Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Question:

While you -- the majority of KMC members -- deny the existence of God, why do you participate in discussion(s) having zero meaning and/or relevance to reality, in your mind, if truth and morality are subjective? If God is false -- or as absurd as circles being square -- why participate? Is it not, that you -- the majority of KMC members -- indirectly affirm your belief in God?

No, it's that we don't need God to have a purpose and meaning to our lives, and can enjoy it and be moral without religious guidelines. I realize it might be hard for you to fathom from an intensely theistic perspective, but it's not only possible but actually quite easy to accomplish all of those things.

Each person determines the why and how for themselves, so going into more detail would be to limit the point. Freedom from religious strictures can be very empowering, and all the more gratifying when we choose to bring happiness to the world through our actions and purposes in life.

If someone started saying squares were circular, I'd start arguing with them. So that metaphor doesn't really support you at all.

Man does not need God to be moral. Man is made in the image of God. Morality -- knowing right from wrong -- is instinctive, not taught.

Nonetheless, why the need to chip away at one's faith? Why not leave it alone?

What I'm hinting at is this:

You must have an underlined agenda!

Most people would never, never engage in a debate over circles being square. Such is nonsense, but you -- and many others -- feel the need to participate in debate/conversation over God. You feel the need to persuade people away from belief in God.

Why?



On the contrary, it's incredibly easy for me to understand. In my view, people -- such as yourself -- live in denial and/or pride. Welcome to the "fallen nature of man." But, regardless, you are aware of God.

Hence, the reason you blast others for having faith.

You disagree?



How so?



How so?



Like Abraham Biggs, who committed suicide (over a web cam) yesterday, while "onlookers" cheered him on? Not one offered help.

Haven't you noticed the moral decline in our world today?

Where does it come from, and why?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Question:

While you -- the majority of KMC members -- deny the existence of God, why do you participate in discussion(s) having zero meaning and/or relevance to reality, in your mind, if truth and morality are subjective? If God is false -- or as absurd as circles being square -- why participate? Is it not, that you -- the majority of KMC members -- indirectly affirm your belief in God?

It is not a matter of believing in a god, but one of not believing you and others like you. We simply believe you are wrong. The world you tell us is not the world we see every day. So, please do not mistake our rejection of you for god.

edit sorry

Originally posted by ushomefree
Question:

While you -- the majority of KMC members -- deny the existence of God, why do you participate in discussion(s) having zero meaning and/or relevance to reality, in your mind, if truth and morality are subjective? If God is false -- or as absurd as circles being square -- why participate? Is it not, that you -- the majority of KMC members -- indirectly affirm your belief in God?

No. The belief in God others hold influences our lives greatly. No one denies that the concept of God exists, which is the only necessary to discuss it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Like Abraham Biggs, who committed suicide (over a web cam) yesterday, while "onlookers" cheered him on? Not one offered help.

Haven't you noticed the moral decline in our world today?

Where does it come from, and why?

Considering that most people believe in God it's inevitable that some of those people who did nothing believed in God yet still decided not to save him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering that most people believe in God it's inevitable that some of those people who did nothing believed in God yet still decided not to save him. Good point, didn't think of that one.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Good point, didn't think of that one.

And that why they pay me the "huevos rancheros".

The Origins and Evolution of Religious Prosociality
Science, Oct 3, 322, 58-62
Ara Norenzayan & Azim F Shariff

concluding paragraphs:



Originally posted by ushomefree
in your mind, if truth and morality are subjective

This may surprise you, but I don't believe in God, yet I do believe in objective morality and truth. Maybe don't lump such a diverse group as "non-believers" into a single category.

General response to your question: Its very nature is hypocritical. As a believer, why are you concerned with the motives of those who do not believe as you?

less glib: the same reason many people in the world discuss the American election. Unfortunately, I have yet to come to a place in my life where I can eliminate the influence of religion on my day to day living, as it is so ubiquitous in society. I want nothing more than to not have to pay attention to religion, however, as someone who is passionate about personal liberty, it is far more often than not that threats to individual freedom come from religious circles that find freedom in some ways offensive.

More defensive: Why does anyone need to justify to you why they enjoy discussing things? Does someone have to play baseball to discuss it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering that most people believe in God it's inevitable that some of those people who did nothing believed in God yet still decided not to save him.

