Why should we love God?

[samtonga43]

What an idiotic thing to say. WHO are those things good for? Eh? Can you answer that? What would be the benefit to doing those things? From what perspective are those things of benefit? Are those things "good" for you? Are they? Is that what YOU feel? How would your God like to hear you state that those items are things you would consider "good" if it weren't for His threat of punishment?

How do you explain the person who puts her/his life at risk to save another, knowing that she herself may die?

And? What changes? Nothing. Nothing changes. Again - GOD ISN'T HERE.

Who are you trying to convince - others or yourself?

 

[samtonga43]

You really aren't paying attention. Tell me why raping and killing is wrong in a godless universe. In my universe I know why it's wrong to hurt others but without a God there's no rule that says anything is good or evil. In a universe created by chance why would I want to be good as you define good? Why would I want anything but what makes me happy?

Exactly. We can be good without believing in God, but we cannot be good without God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You really aren't paying attention. Tell me why raping and killing is wrong in a godless universe. In my universe I know why it's wrong to hurt others but without a God there's no rule that says anything is good or evil. In a universe created by chance why would I want to be good as you define good? Why would I want anything but what makes me happy?

I am completely paying attention to the exact words you wrote. You literally stated that unless God exists, you see no reason not to rape, kill and steal for your own benefit. That's what you are saying. And if that isn't what you are saying, then you need to think of different ways to word what you are trying to say. Because even this latest reply from you reads as MORE OF THE SAME.

I can tell you exactly why I feel that raping and killing is wrong in a godless universe, and why I feel that everyone else should also feel that way. And it doesn't, at all, rely on the existence or non existence of a being I can't know exists or doesn't exist!

So here goes - as a human being, capable of abstract thought, and who can witness or be affected by the actions of others, and can then contemplate what it must be like for those others being acted upon, based on one's own feelings in some of those same situations, it becomes very clear what is "good" to be experienced, and what is "bad." And since we are all constructed very similarly due to our human DNA, it is no great mystery that the majority of us come to some of the same conclusions about what is "good" for a human to experience, and what is "bad." One's own "goals" tend to be to act toward what is "good" for ourselves, and avoid what is "bad." And if we can extrapolate those same goals out to the rest of our human partners (something the human mind has been evidence to be entirely capable of doing), then we can understand that we would be hurting or trampling on other's goals by taking actions that would impede another's ability to reach those goals. Goals like maintaining health and bodily wellness, or maintain mental health and mental wellness. Acting in ways that we understand would be detrimental to those things for another is understood to be acting with malicious intent, and those around us will react negatively - possibly even to the tune of locking us up. And if we can't understand why we are locked up, then it is best for the rest of humanity that we remain locked up.

And, in fact, ideas like the above are what have basically dictated human development of morality anyway - determining what is best for us all by relating to one another what is and is not acceptable. Being in situations ourselves that we don't like and benevolently deciding that we would like to protect others from those same situations. Remember, The Bible didn't always exist anyway. And even if He exists, God has been mostly hands off for quite a while, and so it makes sense he was pretty hands off at all times - especially given the accounts in The Bible where God's actual moments of intervention are pretty few and far between. So... here we humans are, even by a biblical account, going about the business of figuring out "right" and "wrong" by ourselves. Then The Bible is written... and so what? We STILL go about the business of figuring things out ourselves, because The Bible is entirely inadequate and outdated.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How do you explain the person who puts her/his life at risk to save another, knowing that she herself may die?

Easily - any single one of us can abstract the situation, put ourselves in it, and understand that we would very much hope that someone might come to our aid given ourselves put in the same circumstances. You understand who might also exist around that person that will have very strong, negative emotional feelings if that person dies. You, yourself, have children, or brothers and sisters, and parents - and that person does also. If you can be the one to save them all that grief, then you very well might possibly take that chance.

Now, the HUGE problem with where YOU seem to think that drive comes from is that people DON'T ALWAYS do "the thing" that they might do to jump in and save another. If God is driving the boat on this, or the impetus is "the God we all (even secretly) believe in", then why do some people choose not to jump in to help? Or are simply too slow or hesitant to act? Why does that happen? Because people are selfish? That's the exact same reason given my description of motives and impetus. You don't have anything of worth here, even as you seem to think you do. Doing things because you think God might "approve" is actually a very bland reason to go about doing good things. Doing them because you want the betterment of humanity... that's much more important a reason, in my opinion, to be doing those things. People who do it just because they believe "God is watching?" Are they really doing it for altruistic reasons at that point? Are they really doing it with full understanding of why this act is helpful? Or do they just think it gets them "points" with God - or feel that they will be saved His wrath if they don't?

Who are you trying to convince - others or yourself?

