A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A person who does not wear a coat, I assume is because they are more comfortable without it.

Me, too. And somebody wearing one is likely more comfortable wearing it than holding it. That's my point. A person with a god belief or a religion is more comfortable with it, and someone with neither is someone lacking that need.

Perhaps if you believed that there is a life after death, you would be troubled due to ignoring any moral code,
and making up your own .. so it is comforting to think that nothing bad can happen to you after death.

You mean if I believed in your god. Then I could fear it, too, and begin behaving as priests claiming to speak for it instructed me to out of fear of divine retribution. Critical thinking protects one from falling into that trap.

reminds me of old scrooge, in the Christmas movies

Not wanting to spend time and money on a religion that offers nothing in return to me is scrooge-like to you? I consider the alternative - giving to the church - wasteful.

Have I mentioned that my bridge partner is a conservative Christian who has spent much of the last few years trying to fix the accounting problems of his church following a large embezzlement of its funds by one of its elders? It has interfered in our bridge play a few times, when he has some emergency meeting to attend, and it eats into his study time. I am mentoring him, but the energy I'll put into that is proportional to his effort and rate of progress, and he knows that. He tells me he's quit volunteering for the church now, but he had some meeting again a few days ago that required our rescheduling, and that means that the church still has its hooks in him.

What waste all around - people giving money to churches that is then stolen leading to this man being sucked into some church vortex in his retirement when he should be playing bridge. How much better would his life be now were he free of that, but after a lifetime of God, walking away not really an option.

But at least he's not being a Scrooge, right? He's generously giving of himself to the Lord, and we should all admire him for that, right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..What waste all around - people giving money to churches that is then stolen..

One is not obliged to give money to "a church", unless they choose to.
There are many charities, and giving is good for our souls.

Conversely, for those who steal, it is against their souls..
..be it tax evasion, or otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You'd need to give me an example..

I already did in the rest of the post that you ignored.

Do you sacrifice virgin girls to the unfalsifiable mayan gods "just in case" they exist?
Do you wrap yourself in tinfoil to avoid being eaten by the undetectable dragon that follows you around everywhere you go "just in case"?

What "unfalsifiable claims" are comparable to what might happen to us after death?

All unfalsifiable claims are comparable on the grounds of all of them being unfalsifiable.

You can't prove them wrong and you can't prove them right or properly support them with valid verifiable evidence.

Believing we can fly, and jumping off a mountain? What exactly?

Those are falsifiable claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps if you believed that there is a life after death, you would be troubled due to ignoring any moral code

My moral code isn't dependend on what I believe (or not) will happen after death.
And truth be told, I seriously question the "morality" and intentions of people where that is not the case.

I don't see how my moral compass would be affected by believing in an afterlife.

and making up your own .. so it is comforting to think that nothing bad can happen to you after death.

So is your morality only centered around rewards / punishment for yourself (either in this life or "the next")?
I call that a corrupt "morality" and inherently selfish. Which, incidentally, I consider deeply immoral.

The reason I don't go around and rape and murder a bunch of people is NOT because I don't want to go to jail.
The reason why I will gladly help someone in need is likewise NOT because I might get a medal or prize.

Once again, I deeply question the "morality" and intentions of people who act good / bad only because they want a reward or avoid a punishment.



It's because of such statements that I feel that the "morality" that theists like you like to profess, is as bankrupt as it can be.
Your "morality" amounts to nothing more or less then mere obedience to a perceived authority. It's not reasoned, it's not established on good intentions and it cares not for well-being and goodness just for the sake of it.

It's all about reward and punishment it seems, centered around mere obedience.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you sacrifice virgin girls..

No .. would that save me from hell-fire?

Do you wrap yourself in tinfoil..

No .. would that save me from hell-fire?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your "morality" amounts to nothing more or less then mere obedience to a perceived authority.

I hold my moral values, as I perceive their wisdom.
I do not claim that "me" is the judge between right and wrong .. I claim that G-d has
given me wisdom, due to my respect for Him.

It's all about reward and punishment it seems, centered around mere obedience.

I obey the laws of gravity, as I know I'll damage myself if I jump off a mountain, for example.
You, on the other hand, seem oblivious to the consequences of 'disobedience'.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hold my moral values, as I perceive their wisdom.
I do not claim that "me" is the judge between right and wrong .. I claim that G-d has
given me wisdom, due to my respect for Him.

This sentiment is not reflected in the things you state.
You have clearly noted that belief in an afterlife would impact a moral compass in your opinion.
This means that your moral compass is centered around a reward and punishment system.
This implies that the motivation for not committing murder or rape, is fear of the punishment for it (either in this life or the next).

