My Answer to - No Atheists in Fox Holes

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nice Video but most theists simply don't care much about God - all they care about is what happens after death. A nice deity will pick them up and give them the easy good life that they want - that is what they are after, "and they lived happily ever after" - that's the true goal

That's a commonly overlooked point.

I've challenged people to tell their god that they are giving up their eternal hedonism so as to accomplish every earthly goal of their religion. How much more noble can you get than that? Unfortunately, their personal eternal reward trumps everything else, even starving children and genocide. My oh my how important their reward is to them, and how convenient.

Religion is a license to do everything one's religion ostensibly opposes. Some things change but this religious constant is eternal.

 

[sharon45]

Sorry, Underseer, but I'm a witness for Christ, and I will say what I have to say, come hell or high water.

I guess somebody should, since Jesus did such a terrible job.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Ha, right before He goes on another hypocritical rant.

 

[Learner]

Nice Video but most theists simply don't care much about God - all they care about is what happens after death. A nice deity will pick them up and give them the easy good life that they want - that is what they are after, "and they lived happily ever after" - that's the true goal

That's a commonly overlooked point.

Yes this particular point you highlighted is: Generalizations without the finer details more or less.

I've challenged people to tell their god that they are giving up their eternal hedonism so as to accomplish every earthly goal of their religion. How much more noble can you get than that? Unfortunately, their personal eternal reward trumps everything else, even starving children and genocide. My oh my how important their reward is to them, and how convenient.

Religion is a license to do everything one's religion ostensibly opposes. Some things change but this religious constant is eternal.

You can pretty much give "license" to anything that doesn't neccessarily have to be religious and thats stating the obvious.

 

[Learner]

I guess somebody should, since Jesus did such a terrible job.

I see here it's your word against his whether such a "terrible job" or not is the case. Its unclear to me what indications or reference you quote from.

 

[sharon45]

I guess somebody should, since Jesus did such a terrible job.

I see here it's your word against his whether such a "terrible job" or not is the case. Its unclear to me what indications or reference you quote from.

No, not my word, it's Jesus' foolhardy words against reality that Christians hopelessly give witness to.

 

[bilby]

Hold on a sec, bilby. Where in the hell did I agree that the stories are of "no value"?

I was agreeing with Underseer's statement which I quote below:

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good. [Jesus said pretty much the same thing]

I agree with this because there are people who are inherently good and do not require any doctrine or set of morals or rules by which to behave.

However, I also believe that religious stories have value, great value, in fact, precisely for those people who may not be inherently good, and who need some kind of restraint/constraints on their behavior, imposed by a doctrine or set of rules.

Religion is a means of control, as you know. It does not and need not apply to people who are benevolent and good by nature (those with the law written in their hearts).

To sum up:

I agreed with Underseer that if you understand things and are rational and reasonable, and good by nature, you do not need those stories, you do not need religion.

But I also believe those stories did, and still do, have huge practical value, as a means of imposing restraint/constraints on the behavior of individuals who do not understand things, who are not rational and reasonable, and who benefit by being obliged to follow certain doctrines or laws (individuals who do not have the law written in their hearts).

I understand the confusion, as these threads can be bewildering.

Do you know the difference between the right and wrong way to beat your slaves to death, William?

If you have any morals at all, then you understand that having slaves at all is extremely immoral, and that beating slaves to death would be an even greater injustice, Thus, you would be offended at the mere suggestion that there is a right and wrong way to beat slaves to death, but here you are insisting that the story has value.

Stories do not have value. If you know right from wrong, that came from you, not the Bible. The Bible gave you clear instructions on the right and wrong way to beat slaves to death. The fact that you ignore the Bible's advice proves that you are moral and it is not. To whatever degree you are moral, that did not come from the Bible.

It can't have come from the Bible. That's what the Euthyphro dilemma is all about. No authority can possibly make anyone more moral. No god, no magic book, no government, no ethics professor can make you nor anyone else more moral. Authorities can only demand obedience, not impart morality.

I still say the old stories have value, GREAT value, for people who need the law, who do not have the law written in their hearts. Sorry, Underseer, but I'm a witness for Christ, and I will say what I have to say, come hell or high water.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

"people who need the law, who do not have the law written in their hearts" is just flowery language for "People who don't do the right thing, who don't know what the right thing to do is, unless threatened by an authority.

And the Bible or Christianity are pretty crap as authorities for people who don't do the right thing. Better to say "If you commit crimes, the police will arrest you, you will be tried by the courts, and you will serve this sentence", which has the MASSIVE advantage of being demonstrably true, than to waste time telling people that if they sin - a word that encompasses everything from refusing to believe in a God without evidence, through petty theft to child rape and murder - that an invisible and undetectable authority will, once they are dead, torture them forever.

The latter approach has the major disadvantage of being impossible to show to be real (it's an empty threat); And lacking any moderation or sense of scale (saying 'Jesus fucking Christ!' when you hit your thumb with a hammer, carries the same penalty as child rape). This leads to two corollary problems - Firstly, that people who don't believe are immediately free from restraint (if you are inclined to do the wrong thing, and the only reason you don't is that God will punish you, then if you don't believe in God, you have nothing to fear; Whereas if you don't believe in the cops, they will nevertheless drag you off to jail) - and secondly that people who have made minor transgressions may decide that they have nothing further to lose (I am going to hell because I refused to say my evening prayers at the age of nine, so if I kill this person, I will not be any worse off than I already was).

In short, religious law does nothing whatsoever that cannot be more effectively done by secular law. It is demonstrably of no value at all - if secular law constrains the actions of immoral people, then religious law is not required, and if secular law does not constrain the actions of immoral people, then religious law will be even less effective.

Nobody will stop you from saying anything - but if you claim to be a witness for a person of whom who you cannot demonstrate the existence, there is no reason for anyone to take your testimony seriously.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's a commonly overlooked point.

Yes this particular point you highlighted is: Generalizations without the finer details more or less.

I've challenged people to tell their god that they are giving up their eternal hedonism so as to accomplish every earthly goal of their religion. How much more noble can you get than that? Unfortunately, their personal eternal reward trumps everything else, even starving children and genocide. My oh my how important their reward is to them, and how convenient.

Religion is a license to do everything one's religion ostensibly opposes. Some things change but this religious constant is eternal.

You can pretty much give "license" to anything that doesn't neccessarily have to be religious and thats stating the obvious.

Yes, but culturally we've been taught to elevate religious virtue. It turns out, however, that religiousness is not a virtue. At best it is a deal, and at worst it is hypocrisy of the highest order.