Fear of God - It's what makes us nicer: Study

[Lion IRC]

One side is asserting that the other doesn't know.
And as I said, in order for you to tell me that I don't know, you would have to know for a fact that it is not possible for me to know.

What do you know for a fact about God that enables you to dispute my experience?

Tom asked you to provide your basis for knowing. You are dodging again.

Put aside your anti-theism and suppose instead that we are talking about a scientist who claims they observed global warming evidence in the form of a melting iceberg.
I tell them they didn't see it and that they can't prove there was an iceberg.
They insist they saw it with their own eyes.
Again, I tell them they are lying, deluded or mistaken.

Why should the scientist doubt the reality of their own sensory evidence?

 

[beero1000]

Tom asked you to provide your basis for knowing. You are dodging again.

Put aside your anti-theism and suppose instead that we are talking about a scientist who claims they observed global warming evidence in the form of a melting iceberg.
I tell them they didn't see it and that they can't prove there was an iceberg.
They insist they saw it with their own eyes.
Again, I tell them they are lying, deluded or mistaken.

Why should the scientist doubt the reality of their own sensory evidence?

Your understanding of the scientific method, right there.

 

[abaddon]

Put aside your anti-theism and suppose instead that we are talking about a scientist who claims...

Why should the scientist doubt the reality of their own sensory evidence?

I forget, are you one of the theists that wanted faith to be accepted as reasonable?

It's a bit perplexing if you are.

 

[RavenSky]

Tom asked you to provide your basis for knowing. You are dodging again.

Put aside your anti-theism and suppose instead that we are talking about a scientist who claims they observed global warming evidence in the form of a melting iceberg.
I tell them they didn't see it and that they can't prove there was an iceberg.
They insist they saw it with their own eyes.
Again, I tell them they are lying, deluded or mistaken.

Why should the scientist doubt the reality of their own sensory evidence?

Putting aside your propensity for dodging dodging dodging - you were asked a direct question:

Provide the basis for your claim of knowing.

That you refuse to indicates to me you can't. Because it is a belief, not "knowing"

 

[Lion IRC]

My basis for knowing is derived from the senses - the same as all evidence is derived from sensory experience.
Now, you answer the same question.

On what basis does a person (who hasn't had my experience) assert that they know something which necessarily refutes my knowledge claim?

Saying I don't believe you Lion IRC is easy.
Saying I think you are mistaken because...[insert reason] is also easy.
Saying Lion IRC is a lunatic (literally insane) is easy.

But that's not what's happening here.

We have people who are asserting as fact that "no Lion IRC, you do not know".
And I am entitled to ask them how they justify that unsubstantiated claim.

 

[RavenSky]

My basis for knowing is derived from the senses - the same as all evidence is derived from sensory experience.

Except that your "sensory experience" can be wrong. That would make your "knowledge" untrue and unjustified.

Now, you answer the same question.

On what basis does a person (who hasn't had my experience) assert that they know something which necessarily refutes my knowledge claim?

Saying I don't believe you Lion IRC is easy.
Saying I think you are mistaken because...[insert reason] is also easy.
Saying Lion IRC is a lunatic (literally insane) is easy.

But that's not what's happening here.

We have people who are asserting as fact that "no Lion IRC, you do not know".
And I am entitled to ask them how they justify that unsubstantiated claim.

ask them

 

[Learner]

The phrases in posts " I don't know" ,"Atheists are middle ground" , or for example "Lion can be wrong". Is it possible that there is that little unsureness of there being no God - Atheist-Agnostics perhaps? No problem with that at all (there's still hope to seeing the light ) . No doubt any claim by Atheists (the certain there is no God ones) would have to demonstrate their basis for knowing this..a burden of their own.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Tom asked you to provide your basis for knowing. You are dodging again.

Put aside your anti-theism and suppose instead that we are talking about a scientist who claims they observed global warming evidence in the form of a melting iceberg.
I tell them they didn't see it and that they can't prove there was an iceberg.
They insist they saw it with their own eyes.
Again, I tell them they are lying, deluded or mistaken.

