such as the bible tell us. If you do wrong, you go to hell. The idea of god being this unforgiving tyrant is irrelevant to me; god is no different than law. If you think that god is a tyrant for forcing you to live morally then you should also believe that the police are tyrants for enforcing laws that you have to obey.
Other than good will, which most people lack, nothing can get in the way of you and what you want. Know one is born with morals, you are either taught morals by your elders, parents, teachers.. or you are a religious person. No one is born with good will, we are all selfish and if it weren't for consequences, the human race would have been extinct a long time ago.
Our human form of divine punishment is the law. If you do wrong, you go to jail. this is basically enforcing what religious books such as the bible tell us. If you do wrong, you go to hell. The idea of god being this unforgiving tyrant is irrelevant to me; god is no different than law. If you think that god is a tyrant for forcing you to live morally then you should also believe that the police are tyrants for enforcing laws that you have to obey.
The only problem with this hypothesis is that it has absolutely no reflection in reality. I can make a hypothesis too. Green cats are more likely to steal than black cats, because they blend into the environment better. But unless I show that this is the case, the hypothesis is worthless.
You are making huge statements about psychology that you have no backing for.
You are making huge statements about psychology that you have no backing for.
He'll find an excuse why is it a right thing to do, how God won't punish him because he's stealing just so he could feed his children or something like that, and he'll steal the money at the end.
If theists were able to slaughter innocent civilians in the name of God, they will steal loads of money and they'll lie to themselves how that's what God wanted them to do.
If theists were able to slaughter innocent civilians in the name of God, they will steal loads of money and they'll lie to themselves how that's what God wanted them to do.
We are born greedy. Look at how children steal from eachother; they inflict pain on one another and are in most cases very insensitive. This is because they lack the knowledge of what is moral and what isn't. They live and survive with complete disregard of others. This is who we are Martin, we are no different from animals in our nature; we are just a lot more intelligent than they are.
You're probably right when you say that the morality of something is determined by whether it affects somebody or something negatively (and that the difference I mentioned doesn't exist). It's what I also think at least. So it all comes down to survival and replication, because things that are morally wrong affect the chances of S&R negatively. But why do we care so much about surviving and replicating? Is it just an axiom? (I think this is what Senor Canardo meant)
Of course not. That's why I find it funny, because it is normally something that is typical for religious people. Doesn't it sound funny to you, being emotionally involved with atheism?
I normally defend atheism too, but because almost everyone here automatically starts defending atheism, I decided to represent theism.
The existence of god is the predicate for religion, but there is no religious person in the world who can proof that what he beliefs in and how is chooses to life his life is how god wants it. Hence the question whether god exists must be unaffected by how people practice religion.
Of course not. That's why I find it funny, because it is normally something that is typical for religious people. Doesn't it sound funny to you, being emotionally involved with atheism?
I normally defend atheism too, but because almost everyone here automatically starts defending atheism, I decided to represent theism.
The existence of god is the predicate for religion, but there is no religious person in the world who can proof that what he beliefs in and how is chooses to life his life is how god wants it. Hence the question whether god exists must be unaffected by how people practice religion.
These are people that claim to believe in god, that doesn't mean they believe in god. The simply acknowledge god with their lips and deny him with their lifestyle, this is the primary cause of athiesm today.
Theists would not do something like that because they fear punishment. If they did do something like that, they aren't theists because they do not fear any consequences. In other words, you can't truly believe in god and go around massacaring people at the same time, it's contradictory.
Theists would not do something like that because they fear punishment. If they did do something like that, they aren't theists because they do not fear any consequences. In other words, you can't truly believe in god and go around massacaring people at the same time, it's contradictory.
i haven't posted here in ages, and it had to be religious discussion to bring me back
Several people here said that if there was no god/afterlife/fear of punishment, there would be no reason not to kill/rape/destroy.
I would like to ask a question if you can give me one example of a moral action that a theist can make and an atheist can not?
(This is known as Hitchens challenge, if anyone would like to google it up
)
Hi Martin, i see you've done some thinking about these things?
Several people here said that if there was no god/afterlife/fear of punishment, there would be no reason not to kill/rape/destroy.
I would like to ask a question if you can give me one example of a moral action that a theist can make and an atheist can not?
(This is known as Hitchens challenge, if anyone would like to google it up
)Hi Martin, i see you've done some thinking about these things?
This is probably inidicative that these athiest are not athiests because of the calm rationality but rather a sudden hate for religion. I respect athiests who are open to discussion and think objectively, as I do all people. I do not respect athiests who despise religion for whatever reason and therefore are extremely emotional when it comes to this topic.
Well it seems to be very close to what we call "life". Every organism has this survival instinct, I don't know if anyone can explain why.
Not really, because the implications of this are important. When a religious person tells you you have no morality because you don't believe in god, this is a pretty important question for the sake of your own identity.
I'm thinking about the implications of your question. I think it is that you can always say that you live life the way god wanted it. And you can't prove it. So having the "will of god" to back you up is basically a psychological device to justify your actions to yourself and others.
I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
Not really, because the implications of this are important. When a religious person tells you you have no morality because you don't believe in god, this is a pretty important question for the sake of your own identity.
I'm thinking about the implications of your question. I think it is that you can always say that you live life the way god wanted it. And you can't prove it. So having the "will of god" to back you up is basically a psychological device to justify your actions to yourself and others.
I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
You can truly believe in God and still massacre people. It depends on how do you see God and how do you comprehend what's good and what's bad.
If i live in 11th century Bulgarian mountain village, if i don't go to school at all if i know nothing else but being a shepard and if the priest tells me that God wants me to kill the infidels in Jerusalem and how i will be rewarded in the after life for every infidel life i took, you can be sure that i'll kill those evil infidel Jews and Muslims and i'll do it exactly because i truly believe that that is what God wanted me to do.
If i live in 11th century Bulgarian mountain village, if i don't go to school at all if i know nothing else but being a shepard and if the priest tells me that God wants me to kill the infidels in Jerusalem and how i will be rewarded in the after life for every infidel life i took, you can be sure that i'll kill those evil infidel Jews and Muslims and i'll do it exactly because i truly believe that that is what God wanted me to do.