Right. If 10 people were watching, for example, probability would expect 8 or 9 of them to be theistic, based on accepted figures for percentages of theists as opposed to non-theists in the world. If we limit it to just atheist/non-atheist (the 8-9 estimate assume "non-religious/agnostic/etc." to be in the non-theistic group), then it's overwhelmingly likely that none of the 10 were atheists, since atheists only account for about 2% of the world's population.

....

Also, ushome, I don't blast religion, nor religious people. Stupid people, perhaps, or those who use religious ideas to belittle others. But not religion in and of itself. I have a lot of respect for those who use religion to engender happiness in the world, just like I have respect for anyone who uses any endeavor to do the same.

Your claim that we're "aware" of God is a bit perplexing. We're aware of the belief in God in many people. We're aware of the concept of God. This doesn't mean that we believe a god to exist. You're still working under the flawed premise that atheists can't have meaning, purpose, or be moral without religion. It's religious elitism, nothing more.

Same with the "moral decline." One can point to a myriad of reasons why they might think we're less moral than we used to be (though I might disagree with that point, actually). But atheists certainly can't be counted among them, in a society where just under 1 in 50 people is an atheist, they cannot easily hold public office, etc. Theists still influence societal norms far more than non-religiosity does.

Originally posted by inimalist
This may surprise you, but I don't believe in God, yet I do believe in objective morality and truth. Maybe don't lump such a diverse group as "non-believers" into a single category.

An excellent point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And that why they pay me the "huevos rancheros". Man I've been doing this for free?!?

Underlying. "You must have an underlying agenda."



If the erroneous belief that circles were square (or vice versa) had socially disruptive side effects I would argue against that too. I have found that Religion is often the cause of intentional ignorance, or willful disregard for fundamental truths about the universe. I don't (anymore) feel that I'm arguing against yahwe, but rather against irrationality.

Some snippets from a recent article by Michael Shermer on in-group psychology. It focuses on cults as the primary anecdote for discussion, but it's easy to see how the same principles can be applied to other areas like politics or religion:

In general, these types of belief systems are coherent and logically consistent when you are inside them. It is not until you step outside the group and gain a different reference point that the coherence and logic vanishes.

Later on:
But there is something deeper going on here that I think touches on cognitive processes in all of us as members of non-cult groups, such as political parties: confirmation bias. This is when we look for and find evidence to support what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away evidence that does not. And because we are so tribal by nature, we employ confirmation bias with extra vigor when it comes to defending the groups we belong to. Republicans tend to listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal, gathering data and noting arguments that support their political beliefs. Democrats are more likely to listen to progressive talk radio and NPR, surf liberal blogs and read the New York Times. Everyone does it.

...later:
The confirmation bias sways us all, especially when it reinforces our inner tribalism. Most of us will never join a cult, but all of us are subject to the pull of believing that the evidence supports our most cherished beliefs. It is for this reason that we need to look for disconfirmatory evidence, to listen to the arguments of those with whom we disagree, to ask for constructive criticism of our beliefs, and to remember Oliver Cromwell's words to the Church of Scotland in 1650: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

...

I think the message that is encapsulated in those comments is very pertinent to this thread. Cromwell's line, of course, is applicable to those of any slant. But those who assume certain things about other groups, or believe their logic/beliefs to be totally coherent and understandable, would do well to consider the earlier paragraphs.

I believe ushome to be guilty of at least some of that, especially the part about making incorrect assumptions about groups based on items of information gleaned from a religious in-group who clearly doesn't fully understand opposing viewpoints as well as they might think.

Full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer18-2008nov18,0,2806746.story

Originally posted by ushomefree
Like Abraham Biggs, who committed suicide (over a web cam) yesterday, while "onlookers" cheered him on? Not one offered help.

That's a completely asinine comparison.

Originally posted by ushomefree

Most people would never, never engage in a debate over circles being square. Such is nonsense, but you -- and many others -- feel the need to participate in debate/conversation over God. You feel the need to persuade people away from belief in God.


The better question, why do you feel the need to persuade others that there is a God (more to the point, a certain finite view of God) and that they should be/not be doing certain things, certain ways, otherwise they'll be punished in some fashion?

Ask yourself one question, if the only reason you're a "good and moral" person is because you believe an Omnipotent being is watching and taking score of your every action, what kind of person are you really?

Edit: Actually, would you answer that question for me?

Originally posted by Robtard
Edit: Actually, would you answer that question for me?

What are the odds?