Why should the scientist doubt the reality of their own sensory evidence?

That's not why we trust scientists. Nobody cares what scientists have seen with their own eyes. It's the method and process by which the knowledge is gathered that counts. It has to be reproducible.

Just the fact that you made that statement demonstrates that you have no idea how science works.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'd like to ask Christians why they need fear of punishment in order to behave themselves. What is lacking in you that you need such harsh conditioning just to not hurt your fellow human beings? The rest of us don't need fear or threats to make us behave. We already have all we need to be good humans, right here inside us and in the humans around us. We don't always do it, but we have the capacity for compassion and for expanding our area of awareness in the world. We have the capacity to develop our own conscience. We all do.

But conscience requires questioning, uncertainty, ambivalence, struggle, and often there is no clear answer. These things are not tolerated by absolutist religion.

All you need to be good is an understanding of established expectations of behavior and other human eyes on you. Some people graduate to the level of having their own eyes on themselves being enough to stop them making a stupid choice.

As long as you believe there's a book or set of stories and beliefs or anything other than yourself that can possibly serve as your moral authority, you have in essence forfeited your own conscience.

Case in point: Ted Haggard. Funny how he went on so long renting male prostitutes while condemning the same, and it never occurred to him that his all-knowing, all-seeing God would see? Yet it was only when exposed to scrutiny by other human beings that he was suddenly sorry and got special magical counseling from his fellow magic believers.

It's not just a religious thing, of course. As we speak, people of all backgrounds are committing disgusting crimes against each other under anonymity. Always sorry when caught, but not one minute before. But religion corners the market on both hypocrisy and suppressed executive function, among other effects of the cognitive errors built into absolutist belief systems.

In other words, religion is a way of controlling people's behavior through fear and animal brain reflexes while suppressing their innate capacity for empathy and self-discipline (i.e., the actual traits and skills required for developing a conscience).

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd like to ask Christians why they need fear of punishment in order to behave themselves. What is lacking in you that you need such harsh conditioning just to not hurt your fellow human beings? The rest of us don't need fear or threats to make us behave. We already have all we need to be good humans, right here inside us and in the humans around us.

The conclusion is easy. Christians are bad people. While atheists, being good people, don't need threats to behave. Isn't that so Darth Lion RC?

 

[Angry Floof]

I'd like to ask Christians why they need fear of punishment in order to behave themselves. What is lacking in you that you need such harsh conditioning just to not hurt your fellow human beings? The rest of us don't need fear or threats to make us behave. We already have all we need to be good humans, right here inside us and in the humans around us.

The conclusion is easy. Christians are bad people. While atheists, being good people, don't need threats to behave. Isn't that so Darth Lion RC?

Excuse me? Did you read my post? Did you happen to see where it doesn't fucking say that? Of all the shitty, thoughtless attempts to cartoonize someone else's words, this is pretty pathetic. It's also pretty damn religious in its black and white, simple mentality. Force the whole world into an easy dichotomy. Easy choice for lazy minds.

Let me say it again. We all have the capacity for the cognitive pitfalls that I point out. We all have the capacity for the strengths I point out. Religion relies on cognitive error and animal brain to thrive and control large numbers of people. It is meant to hijack the limbic system and condition human beings to conformity through fear and punishment.

Atheists are no more innately good or bad or anything compared to theists. We're all innately atheist, though. It takes conditioning to be a theist.

My whole point here is that religion fosters the worst of human thought while simultaneously suppressing the traits and functions that allow for higher thought than the Ted Haggards of the world can manage. Atheists are not better; we're just better equipped and not burdened by demonstrably stunted and inhumane beliefs. We have a better chance of finding truth and for developing humane, realistic world views. We all won't do that, but we have that chance. Religious people have much less of a chance. Their backward beliefs enforced by pain are if anything an obstacle to moral behavior.

