God gets credit

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
science's picture
God gets credit

Theists say that "God" sees everything, and knows what a person is destined to do. If that were so, then why does "He" allow the atrocities that have taken place for so many thousands of years, including acts of "Himself," ( hurricanes, tornado's, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, typhoons, monsoons, etc. are called "acts of god") especially against defenseless children?? For example, and this is of course only the tip of the iceberg, that would mean that "God" knew that Adam Lanza was going to go into that first grade classroom and slaughter 20 children, and 7 others. Why did 'he" allow that...where was "His" presence for the "miracle?" I am 100% sure that if there had been any survivors, that "God" would have gotten the thanks for that... but tragically,we cannot say that. If "He" truly knows what is going to happen, why dosen't he PREVENT these things in the first place, instead of allowing the tragedy to happen, then get the credit if anyone is lucky enough to survive? ( what if there were no survivors, then what??) Theists will always have an appropriate excuse for these things, no matter how ridiculous. They go to church to learn how to explain away reason, and logical questioning...making themselves feel comfortable with things that they know deep down don't make any sense.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

ImFree's picture
I disregard religious

I disregard religious explanatory drivel for tragic occurrences. It is based on non-sensical speculation that is totally meaningless and not worth listening to. Otherwise, I might knock myself out while face-palming.

Ilovequestions's picture
And then there is this thing

And then there is this thing called free will and a cursed universe... :) Explains a lot of what happens

science's picture
Free will, and a cursed

Free will, and a cursed universe? Oh , my now i'VE HEARD IT ALL!! What kind of "will" does God have when the "Acts of God" tornado's, tsunamis, earthquakes, typhoons, monsoons, torrencial rains, etc.which have killed more people since the begining of time than any "free will" actions of humans? I guess His will is to bring destruction and death to millions of innocent people. Wow, what a God you have there!! When free will involves the murder, and torture of innocent, and ,or defenseless people why isn't there ever a response from God? He can DO ANYTHING... lets see a NEW miracle!! He will allow atrocities against people because of free will, yet if there is ANYONE lucky enough to survive these atrocities, it will be said that He deserves the credit? Why didn't He PREVENT the atrocity to begin with, instead of allowing it, then taking credit for any survivors? Theists always have an apropriate excuse for God allowing terrible things to happen, even though it is said He has the power to do anything. If I were you, I'd start looking for another God!!

Travis Hedglin's picture
Munchhausen By Proxy. Make em

Munchhausen By Proxy. Make em' sick so you can take credit for nursing them back to health, oh what a noble hero. Next we will drown a whole litter of puppies, except one, so we can talk about how compassionate and wonderful we are for NOT killing it.

anthony500's picture
Absolutely no need to look

Absolutely no need to look for another God.So you want God (as defined by the Bible) to prevent every catastrophe that could occur in the world including mass murder (e.g., by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, etc.), death by natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.), sex trafficking, and so on to demonstrate he is a loving and merciful God? Why do you only focus on the worse case scenarios? What about lying, stealing, coveting, adultery, idolatry, gossip, slander, drunkenness, fraud, racism, pedophilia, etc.? You would have to admit (as I do) that we all have done some of these things during our lives. When we do the things I just mentioned, we hurt people in the process. We do harm to our parents, spouses, siblings, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. through these negative actions. There is no “sin” that does not cause a negative effect. What is my point? If you want a God to reach out and prevent the “really bad” stuff from happening to show his love to/for mankind, he would also have to prevent you from doing any wrong, because (again) those things I listed above hurt people too. After all, in your eyes, a “loving” God would not allow anyone to be hurt or die; therefore, he would have to prevent all humans from doing anything wrong. Do you want that or do you want the free will to do wrong or right?

cmallen's picture
We do have the free will to

We do have the free will to do right or wrong, with or without any magic entities. This is especially true since right and wrong are concepts of our own, informed solely by our experience and ability to recognize situations -- and even thought patterns of others -- which are conducive to the continuation of our lives, comfort levels, and general happiness.

It doesn't matter which god you are talking about. If a god has the power to act and is benevolent *toward humanity*, the world wouldn't be as it is. If you want to posit that a god made the universe and now sits back and watches without interfering; well, there is nothing illogical about that given our current knowledge of life the universe and everything. I just think there is probably another explanation.