Originally posted by Robtard
The better question, why do you feel the need to persuade others that there is a God (more to the point, a certain finite view of God) and that they should be/not be doing certain things, certain ways, otherwise they'll be punished in some fashion?

Ask yourself one question, if the only reason you're a "good and moral" person is because you believe an Omnipotent being is watching and taking score of your every action, what kind of person are you really?

Edit: Actually, would you answer that question for me?

Circles are rarely mistaken for squares; much like god and Jesus are rarely mistken for piss stains under or a cloud after a tornado or an overpass or Mary on a piece of burnt toast or Peter on a dorito or Thomas in a jar of jam? It's nice that the suvivors of the tornado are the only ones left to interpret the devestation as personal intervention.

Circles vs squares: what a stupid argument. I guess the Earth is flat, as well.

Originally posted by Robtard
The better question, why do you feel the need to persuade others that there is a God (more to the point, a certain finite view of God) and that they should be/not be doing certain things, certain ways, otherwise they'll be punished in some fashion?

Ask yourself one question, if the only reason you're a "good and moral" person is because you believe an Omnipotent being is watching and taking score of your every action, what kind of person are you really?

Edit: Actually, would you answer that question for me?

I think the answer is because they believe if they don't convince those people, then those people are going to hell...

Actually, if you think about it, its more twisted for me to believe in the Biblical God and not tell others about it because I must believe those who don't know will be going to hell for all eternity...

As to the question, I believe people are hardwired to be "moral" either from birth or in childhood...there seems to be a basic current which runs through humanity of basic "moral" rules. This may be a result of evolution or because an omnipotent God created those rules...eitherway whether you believe in him or not will not likely create a person more or less moral in the short run...(it may have wider implications for society in the future) but even if you can not believe in God and still be moral doesn't change the fact that he may have made those morals and stuck em in your wee brain...who knows- who cares.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think the answer is because they believe if they don't convince those people, then those people are going to hell...

Actually, if you think about it, its more twisted for me to believe in the Biblical God and not tell others about it because I must believe those who don't know will be going to hell for all eternity...

As to the question, I believe people are hardwired to be "moral" either from birth or in childhood...there seems to be a basic current which runs through humanity of basic "moral" rules. This may be a result of evolution or because an omnipotent God created those rules...eitherway whether you believe in him or not will not likely create a person more or less moral in the short run...(it may have wider implications for society in the future) but even if you can not believe in God and still be moral doesn't change the fact that he may have made those morals and stuck em in your wee brain...who knows- who cares. Why do you believe that someone is hardwired to be moral? Are you born knowing that you shouldn't cheat, lie or steal? Have you ever sat down and watched kids play? They hit, lie and steal from the others kids all the time, you have to teach them that lying is wrong, you don't hit and you don't take other kids toys.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Why do you believe that someone is hardwired to be moral? Are you born knowing that you shouldn't cheat, lie or steal? Have you ever sat down and watched kids play? They hit, lie and steal from the others kids all the time, you have to teach them that lying is wrong, you don't hit and you don't take other kids toys.

Hard-wiring requires a technician to do the wiring...as I said it could happen in chilhood via the parents.

However, in all cultures/societies there are usually Moral Norms (the golden rule being the best example but there are many more) this, to me indicates, that there is some sort of unifying moral force in humanity- it may be a god or it may be that evolution has created these basic rules as they promote the better chances of survival for the species.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hard-wiring requires a technician to do the wiring...as I said it could happen in chilhood via the parents.

However, in all cultures/societies there are usually Moral Norms (the golden rule being the best example but there are many more) this, to me indicates, that there is some sort of unifying moral force in humanity- it may be a god or it may be that evolution has created these basic rules as they promote the better chances of survival for the species. But that's just a colourful way of saying that there is a reason that morals exist. So...yeah...there is, sure. What does that fact mean to you?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
...it may be a god or it may be that evolution has created these basic rules as they promote the better chances of survival for the species.

Favor the latter. Some cultural overlap at the most basic levels is pretty much an assurance for a species that has lasted this long and reached the level of evolutionary complexity that we have.

Also, morality, as it pertains to our point) has its roots in the prisoner's dilemma, a classic game theory (and evolutionary) problem, which has a fairly elegant solution: those that cooperate more often tend to do best in the prisoner's dilemma. Translating the metaphor to evolution, those that cooperate more often (when ultimate survival doesn't hinge only on cooperation) tend to survive better. But only to a point, because the most gullible and trusting programs in the prisoner's dillema (and people in life) tend to do just as bad as the overly aggressive/vindictive ones.