 

[Lion IRC]

Christian theology holds that God's laws are for our benefit - not God's benefit.
Who benefits if we stop killing each other?
Who benefits if we stop lying (bearing false witness)?
Who benefits if we stop stealing from each other?
Who benefits if we love one another as Jesus instructs?

So it's not the supposed threat of punishment but the incentive to have law abiding peace.

And the punishment isn't really for a specific transgression. We aren't punished for stealing per se. We are punished for the act of defiance of God's authority. The individual commandment we break (unrepentantly) is beside the point. It's the general principle of disobedience by the few when everyone else is trying to live lawfully (happily).

And in that respect, it's not a threat from God but a promise. A necessary and inevitible response from God. And if God didn't do something about wilful disobedience the (human) victims of that very same disobedience would have a valid complaint against God for His inaction.

 

[Angry Floof]

Christian theology holds that God's laws are for our benefit - not God's benefit.
Who benefits if we stop killing each other?
Who benefits if we stop lying (bearing false witness)?
Who benefits if we stop stealing from each other?
Who benefits if we love one another as Jesus instructs?

So it's not the supposed threat of punishment but the incentive to have law abiding peace.

And the punishment isn't really for a specific transgression. We aren't punished for stealing per se. We are punished for the act of defiance of God's authority. The individual commandment we break (unrepentantly) is beside the point. It's the general principle of disobedience by the few when everyone else is trying to live lawfully (happily).

And in that respect, it's not a threat from God but a promise. A necessary and inevitible response from God. And if God didn't do something about wilful disobedience the (human) victims of that very same disobedience would have a valid complaint against God for His inaction.

Those aren't God's laws. Those are people's laws, and they exist in every culture in history. Humans don't need religion or god-belief to notice that not killing people turns out to be conducive to human well being, and to come up with these laws and rules for that percentage of humans who for whatever reason cannot control themselves or cannot care about other humans' well being.

No, GOD's laws are things like don't worship any other figment of your imagination, or if you're talking about the Muslim GOD, then there's laws like how much money women and Jews are worth and to wipe your ass with your bare hand. Etc.

Lion IRC, I challenge you to name one good thing a human can do or one good aspect of human life that cannot be had without religion. And I'm talking about this life, this one where living, breathing humans exist and suffer, in this reality, what good can religion do that is not already in our human nature to do? Magical afterlife stories don't count.

"Might is right" is about the lowest and poorest philosophy in terms of human excellence and its effect on human well being and endeavor.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christian theology holds that God's laws are for our benefit - not God's benefit.

Based on what? They just pulled this out of their asses. Even if God exists we have no way of knowing if:

1) ...the Bible is the word of God
or
2) ... what God's motivations are.

I suggest reading Thomas Aquinas. He took Christian theology to it's logical conclusion. And he got sainted for it. It's an embarrassing mess of baseless assumptions, vague terms and laughable conclusions.

Who benefits if we stop killing each other?
Who benefits if we stop lying (bearing false witness)?
Who benefits if we stop stealing from each other?
Who benefits if we love one another as Jesus instructs?

We've had these laws now for 2000 years. It's not working, is it? Christianity is a failed experiment. Most people in American prison for breaking just those commandments are Christian. When do we accept that it was a failure?

So it's not the supposed threat of punishment but the incentive to have law abiding peace.

Bullshit. Being tortured eternally in hell is not only punishment but punishment completely out of proportion to the crime. If it even is a crime.

And the punishment isn't really for a specific transgression. We aren't punished for stealing per se. We are punished for the act of defiance of God's authority.

What authority? Why does God deserve being obeyed? How do we know what God wants? And how the hell can we know the Bible is the word of God?

The individual commandment we break (unrepentantly) is beside the point. It's the general principle of disobedience by the few when everyone else is trying to live lawfully (happily).

This is so perverse. God doesn't get to decide what is good or bad. Ethics does.

And in that respect, it's not a threat from God but a promise. A necessary and inevitible response from God. And if God didn't do something about wilful disobedience the (human) victims of that very same disobedience would have a valid complaint against God for His inaction.