EDIT: BTW, I did not click "Disagree" on your post, if you were thinking I was one of the several who did. I have never used the disagree button and never will. I may disagree with specifics of your opinion, but I don't disagree with you having an opinion.

anthony500's picture
You said, "This is

You said, "This is especially true since right and wrong are concepts of our own, informed solely by our experience and ability to recognize situations….” To be clear, are you saying that each of us determines right and wrong based on our experiences/situations and so forth? If that were true, wouldn’t that lead to chaos if 7 billion people get to determine what is right and wrong for themselves? What if someone’s experience led him to believe that a particular action is wrong and another person, who had a similar experience, came to the opposite conclusion? Are they both right? How does your view of things lead to civil order?

How do you judge something is right or wrong? If you say something is wrong what are you comparing it too? What is your standard of good if there is no eternal/absolute standard in your eyes (I am assuming that you believe in no absolutes)? Again, how can you have order in the world if 7 billion people get to determine what is right and wrong for themselves without any absolute standards?

Finally, what about the cases involving dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Castro, and others? They did not care about what individuals (or a majority for that matter) thought was wrong or right. Each dictator/authoritarian ruler or regime determined what was wrong or right for his/their State because he/they had the absolute power to do so. So is it up to the individual, the majority, or whoever has the political power? All three can be problematic!

Travis Hedglin's picture
"To be clear, are you saying

"To be clear, are you saying that each of us determines right and wrong based on our experiences/situations and so forth?"

I would actually have to say that IS a pretty good assessment, even if you did believe in an absolute or objective morality, for the means we have to apprehend it is necessarily subjective and imperfect. This means no matter how much one believes they are right about any particular moral or idea, there is always the possibility that it is in error, either partially of wholly. No matter who you are, what you may think, or how much you believe it; the strongest convictions are still held based on imperfect apprehension. Even if one is to find theirs in a book, for their system to be perfect, it would require that the perception of both the writer and the reader to be perfect.

"If that were true, wouldn’t that lead to chaos if 7 billion people get to determine what is right and wrong for themselves?"

It would if there wasn't some secular standard in place, like laws, to guide and regulate those personal determinations. Being that there are such secular standards in place, your argument rather looses its edge.

"What if someone’s experience led him to believe that a particular action is wrong and another person, who had a similar experience, came to the opposite conclusion?"

Seems to happen rather often, actually. Luckily we have preexisting codices and an entire branch of philosophy which has been dedicated to the standardization and apprehension of ethics.

"Are they both right?"

Usually not, generally one can be quantified as more or less ethical than the other.

"How does your view of things lead to civil order?"

Law.

"How do you judge something is right or wrong?"

With my perception and experience, just like everyone else.

"If you say something is wrong what are you comparing it too?"

My standard, my societies standard, and the standard that has been painstakingly handed down by our ancestors. Luckily ethics, like many other things, progresses with mankind. We aren't stuck applying laws and ethics from thousands of years ago, because that would be dangerous and stupid.

"What is your standard of good if there is no eternal/absolute standard in your eyes (I am assuming that you believe in no absolutes)?"

What is ethical.

"Again, how can you have order in the world if 7 billion people get to determine what is right and wrong for themselves without any absolute standards?

No standards are absolute, they are all dependent on other factors. We don't treat someone who stole a loaf of bread like we would someone stealing a gigantic television. This makes them fluid enough to be useful in a diverse and changing world, whereas absolute standards are lacking in such matters. Cutting off the hand of every thief is an absolute law in some places, but not where I live, because we recognize the uselessness of such inanity.

"Finally, what about the cases involving dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Castro, and others? They did not care about what individuals (or a majority for that matter) thought was wrong or right. Each dictator/authoritarian ruler or regime determined what was wrong or right for his/their State because he/they had the absolute power to do so. So is it up to the individual, the majority, or whoever has the political power? All three can be problematic!"

Only if you forget that ethics extends from the individuals, to the society, and to the world. All of the aforementioned rulers tried to implement rigid and absolute laws and morals on their people, which was as disastrous as anyone should expect such useless and stupid systems to be, which is why people with better ideas eventually stopped or replaced them. In each an every case you have mentioned, it was someone trying to implement an absolutist and inflexible system that caused the wholesale death and destruction you attempt to lay at our feet, the irony is palpable.