Oh please. This is ridiculous. You thinking this is some "profound" question you have put to me. What a lame pile of garbage I see your words as. Seriously. Not only do I not believe in God... my belief rests firmly at zero percent. God is DEMONSTRABLY not around. Undetectable... as good as not here. That's what I am getting at. You can't find Him. You can't display Him to me. You CAN'T. If either of us is in denial about anything, it is the one who continues to insist that something exists that cannot be demonstrated or shared to any other member of humanity unless that person also already believes. Yet you want to point at me and say that I am the one denying God's existence - and trying to convince myself that He doesn't exist - which implies that you feel that I do, on some level, recognize the existence of God. You have no idea. Seriously... you are stuck in your own little bubble of existence and as much as you may feel you've stepped out to consider others, this is evidence that you have not. I don't believe in God... at all. Not a shred. I don't sit here and tell you that I don't believe you when you say you believe in God. People are very often fools... that much I have witnessed myself, so OF COURSE I can accept that you literally do believe in God. Can you imagine if I was sitting here, telling you that I didn't think you believed? I wouldn't tell you that. What I would tell you is that I think the thing you're believing in is invalid. There's a difference there - though you are probably not aware enough to understand it. At least, that is what I would assume given your comments in this reply.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So here goes - as a human being, capable of abstract thought, and who can witness or be affected by the actions of others, and can then contemplate what it must be like for those others being acted upon, based on one's own feelings in some of those same situations, it becomes very clear what is "good" to be experienced, and what is "bad." And since we are all constructed very similarly due to our human DNA, it is no great mystery that the majority of us come to some of the same conclusions about what is "good" for a human to experience, and what is "bad." One's own "goals" tend to be to act toward what is "good" for ourselves, and avoid what is "bad." And if we can extrapolate those same goals out to the rest of our human partners (something the human mind has been evidence to be entirely capable of doing), then we can understand that we would be hurting or trampling on other's goals by taking actions that would impede another's ability to reach those goals. Goals like maintaining health and bodily wellness, or maintain mental health and mental wellness. Acting in ways that we understand would be detrimental to those things for another is understood to be acting with malicious intent, and those around us will react negatively -

So? Do you think a native robbing another tribe cared about their mental health and mental wellness? Get real. There's cultures that believe lying and stealing are admirable qualities. If survival for you and yours is the only rule, why does that matter?
Everything you stated here is completely relative and can change with cultural beliefs and situations. Just because because we lock people up for things like that in our culture doesn't make it wrong if there's no higher authority to say what wrong is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And, in fact, ideas like the above are what have basically dictated human development of morality anyway - determining what is best for us all by relating to one another what is and is not acceptable. Being in situations ourselves that we don't like and benevolently deciding that we would like to protect others from those same situations. Remember, The Bible didn't always exist anyway. And even if He exists, God has been mostly hands off for quite a while, and so it makes sense he was pretty hands off at all times - especially given the accounts in The Bible where God's actual moments of intervention are pretty few and far between. So... here we humans are, even by a biblical account, going about the business of figuring out "right" and "wrong" by ourselves. Then The Bible is written... and so what? We STILL go about the business of figuring things out ourselves, because The Bible is entirely inadequate and outdated.

You don't know the Bible, only what you heard about it. It contains wisdom that you can live by. Even many non-religious people gain wisdom by reading Proverbs and other chapters of the Bible. And the fact that the majority of people have some sort of basic morality points to a common creator making us in his image...with a sense of right and wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So? Do you think a native robbing another tribe cared about their mental health and mental wellness? Get real.

Obviously not. And do you think this little tid-bit of information should make me start feeling like I should be robbing people and not caring about others' property? Is that what you expect by telling me this? And if not, then of what importance is it? What do you think this reveals about morality in general? That it is hard-and-fast and set in stone like YOU claim it to be (coming from God on high), or does it more support what I have been getting at this whole time - which is that we decide for ourselves what we believe to be right and wrong, or good and bad?

There's cultures that believe lying and stealing are admirable qualities. If survival for you and yours is the only rule, why does that matter?

Because if they come trying to steal from me, I'm not going to put up with it, and will be found to actively try and stop them. That's why. And they can see my displeasure at their attempts to rob me, and they can assess the risk they might face in trying to do so as I attempt to beat them off some form of weaponry, or sic my dog on them. And then they can go back and think on it themselves as to why I was so unhappy being robbed from. And if they don't care to think that way, and just want to go around robbing and looting all the time, then perhaps some of those of us who are fed up mount an offensive to try and take those fools out, so that we don't have to put up with their shenanigans anymore. And where is God in ANY of that? Is He to be found, meting out justice, or making sure that "good" always prevails. Hell no. We have to decide for ourselves how to handle it all ANYWAY!

Everything you stated here is completely relative and can change with cultural beliefs and situations.

So what? What are you getting at here? That this is just "too scary" a thought for you to accept? Well joint the club! It is scary. Doesn't make it untrue.

Just because because we lock people up for things like that in our culture doesn't make it wrong if there's no higher authority to say what wrong is.

As it works out here in real life, we do have to establish such "higher authorities" OURSELVES. That's how it works. We don't "look to God" - not if we're being smart about it. Because there is NO ANSWER going to be forthcoming if we do that. Instead we have to establish court systems, and offensive and defensive positions with regard to crimes committed, and juries to take stock of all evidence and come to a decision, hopefully fairly and justly. That's HOW IT WORKS ANYWAY! Regardless whether God exists or not... we do these things... because, again, God isn't here to help.

 

[DNB]

Condemning me to hell is completely unjustifiable.

No it's not, ...especially after that comment.

 

[ppp]

No it's not, ...especially after that comment.

You are both incorrect, and immoral for saying so.

 

[Sheldon]

Condemning me to hell is completely unjustifiable.

No it's not, ...especially after that comment.

Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

There are times when I almost hope Hell was real, and not an egregiously cruel myth.

 

[samtonga43]

Oops! I forgot about this...

Oh please. This is ridiculous. You thinking this is some "profound" question you have put to me. What a lame pile of garbage I see your words as. Seriously. What I would tell you is that I think the thing you're believing in is invalid. There's a difference there - though you are probably not aware enough to understand it. At least, that is what I would assume given your comments in this reply.

Oh dear! Do calm down. My comment related to your "GOD ISN'T HERE".

Angry shouting like this convinces no one rational that you are correct in your belief that God is not here.