I consider such motivations to be corrupt to the core and not moral at all.

When you are kind to someone with as motivation to get a prize for it, I do not consider that a moral act.
Morals are not only about behavior but also about intent.

If ones morals would change due to thinking that there will be guaranteed punishment (in this life or the next), then one wasn't moral to begin with - and wouldn't be moral to end with either, since the motivation / intent would be corrupt.

This is why I said that my moral compass wouldn't change if I suddenly would start believing in an afterlife.
My moral compass isn't dependent on that. The reason I consider something as rape immoral has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a fear of punishment for the act. Nothing at all.

If tomorrow the law would change and say in some twisted turn of events authorities would no longer punish you for it but even reward you for it, I would still consider it immoral.
If tomorrow I would start believing that a god exists who would reward rapists in the after life, I would still consider rape immoral.

And I would consider the authorities and the god that rewards such, immoral as well by extension.

This is so because my morals aren't centered around obedience to perceived authority nor are they centered around rewards or punishments.
My moral compass is based on how actions and decisions affect the well-being of sentient creatures coupled with the individual intentions by which they are carried out in terms of harm, good, selfishness, etc.

I consider such a moral compass to be wildly superior to corrupt ones that are inherently selfish, mere obedience or based on a reward / punishment system.

I obey the laws of gravity,

No. You are subject to gravity. "obey" is a wrong term to use here, since that implies that you could "choose" otherwise.
Being subject to gravity is a physical necessity which is not under your control.

as I know I'll damage myself if I jump off a mountain, for example.

That's called being reasonable.

You, on the other hand, seem oblivious to the consequences of 'disobedience'.

First of all, I don't care for consequences that are indistinguishable from imagination.

Secondly, that has nothing to do with morality.

Doing the moral thing in Russia today will almost certainly result in cruel punishment and even death.
But does that change anything about the morality of it?

Nope.

What you are now advocating for is even worse then I previously described....
Now, you are downright advocating for a "morality" known as "might makes right".

 

[muhammad_isa]

This sentiment is not reflected in the things you state.
You have clearly noted that belief in an afterlife would impact a moral compass in your opinion.
This means that your moral compass is centered around a reward and punishment system.
This implies that the motivation for not committing murder or rape, is fear of the punishment for it (either in this life or the next).

Not really .. we are both human beings with a conscience..

When you are kind to someone with as motivation to get a prize for it, I do not consider that a moral act.

One does not get "the prize" because they want to grab it .. an ill-intentioned act holds no prize.

Morals are not only about behavior but also about intent.

Correct.

My moral compass is based on how actions and decisions affect the well-being of sentient creatures coupled with the individual intentions by which they are carried out in terms of harm, good, selfishness, etc.

..which implies that you know better than God .. it's all about the ego "me, me , me".

No. You are subject to gravity. "obey" is a wrong term to use here, since that implies that you could "choose" otherwise.
Being subject to gravity is a physical necessity which is not under your control.

Hopefully, it is "under our control", in as much as we are able to walk without falling over.
If we are rewarded for good behaviour, and punished for bad behaviour, it isn't so much
that G-d [as a person] chooses to reward or punish, but are consequences .. just like gravity has a consequence.

 

[F1fan]

One is not obliged to give money to "a church", unless they choose to.
There are many charities, and giving is good for our souls.

Conversely, for those who steal, it is against their souls..
..be it tax evasion, or otherwise.

Then why isn't religious devotion helping bad souls become better, or gain wisdom? We see your fellow Muslims terrorize people due to what they believe is servioce to Allah. Given what you suggest here you disagree with them, so which Muslims are correct, you or them? And explain why religion isn't helping you believers become more uniform in attitudes and actions.

From what I can see critical thinkers are vastly more uniform as independent thinkers, namely in more tolerance and acceptance, and personal accountability.

 

[F1fan]

No .. would that save me from hell-fire?

Wrong response. The correct response to sacrificing virgin girls is: No, it's immoral to kill people in such a way.

No .. would that save me from hell-fire?

Well, give it a shot. What do you have to lose besides money, time, and self-respect by wrapping yourself in tinfoil? If it might get you out of hell, why not, right? How do you know it won't if you think there's a hell, and som e act gets you out of it?

Of course, who told you a hell exists, and why did you believe them?

 

[muhammad_isa]

We see your fellow Muslims terrorize people..

..and that means that Muslims are all evildoers? No.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What do you have to lose besides money, time, and self-respect by wrapping yourself in tinfoil? If it might get you out of hell, why not, right?