anthony500's picture
Travis, thanks for your

Travis, thanks for your response. While I do not have time to discuss each of your points made to my initial questions or thoughts right now, I will ask some questions about the dictators (listed above and including Hitler) that led their nations in an absolutely brutal manner and in many cases brought destruction to other parts of the world. These dictators were certainly not Christians (or of any other major world religion that I am aware of). As a matter of fact each of these individuals/regimes severely persecuted the Christian church in some manner while they were in power (especially if they did not except the State/Dictator as the ultimate god or except the government controlled/monitored church system). That being said, what faith or belief system did they possess? Secular humanism? Atheism? Surely some of them were atheists (belief in no god). Therefore, if atheists want to make the world a better place and try to reduce harm to society, why did such people do such wicked things? Why did their belief system lead to such destruction? Seems to me that it is the self-centeredness of people (regardless of belief) that is the main cause of the problems in the world. What I mean by self-centeredness is that it is second nature for people to want to be their own god. Thanks again!

CyberLN's picture
Curious,

Curious,

Atheism is NOT, as you have said, the belief in no gods, it is the lack of belief in any gods. Big difference!

anthony500's picture
Thanks! I stand corrected!

Thanks! I stand corrected! I meant "in any Gods".

Travis Hedglin's picture
"While I do not have time to

"While I do not have time to discuss each of your points made to my initial questions or thoughts right now, I will ask some questions about the dictators (listed above and including Hitler) that led their nations in an absolutely brutal manner and in many cases brought destruction to other parts of the world."

It doesn't really matter who we list or include, or even if we included every tyrant or dictator religious or secular, the fundamental cause of the destruction is the same. Idealistic megalomania, moral manifest destiny, trying to subsume the entire populace under a faulty absolutist mentality that does not work in such a world as ours.

"These dictators were certainly not Christians (or of any other major world religion that I am aware of)."

We don't really know what, if any, beliefs they may or may not have genuinely held. So let us ignore any particular religion they may or may not have had or shared, as it would be presumptive to do otherwise.

"As a matter of fact each of these individuals/regimes severely persecuted the Christian church in some manner while they were in power (especially if they did not except the State/Dictator as the ultimate god or except the government controlled/monitored church system)."

Which is a prime example of the absolutism I am talking about. The ideologues of the regimes in question attempted to become and ABSOLUTE authority, to toss out individualism and secular ideas of freedom, under the misapprehension that such an authority could prevent conflict and decay in their respective societies. It doesn't work.

"That being said, what faith or belief system did they possess?"

That absolute authority and unconditional mandate could prevent all forms of social problems. They were, quite obviously, wrong.

"Secular humanism?"

Nope. From what I know about that particular philosophy/religion, it has no strictures that promote or endorse such ideals.

"Atheism?"

They could be considered atheistic in the same sense that the conservation of mass is atheistic, neither require a god, but the systems in question attempt to replace god rather than function as a truly atheistic system. There stubborn attempts to set up an alternative absolute authority, completely misses the point, as no such absolute is necessary in a wholly contextual and experiential reality.

"Surely some of them were atheists (belief in no god)."

Wouldn't know, I haven't personally researched the subject or cared.

"Therefore, if atheists want to make the world a better place and try to reduce harm to society, why did such people do such wicked things?"

For one thing, not all atheists may want to make the world a better place or try to reduce harm, atheism isn't a system with a built in moral code or divine commandments. The two don't actually intersect. My personal non-belief in any deities doesn't tell me whether punching someone in the face is wrong or not, my understanding of the action and its consequences(to me and the person I punch) is more important to the equation than whether Zeus or Odin would approve. That said, some of those people may have started out with good intentions, for all I know. The problem with proposing absolute authority, is for it to be absolute, all dissent must be met with that authority. Meaning, from the beginning, these were doomed to be atrocious.

"Why did their belief system lead to such destruction?"

I'd say I have pretty much already answered that.

"Seems to me that it is the self-centeredness of people (regardless of belief) that is the main cause of the problems in the world."

Well, now you are arguing against experience of reality. You see, no matter who you may be, we are ALL the center of our experiential reality. The real test is gaining enough understanding to perceive that other people are the center of theirs as well, and learning to navigate all these overlapping and sometimes conflicting "bubbles" or subjective experiential reality in such a way that we don't unduly hurt others, in my opinion.

"What I mean by self-centeredness is that it is second nature for people to want to be their own god."

Why would I want to be yours or any god? By your admission earlier we CHOOSE our path, our destiny, and in some cases, other peoples. The power of choice is, for all intents and purposes, GREATER than the power of god here on Earth. People routinely subjugate, harm, and even kill each other without god being able or willing to do anything about it. Apparently the free will of mankind utterly TRUMPS the power of god on this Earth.