Ehe... yet again it turns out that you're evil with a black soul. How do you sleep at night? You can't spindoctor God's evil to this degree and expect us not to react.

 

[bilby]

Totalitarian dictators always say that the laws are for the benefit of the people, not the tyrant.

The tyrant doesn't even need to exist - if the palace officials hand down new executive orders, the police and/or army enforce them - nobody knows whether the tyrant still lives, or whether his officials have taken over.

Of course eventually the great leader must be seen in public to squash any rumours of his non-existence. In the former Soviet Union, this usually lasted at most a few weeks; then either the First Secretary would be seen in public - or his replacement would be announced.

Well, Christians, it's been 2000 years; are we going to see Jesus on the reviewing stand for the May Day Parade, or can we assume that he's no longer in charge?

 

[migrant]

Lion IRC has stated his position with great perseverance, and he's happy in his beliefs, there's no need for me to try and negate them.
Perhaps he is the human face of an inhuman cult ..?
Baby ---- bathwater?

 

[bilby]

Lion IRC has stated his position with great perseverance, and he's happy in his beliefs, there's no need for me to try and negate them.
Perhaps he is the human face of an inhuman cult ..?
Baby ---- bathwater?

I am pretty sure that there's an ethical imperative to prevent the promulgation of harmful false beliefs, no matter how happy the believers are in them, and no matter how much they persevere in trying to push them on others.

Of course, Lion IRC will almost certainly claim that there cannot be any ethical imperative without a deity; but that's just yet another one of the many erroneous and harmful beliefs we have a duty to oppose.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Christian theology holds that God's laws are for our benefit - not God's benefit.
Who benefits if we stop killing each other?
Who benefits if we stop lying (bearing false witness)?
Who benefits if we stop stealing from each other?
Who benefits if we love one another as Jesus instructs?

So it's not the supposed threat of punishment but the incentive to have law abiding peace.

And the punishment isn't really for a specific transgression. We aren't punished for stealing per se. We are punished for the act of defiance of God's authority. The individual commandment we break (unrepentantly) is beside the point. It's the general principle of disobedience by the few when everyone else is trying to live lawfully (happily).

And in that respect, it's not a threat from God but a promise. A necessary and inevitible response from God. And if God didn't do something about wilful disobedience the (human) victims of that very same disobedience would have a valid complaint against God for His inaction.

Christian theology? Call it whatever you want but it starts with the story of a baby spaceman visiting Earth 2000 years ago.

Why am I skeptical about "Christian theologies?"

I work with two YECs. I've heard it all.

I'll start paying serious attention to your cherished "theology" when you can demonstrate its usefulness to me.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Lion IRC, I challenge you to name one good thing a human can do or one good aspect of human life that cannot be had without religion.

Ah...Hitchens' challenge.

I think there are a few contenders. But first you have to resolve the problem of the God-shaped hole in our heart which accounts for people doing good things for "no reason".
"Because it's good to do good things" but you're not sure exactly why you ought to do good^TM things.

If you take away religion or 'spirituality' you have atheists instinctively doing 'good' things and intuitively feeling good about having done so - but what's actually going on here?

 

[abaddon]

View attachment 9711

Your habit of jerking quotes from here and there is a mistake. I've already pointed that out a few times. If you do this without knowing the context, you will contradict your own point.

You're doing "impressionism", not reason.

“Religion for Atheists” is not about theism. Which is evident from the title. So it’s not religion to fill a God-shaped hole. Religion and theism are not synonyms. I sometimes argue the good side of religion too, with nothing in it that is supportive of theism.

… you're not sure exactly why you ought to do good things.

If you take away religion or 'spirituality' you have atheists instinctively doing 'good' things and intuitively feeling good about having done so - but what's actually going on here?

Why do you imagine it’s only instinctive and intuitive and not thought about? And why on earth shouldn't it be mostly intuitive and instinctive?

An instinctive desire for self-fulfillment, which the altruistic instinct also serves, is an excellent reason why one ought to be good.