Calling it 'morality' is just making the transition into established culture. Extended morality (being altrustic to people in outside groups) is more a cultural movement than an evolutionary one, but has its roots in the same principles and tendencies that are natural within us.

Morality is ever changing based on what type of society we're in. Its a code which are agreed upon in one society (by majority in democracies although it can be argued that rich and powerful have that influence too).


Religion absorbs moralities of any one time (in which it has been developed) and it continues to shift through the ages, as societies change.

Therefore, religion doesn't dictate morality. If anything, morality of any particular time dictates religion.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Morality is ever changing based on what type of society we're in. Its a code which are agreed upon in one society (by majority in democracies although it can be argued that rich and powerful have that influence too).

It is, actually, developing based on religion, but other way around.

Religion absorbs moralities of any one time (in which it has been developed) and it continues to shift through the ages, as societies change.

Therefore, religion doesn't dictate morality. If anything, morality of any particular time dictates religion.

A fundamental truth.

Wow.

Yes.

Oh sheesh... look what I've started, ha ha!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh sheesh... look what I've started, ha ha!

Yes, sheesh, what a thing to start. But at least the large font didn't take off quite as readily.

313

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh sheesh... look what I've started, ha ha!

There, that is better.

Originally posted by Devil King
Circles are rarely mistaken for squares; much like god and Jesus are rarely mistken for piss stains under or a cloud after a tornado or an overpass or Mary on a piece of burnt toast or Peter on a dorito or Thomas in a jar of jam? It's nice that the suvivors of the tornado are the only ones left to interpret the devestation as personal intervention.

Circles vs squares: what a stupid argument. I guess the Earth is flat, as well.
nah dude the earth isnt flat it is hollow though..lol

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your argument for Pascal's Wager is only valid if Christianity is the "correct" theism. If it isn't, and the supreme being is one of the literally infinite number of other possible deities, then theism really isn't "safe" at all. Under such overwhelming probabilities, it's a statistical certainty that we're all screwed if there's a deity who admits/denies people into heaven based on their belief in him/her/it.

But let's play along and limit it only to deities who have earthly stories, and therefore some iota of reason to believe in them. I find, for example, Zeus' existence to be about as likely as the Christian God's (which is to say, not likely at all). Or Horus, Krishna, Odin, etc. The list could be thousands long. But those are myths, right? Just stories. But that's all Christianity is to many as well, so the point is moot. I'd be just as "safe" believing in Odin, imo.

Just to play devils advocate you are still statistically "safer" if you believe in a deity than if you don't.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just to play devils advocate you are still statistically "safer" if you believe in a deity than if you don't.

Which one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Which one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods

Doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't matter.

Some of those gods will not put you in a hell. Using your logic, you should convert to one of those religions in order to be as safe as possible.

Guess I should just believe myself to be a god just to be safe.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Guess I should just believe myself to be a god just to be safe.

You just have to be careful of self hate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You just have to be careful of self hate. Wait, I'm atheist. I don't believe in myself

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Wait, I'm atheist. I don't believe in myself

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Some of those gods will not put you in a hell. Using your logic, you should convert to one of those religions in order to be as safe as possible.

Not at all. Your odds are the same no matter what, unless you're an non-theist in which case you have no chance.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not at all. Your odds are the same no matter what, unless you're an non-theist in which case you have no chance.

If you are a non-theist, then the point is moot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not at all. Your odds are the same no matter what, unless you're an non-theist in which case you have no chance. I think that you should do it the other way around, choose the one that will give you the worst punishment if you don't believe so that if it turns out to be real you are safe and if not you will get a lesser punishment.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think that you should do it the other way around, choose the one that will give you the worst punishment if you don't believe so that if it turns out to be real you are safe and if not you will get a lesser punishment.

Ha, Shakya got pwned

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just to play devils advocate you are still statistically "safer" if you believe in a deity than if you don't.

Granted, though the percentage is so small as to be negligible.

But the original point still stands that a person can't convert themselves to a belief they don't have because of safety. They could go through the motions and pretend at it, but if you don't believe, you don't believe. The deity would have to be oblivious of internal thoughts in order for acceptance of the wager to prove beneficial. Pascal's Wager is entirely moot because of this.

If you're a non-theist, you still have a small chance; some belief systems will admit everyone into heaven regardless.