ThePragmatic's picture
Curious.

Curious.

I do not wish to come across as insulting here, so I hope you can read this without taking offence.

This kind of ignorance is down right scary. The fact that billions of people do not understand such basics is mind boggling.

"If that were true, wouldn't that lead to chaos if 7 billion people get to determine what is right and wrong for themselves?"

Yes! Look around you. The world is and has always been in chaos, the only thing keeping things from that is the laws we put in place. Every society have always put laws in place. With or without religion.

Even when people believe in the rules of an assumed godlike authority, they keep breaking these rules.
These religious rules stop nothing, the only credit for stopping criminal activities goes to secular law.
Organized crime is often closely linked to religion. And religious individuals are caught for crimes on a higher a rate than non-believers.

Here is a few links on some interesting information:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/08/faith_based_prison_programs_...
Examples of their justifications:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-criminals-use-religion-to-...

And this study, with a lot of interesting information:
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf

Where I found these quotes especially interesting:

"Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, proevolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless Journal of Religion & Society 8 7 (2005) most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends."

"There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."

And this is a must see for morality debaters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGuVZmUVwcM
(I've lost track of how many times this link has been posted.)

ThePragmatic's picture
Correcting myself:

Correcting myself:

"the only credit for stopping criminal activities goes to secular law."

More correct would be:

"the only credit for stopping criminal activities goes to secular law, and people who have empathy and have an ability to realize the consequences of their actions in reality, regardless of their religious belief or lack thereof."

anthony500's picture
“ Yes! Look around you. The

“ Yes! Look around you. The world is and has always been in chaos, the only thing keeping things from that is the laws we put in place. Every society have always put laws in place. With or without religion. “

This statement is contradictory. On one hand you say the world has “always” been in chaos, and then you say “the only thing that has kept us from that (Chaos)” is the laws we put in place. Certainly laws have helped, but laws are still broken every day (regardless of whether they are religious or secular in nature). BTW, why do people break laws when society says that it is wrong to do and knowing that the lawbreaker can be punished either by imprisonment or fines? Why, when an atheist on his own (through experience and understanding societal norms) determines what is wrong and right, does he do something he considers wrong or why does an atheist who desires to do good for his himself, family, community, society, or the world do something he considers wrong?

“ Even when people believe in the rules of an assumed godlike authority, they keep breaking these rules. These religious rules stop nothing, the only credit for stopping criminal activities goes to secular law.”

This is not a true statement. Neither religious rules nor secular rules prevent all crime from happening or all laws from being broken. Also, surely the Law of Moses/commandments handed down through God for the Israelites to follow prevented some people from doing wrong; however, it was obvious that not everyone followed the rules. That is why some where punished for their misdeeds and the Priests had to offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of the sins of the Israelites. Likewise, secular laws have prevented some from breaking the law, but we have over 2 million adults in prison in this country to show evidence that secular laws have not stopped all crime. Thank you for your response to my questions and comments!

ThePragmatic's picture
"This statement is

"This statement is contradictory. On one hand you say the world has “always” been in chaos, and then you say “the only thing that has kept us from that (Chaos)” is the laws we put in place."

I could have phrased that better. If it were not for the secular laws, it would be very chaotic. As soon as the secular system collapses, due to natural disasters, war, etc, there is clear indications of that in riots, plundering, and so on.

"This is not a true statement. Neither religious rules nor secular rules prevent all crime from happening or all laws from being broken."

I don't know where you got this from?
I do not in any way claim that "prevent all crime from happening or all laws from being broken". The crime that IS stopped, is done so by secular law and not by religious rules.

I'm not saying that the religious rules haven't done some good. It may have. But people justify any action they want anyway, so religion is powerless here. Did you read the links I posted? Religion has no real impact on stopping criminality.
Reposting most of the examples from the article, of how religious criminals justify themselves:

---

When the researchers pointed out to Triggerman (a 33-year-old enforcer and hit-man for local drug dealers in New Orleans) that the ‘transcendental penalty’ for murder was eternal damnation (a crime he had committed), his response was,

"No, no, no, I don’t think that is right. I mean, anything can be forgiven. We live in Hell now and you can do anything [transgression] in Hell. When it all end ... we go up there [to Heaven] and the Devil comes down here. Only the Devil lives in Hell forever man all by his self. God has to forgive everyone, even if they don’t believe in him."