Please explain .. why would tinfoil save you from hell?
No second thoughts don't bother .. it is not mentioned in the Bible or Qur'an..
..I wonder why?

 

[Thrillobyte]

A man I met on eharmony told me that he was raised in a Christian church and he fervently believed in God, but as he aged and grew in life experience, he did not see the Hand of God at work in our world, although he still believed in God. Then when his wife got sick with cancer and he turned in earnest to God, praying for her suffering to be relieved for 3 ½ years while he was her caregiver, he never felt the grace of God, and then as a result he lost his belief in God. He said he felt like no deity capable of making a difference in a person’s life would let his wife suffer so much.

Here is how I responded to his message:

I was not raised as a Christian or in any religion or believing in God and I became a Baha’i during my first year of college. I can fully understand how you feel about God because I belong to a religious forum and many people feel that way. I have struggled to believe that God is loving, given all the suffering I have endured, long before my husband passed on of cancer. I have also struggled to believe that God is loving because of all the suffering in the world, but I never lost my belief in God. Through my religion and my own logical analysis, I have a belief about why God does not intervene to prevent suffering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He said he was going to respond to my message but I have not heard back yet. What I will say if this conversation continues is that a person does not have to believe that God is loving in order to believe that God exists. I believe it is beyond human comprehension to understand ‘how’ God is loving because God’s love is not like human love since God is not a human. I think that some people ‘project’ what they believe a loving God would do but that is illogical, since they cannot ever know what a loving God would do. They can only have a personal opinion regarding what a loving God would do based upon what they consider loving, and if their opinion is based upon what a loving human would do under the same circumstances that is the fallacy of false equivalence, since God is not a human.

As a matter of religious belief, I believe that God is loving, but when thinking analytically I cannot understand how a loving God would create a world with the potential for so much suffering. The problem is not that God does not rescue people from suffering, since I think that is ludicrous, the problem is that God created such a world in the first place! Why would God rescue us from the suffering that he intended for us to experience all along? It makes no sense.

If you want to offer the religious apologetic that God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering for human benefit, save it for someone who cares, as that is not what this thread is about.

Here's the problem with your hypothesis, Trailblazer: if you're going to say, "God intends for us to suffer" then you have to explain why God would want a 2-year old to suffer with the agony of malnutrition and starvation when the baby cannot even comprehend what's happening to it. For God to intend such unfortunate millions of babies to suffer in such a painful way would make God the most evil pos in the universe. It's easier to conclude there isn't any God; that all this is just evolution and survival of the fittest.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here's the problem with your hypothesis, Trailblazer: if you're going to say, "God intends for us to suffer" then you have to explain why God would want a 2-year old to suffer with the agony of malnutrition and starvation when the baby cannot even comprehend what's happening to it. For God to intend such unfortunate millions of babies to suffer in such a painful way would make God the most evil pos in the universe. It's easier to conclude there isn't any God; that all this is just evolution and survival of the fittest.

I don't believe that God 'intends' for anyone to suffer, suffering is just part and parcel of living in a material world, and it is unavoidable. Since God created this material world knowing people would suffer, if you want to blame God, go on ahead, but don't expect God to jump in and prevent the suffering that is built into the design of the world.

Also, don't expect God to play Superman and rescue people from the conditions of the world. God has enjoined humans to fix what is wrong in the world, e.g., cure diseases, put an end to starvation. These are not things that God is responsible for since God gave humans a rational mind and free will to make the world a better place to live in. God is not responsible to intervene in this world and do things that God expects humans to do. The only way that God intervenes in this world is by sending Messengers who reveal the instructions for humans delineating how they are supposed to change this world.

 

[CG Didymus]

So is your morality only centered around rewards / punishment for yourself (either in this life or "the next")?
I call that a corrupt "morality" and inherently selfish. Which, incidentally, I consider deeply immoral.

Doesn't it seem like that is how religions are set up? Follow these rules of behavior, and you'll get rewarded after you die. Don't follow them, and do evil, you'll burn in hell. Did God's plan work on getting people to obey? No.

But God has added rules that allowed the religious leaders, as if they were so perfect, to punish those that broke the rules and even kill them. And did that work? No. So, God's plan doesn't work.

Or none of it was the plan of some invisible God, but the plan of the religious leaders who wrote the books that said that this plan was from God. Then, their only problem was to get people to believe that God was real. Ah, more stories, that they wrote, that told about this great invisible God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really .. we are both human beings with a conscience..