---

Cool, a 25-year-old male drug dealer says,

"The way it work is this. You go out and do some bad and then you ask for forgiveness and Jesus have to give it to you, and you know wipe the slate clean. So, I always do a quick little prayer right before and then I’m cool with Jesus. Also another thing is this; if you doing some wrong to another bad person, like if I go rob a dope dealer or a molester or something, then it don’t count against me because it’s like I’m giving punishment to them for Jesus. That’s God’s will. Oh you molested some kids? Well now I’m [God] sending Cool over your house to get your [expletive deleted]."

---

Erica, a 40-year-old transgender (male to female) robber and con artist stated:

"Why I think that [I’m going to heaven]? Because, I have a good heart. I do, I have a good heart. And I have a good soul. You know, I mean, some of the things that I do, I mean, I still look out for people, you know what I’m sayin? And that’s one of the biggest things that God looks at, you know, what would you do for your neighbor? [Those that end up in Hell] are the murderers, rapists, child molesters. People with no kind of morals or values about themselves or about other people."

---

Miami, a 40-year-old male robber:

"I think [God] is forgiving ‘cause you know, what I learned from going to church, you know, sometimes is that like the guys that was on the cross with Jesus, both of ‘em did wrong, and that at the last minute one of them ask God to forgive him ... and I figured as long as I be able to ask for forgiveness before I die I’m going to Heaven, but if somebody shoot me and I don’t get no chance to pray, you know, I’m going to Hell. So, I came up with this great idea, that hey, I ask God in advance if I don’t get a chance to pray, to forgive me you know for what I’ve done and then I feel like God know in my heart that I don’t like what I’m doing but that’s the only thing I know to do."

---

anthony500's picture
Thanks for your response!

Thanks for your response!

“I could have phrased that better. If it were not for the secular laws, it would be very chaotic. As soon as the secular system collapses, due to natural disasters, war, etc., there is clear indications of that in riots, plundering, and so on.”

Pragmatic, I think you would have to agree through observation that “riots, plundering, and so on” occurs even when there is a fully functioning government (country, state, or local) and law enforcement is in place. Chaos as you define it does not have to be in place for those things to occur. For example, remember the result of the Rodney King verdict? There was looting, physical assault (e.g., pulling the guy out of the truck), buildings on fire, and I believe people over 50 people died. Remember seeing the police just standing around (remember the motto “protect and serve”?) and not doing much? Stores that were preserved had owners with guns drawn! The local Los Angeles government was present and functional. The same can be said about the rioting and looting in Ferguson, MO. Therefore, the secular system does not have to collapse for there to be chaos.

“I'm not saying that the religious rules haven't done some good. It may have. But people justify any action they want anyway, so religion is powerless here.” and “Did you read the links I posted? Religion has no real impact on stopping criminality.

I also could go to sites to get evidence/statistics to prove my point just like you have done to prove your point. The examples you give are a very small number so it would be wise not to make such a sweeping or general statement as you have about religion not having a significant impact on criminality. This shows your bias, but I have mine too! (smiley face here) I can assure you that some people who have become a Christian, whether it be a drug dealer, child molester, common thief, spouse abuser, swindler/embezzler, and so forth have genuinely repented and have stopped committing crimes (certainly some have not). Some people have even turned themselves in to law enforcement for the crime(s) they committed because of their conviction that what they are doing is wrong based on believing there is a God that desires that they do not commit such misdeeds and that they will be judged accordingly for their misdeeds . For me Pragmatic, you can take away all the core laws (e.g., murder, theft, rape, fraud, pedohilia, spousal abuse, etc.) and the corresponding punishment and I still would not break them. Why, because I believe that some morals are objective (based on absolute standards established by God (as defined by the Bible) and are not up to society (secular or religious) to determine if they are wrong or right based on general consensus, which I guess you would call subjective morality. Certainly some laws would be subject to debate and could involve subjective morality. Question, do atheists believe in object morality? If not, are things such as rape, murder , theft, pedophilia okay for a society if the majority will is fine with it? Is it possible in your world view to have one society that thinks these this are wrong and another think these things are right to do?

ThePragmatic's picture
I only have time for a short

I only have time for a short response.