This is not in line with the things you say.
Since clearly you have noted that the consequences, in terms of punishment, play a factor in what you consider morality.

Are you now redrawing such?
Are you now saying that wheter or not there is reward or punishment (or neither) for a certain act, has no bearing on the moral value of said act?

One does not get "the prize" because they want to grab it .. an ill-intentioned act holds no prize.

It matters not if there is a prize or punishment.
The moral component of an act or behavior is what it is, regardless of it being rewarded or punished.

..which implies that you know better than God .. it's all about the ego "me, me , me".

If there is a god that says rape is morally fine, then I very much know better then that god yes.
That god is an immoral buffoon.

I can only know what my reason informs me off.
And I will not simply "obey" against my better judgement. I would have to sacrifice my moral compass and conscience in order to do so.
I would instantly lose my moral integrity. And by doing so, I would no longer be acting morally.

You answered "correct" to my statement that morals are also about intent.
How could I be considered to be acting morally, if I were to simply "obey" an authority and do things of which my reasoning tells me is immoral???

If the authority says "rape this woman, it's fine, trust me" and every fiber in my body tells me rape is immoral...
How in the world would I be able to rape said woman thinking I am acting morally? How could my intent ever be just? How would that NOT betray my moral compass and my conscience?

Once again, you seem to be saying "might makes right".
You seem to be saying that sacrificing your moral compass in favor of mere obedience to a perceived authority is "just".
I don't think so. That, in fact, is how you turn otherwise decent people into monsters.

This is the moral compass of the Nazi soldier who excuses his behavior with "befehl ist befehl".

I'm so sorry that you can't seem to comprehend any of this.

If there is an act that I consider moral and some other party (regardless of who that is) says it is in fact immoral (or vice versa), well... then in order to convince me that party is going to have to walk me through the reasoning process. EXPLAIN how it is moral/immoral and convince me through reason.

Explain and demonstrate how it is detrimental or beneficial for well-being, how it affects harm or good, how it increases or decreases net suffering.
If you can't, why would I sacrifice my own moral values and go against my better judgement?

So far, the only "reasoning" you are able to give here are things like "well, god says so! and god is right because god has might!" and "the authority will punish you!"

Well, sorry, but those are the types of reasons that will only convince psychopaths.

Hopefully, it is "under our control", in as much as we are able to walk without falling over.

More intellectual dishonesty.
Can you "choose" to not stick to the ground and instead float off into space?

If we are rewarded for good behaviour, and punished for bad behaviour, it isn't so much
that G-d [as a person] chooses to reward or punish, but are consequences .. just like gravity has a consequence.

And again with the focus on reward/punishment.....
Coupled with some more false equivalence of a phenomenon of physics.

It's like trying to reason with a 5-year old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain .. why would tinfoil save you from hell?
No second thoughts don't bother .. it is not mentioned in the Bible or Qur'an..
..I wonder why?

This is completely besides the point I was originally making....

That point being that one, out of practical necessity, lives life assuming the unfalsifiable claims that one does not believe are in fact incorrect.

In my example, the tin foil was said to protect yourself from undetectable dragons following you everywhere you go.
You live your life assuming that claim is false, eventhough you can't prove it's wrong.
Yet you assume it is. To not assume it is, you would have to wrap yourself in tin foil

There is an infinite number of unfalsifiable claims you don't believe.
Good luck living your life NOT assuming they are incorrect for all practical intents and purposes.

You wouldn't even be able to breath or eat anything. Perhaps it's poisoned with an undetectable chemical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't it seem like that is how religions are set up? Follow these rules of behavior, and you'll get rewarded after you die. Don't follow them, and do evil, you'll burn in hell.

Even worse, actually...
It's not "don't follow them AND do evil".
Doing evil in fact IS "not following them"

So if god commands to go on an infanticidal killing spree, refusing to go and murder a bunch of babies and toddlers would in fact be "doing evil".


"divine command theory" as a basis for morality is like the bottom of a cesspool in terms of moral philosophy.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I would like to show graphically what a liar God is. Read the promise he makes for us:

Jeremiah 29:11​

"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Here's God's promise for prospering and not harming this 12 year old child who will likely be dead of dysentery before she is 13.

Got has real great plans to prosper this kid, doesn't he??????

 

[muhammad_isa]

And again with the focus on reward/punishment.....

Of course .. that is the whole point..

"Oh mankind .. don't do this .. you will eventually regret it"
"Oh mankind .. do this .. you will be happy with the result"

If God did not inform us, then we would have good reason to complain.
It is our duty to know the law .. ignorance is no excuse.
..but if the law remains hidden..