"I think you would have to agree through observation that “riots, plundering, and so on” occurs even when there is a fully functioning government (country, state, or local) and law enforcement is in place. "

I get the impression we are talking past each other.
I don't mean a government collapse is required. That is, chaos is just waiting around the door, and there is little keeping it at bay. If, say the food industry suffers a collapse so the stores are suddenly empty, no god or religious faith is going to stop the chaos.
And I do not claim that secular law would stop this chaos either. I am however claiming that the current order we have, is in large because of secular law.

"I also could go to sites to get evidence/statistics to prove my point just like you have done to prove your point."

Really? I would love to see statistics that prove that religions impact on crime prevention and prison population.

It seems hard to find info on prison population statistics, except for this info from March 1997:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------------------------------
Catholic -------------- 29267 --- 39.164%
Protestant ----------- 26162 --- 35.008%
Muslim --------------- 5435 ----- 7.273%
American Indian --- 2408 ----- 3.222%
Nation ---------------- 1734 ----- 2.320%
Rasta ----------------- 1485 ----- 1.987%
Jewish ---------------- 1325 ----- 1.773%
Church of Christ --- 1303 ------ 1.744%
Pentecostal --------- 1093 ----- 1.463%
Moorish -------------- 1066 ----- 1.426%
Buddhist ------------- 882 ------ 1.180%
Jehovah Witness --- 665 ------ 0.890%
Adventist ------------ 621 ------ 0.831%
Orthodox ------------ 375 ------ 0.502%
Mormon -------------- 298 ------ 0.399%
Scientology --------- 190 ------ 0.254%
Atheist --------------- 156 ------ 0.209%
Hindu ----------------- 119 ----- 0.159%
Santeria -------------- 117 ----- 0.157%
Sikh ------------------- 14 ------- 0.019%
Bahai ------------------ 9 -------- 0.012%
Krishna --------------- 7 -------- 0.009%
---------------------------------------------------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

Source: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

ThePragmatic's picture
Again, I'm bad at getting my

Again, I'm bad at getting my point across. A food industry collapse is also a major event.
I think that as long as a person ends up in a situation where they think they won't get caught, smaller crimes like theft or vandalization happens in many cases. It depends mostly of the maturity of the persons sense of morality. If your a Christian, all you have to do is regret it later on, so why not?

Don't you see that the objective morality you think exists, is still interpreted by yourself or interpreted by someone else for you.
Jesus doesn't condemn slavery, and the OT is full of rules on how to get, treat, punish and release/keep slaves. Do you think slavery is moral?
If you don't, how did you come to that conclusion? Because you didn't read it in the Bible. It is the reformed Christian faith that ignores immoral parts of the bible. But by what standard is the correct parts selected? Objective morality?
No, by the people that are cherry picking the bible.

Pitar's picture
Working yourself up to a

Working yourself up to a sweat on this, no? Let it go. Awareness of the truth is enough to take comfort in without getting all angry and shit.

All that is written on the god-stuff stands in self-evidence that man can't even write himself into the creationist view without screwing it up for himself. Starting out by creating faulty gods and then pretending to be their handi-work doesn't exactly paint a noble picture for the belief systems to build upon. I mean, if you're gonna make shit up get it right.

Relax and let theists dwindle naturally. Their prodigy isn't buying into their prattle like they did and before long theism will diminish into the books about myths and fables romantics like to drool over.

science's picture
Sorry, pal, theists and

Sorry, pal, theists and religion are not going anywhere. There are too many millions of them. What rattles my chain is how absolutely ridiculous these people are. I just cannot believe that reasonably intelligent, sensible people can actually be duped into believing this stuff. If this was anything else other than religion, people would want you locked up in a crazy house. And as I get older, the more crazy, and ridiculous this stuff becomes... and the insistance of people in believing these things gets me crazy sometimes!

Ilovequestions's picture
Isn't it great that

Isn't it great that spirituality is on the rise? The world is more interested in the spiritual world than every before :) I find it great.

I think the thing that atheists don't want to admit is how limited science is. It cannot make ANY philosophical statements without crossing into areas it can't go. Atheists look to science as the answer to religion and ultimately its demise (to hear people put it). But when you get into how limited science is... no wonder people are becoming spiritual. Why are people becoming more spiritual? Here is why:

Science cannot say ANYTHING teleological (it cannot say anything has a purpose or what its purpose is). A scientific statement can be "blood runs through the body" because that is strictly observational. As soon as a scientist says "blood runs through the body SO THAT oxygen can be distributed to the cells", he or she is implying a purpose... and said scientist becomes a philosopher. Science helps us understand the physical world and what happens. It can't answer WHY things do what they do. It can't answer tell us what the purpose of ANYTHING is without becoming philosophical.

Scientific statement: organisms need food. Non-scientific statement (philosophical/teleological statement): organisms need food to survive.

I find it amusing because atheists think science is the answer to religion. Science is VERY limited. As soon as it leaves the physical realm of observation, the scientific method cannot be used. Science is limited, which is why people will believe in various religions. It can answer questions science cannot. Religions delve into philosophy and theology. Science cannot. This is why reasonable, intelligent people are religious :) Hopefully that clears things up. I love science, but I recognize its limits.

CyberLN's picture
I feel absolutely no need to

I feel absolutely no need to seek out some spiritual reason or purpose for my life. Zero. Zip. Nada. I don't think there is one and that does not upset me in the least.

Ilovequestions's picture
My point is not that YOU

My point is not that YOU individually need a spiritual point to exist, but just due to the fact that science cannot explain the purpose to ANYTHING... maybe you can understand why spirituality is at an all time high.

cmallen's picture
What makes you think

What makes you think spirituality is only now at an all-time high. Just looking at western civilization, post Mesopotamian and Egyptian, this past hundred years were probably the least spiritual. As the individual has taken its place as the focus of society in the West, spirituality has diminished or become more individualistic vis a vis theistic.

Ilovequestions's picture
Humanism was at an all time

Humanism was at an all time high during the early 1900s. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment had swept the world and everyone had extreme confidence in mankind to solve the world's problems. World peace seemed attainable. After that, who knows? A cure for AIDS? The end of worldwide hunger? The hope was overwhelming.

In numbers never seen before or since, many people thought that we could solve our own problems by ourselves and that we didn't need God.

Than World War I and II came... and this humanistic optimism ended. There was killing on a world-wide scale and things were very, very ugly. People lost hope in humanity solving its problems by itself.

This led to a resurgence in spiritualism and religion. Here are some numbers about how things are going:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/03/why-people-with-no-relig...

cmallen's picture
I didn't say it hasn't been

I didn't say it hasn't been rising; I've experienced its rise since the 60's. But it is still not what it once was.

ThePragmatic's picture
Sorry Ilovequestions, but

Sorry Ilovequestions, but that statistics is bullshit.

The article says that the group unaffiliated will grow as well, not just as fast as the religious. In other words, religious will become a larger share of the total population. Sure, why not procreate to victory!

This is just the kind of narrow minded and short sighted thinking that religion encourages. Why do you think the Catholic Church says that contraceptives are a sin? To spread by procreation. No matter the cost, no matter the suffering it causes, no matter that WHO has announced that the population has already passed the point where the worlds resources cannot sustain us.
We are looking at a bright future with famine, decease and war over resources thanks to that brilliant strategy.

On behalf of my children, I thank you and all the other mind washed religious vegetables, that are cheering it on.

Ilovequestions's picture
Well, okay :) I'll be a mind

Well, okay :) I'll be a mind-washed religious vegetable! The problem is, atheists don't live as long as theists and don't have as many children.

Haha, so if y'all wanna match us or outgrow us, start procreating! It'll be to your evolutionary advantage :) haha

I'm just happy religion is growing (especially Christianity).

And as for your remark about famines and deaths following the growth of religion, you atheists haven't really done much better than theists when you've been in power! Atheistic Soviet Russia sure was a place of great peace and prosperity, wasn't it? Lenin and Stalin were true heroes who definitely put atheism in a good light :) Not really.

Theists have done bad things when they've been in power. Atheists have been only a little better, at best. Atheistic communist countries have been among the worst to have ever existed in terms of personal freedom and prosperity and peace.

ThePragmatic's picture
I really thought you had a

I really thought you had a little more cogs left on the cogwheels behind your forehead.

I pity you: "I'll be a mindless drone, as long as I am happy! Atheists are communists and suck!"

As long as you are happy, that's all that matters. Can religious people get more self centred?

You just proved my comment, and revealed that you have the same ignorance as the rest of the religious apologists. Communism and atheism has nothing to do with each other. Please, try opening a book, besides the one written by bronze age goat herders.

Oh, and by the way. Try making a little more research on your favoured statistics. Islam's growth rate is outpacing Christianity's. Congratulations, you are getting out procreated. But live in your bubble of ignorance, the only thing important is that YOU are happy. :D

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-popul...
http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/islam-may-be-second-largest-r...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.