If I didn't believe in God

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

So your point is that if killing lots of people were the right decision, you still couldn't do it but think atheists could.

But do you agree that killing lots of people isn't the right decision right now? Because I think that's where a lot of people are hung up here. It's not what's best for humanity, and you seemed to be saying that you think it is.

I do believe in capital punishment where there are no lingering shreds of doubt. Aside from that I believe humaity should work to save each other the best way we know how.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I don't believe or follow the bible, my concept of god is so abstract I effectively have no concept. I just believe a higher power exists.

And yes my belief in a higher power would make me weaker if faced with a decision like this I would likely fail the test and leave it on his shoulders to do what he does best. On a second note, I am allready too weak to make this decsion, leaving it on gods shoulders would allow me to live with myself for not making it.

So your faith would lead to you make the wrong choice, you believe the correct choice would be easier for an Atheist. And that concerns you.

What on earth are we talking about?

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by badger5149

<snip>
And yes my belief in a higher power would make me weaker if faced with a decision like this I would likely fail the test and leave it on his shoulders to do what he does best. On a second note, I am allready too weak to make this decsion, leaving it on gods shoulders would allow me to live with myself for not making it.

But this is saying something about you, not about general differences in judgement and behaviour as between atheists versus believers.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I don't believe or follow the bible, my concept of god is so abstract I effectively have no concept. I just believe a higher power exists.

And yes my belief in a higher power would make me weaker if faced with a decision like this I would likely fail the test and leave it on his shoulders to do what he does best. On a second note, I am allready too weak to make this decsion, leaving it on gods shoulders would allow me to live with myself for not making it.

The only solution is for you to quit believing.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

So your faith would lead to you make the wrong choice, you believe the correct choice would be easier for an Atheist. And that concerns you.

What on earth are we talking about?

What really concerns me is all the animosity I have seen on this sight directed at believers, maybe I wrongly projected that into the thread.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

The only solution is for you to quit believing.

Too bad OP's not a city boy, born and raised in south Detroit.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by badger5149

What really concerns me is all the animosity I have seen on this sight directed at believers, maybe I wrongly projected that into the thread.

Please, what is it you want to debate?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Please, what is it you want to debate?

How to live by finding emotion?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by badger5149

What really concerns me is all the animosity I have seen on this sight directed at believers, maybe I wrongly projected that into the thread.

There is a lot of animosity toward believers on this site.

The problem is not with recognizing or acknowledging that, but in allowing one's thoughts to fall into the same error and expressing animosity toward all non-believers. There are also many posters on this site who firmly do not share in any spiritual beliefs, but who are quite tolerant of those who do believe. That they are not as loud as those who are hostile should not make a rational believer fall into the trap of assuming that the louder and more hostile posters represent a uniform set of opinions.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Please, what is it you want to debate?

Nothing, I am done!

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Nothing, I am done!

Odd.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by badger5149

What really concerns me is all the animosity I have seen on this sight directed at believers, maybe I wrongly projected that into the thread.

How do you think non-believers feel when you open the discussion by saying that they engage in genocide and forced sterilization?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Too bad OP's not a city boy, born and raised in south Detroit.

Well, I am a city boy raised in southwest Los Angles. I fail to make any connections here?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Munch

How do you think non-believers feel when you open the discussion by saying that they engage in genocide and forced sterilization?

I went back and checked my post, I never said that but can see how some one may have taken it that way.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I went completely over your head, I will try one more time. Their was no eveil implication made regarding athiests. I failed to really give much explanation trying to keep my OP short. Lets say the world was in a horrible crises, food shortages, disease, rampant criminal activity, competition for resources just to survive. Some tough deciions had to be made based on sound scientific research that inorder to save the planet and the human race 1/2 the population must die or we loose all. As a believer I would proably fail to make that decision. You very well may feel the same, but I can imagine without god in the equation being able to make that decision on who would go. I can't do any better than this so I aplogise if it is still not clear.

I don't understand. As a believer you would do nothing and let more people die? As a believer you'd pray and hope God would intervene? Exactly how would your decision differ from the atheistic leader working on the best ethics available?
The choice of who dies has nothing to do with science, obviously.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I went back and checked my post, I never said that but can see how some one may have taken it that way.

Close enough. So answer my question - how do you think people feel when you open the discussion by saying that they'd resort to genocide and forced sterilization? Why do you feel that's a neutral tone to set for a discussion, and are confused when they come back with a little bit of animosity for the characterization?

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Well, I am a city boy raised in southwest Los Angles. I fail to make any connections here?

Connection.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I don't understand. As a believer you would do nothing and let more people die? As a believer you'd pray and hope God would intervene? Exactly how would your decision differ from the atheistic leader working on the best ethics available?
The choice of who dies has nothing to do with science, obviously.

I never said Ihoped god would intervene, I said I would trust that God would handle things the way he always has. No matter how I might feel about the results of something has no bearing wether it is right or wrong. Maybe god felt it was time to turn earth over to insects so he chose to start a decline of mammals that might take 10 million years to finsih, not for me to say.
I projected myself into the position of an athiest, no one else. I tried to imagine how I could make decisions I would not want to make but felt I had to. As I believer I felt I could be relieved of that process, as an athiest I felt I would need to try and fix it. Just me.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Munch

Close enough. So answer my question - how do you think people feel when you open the discussion by saying that they'd resort to genocide and forced sterilization?

To be fair, his later clarification suggested this would only happen in a desperate extinction-threatening circumstance.


At least I hope he's suggesting that atheists would wait for a desperate extinction-threatening circumstance.





_{All hail Governor Kodos!}

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Connection.

That song really hit the spot, kind of refreshed me.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I never said Ihoped god would intervene, I said I would trust that God would handle things the way he always has.

Right.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I never said Ihoped god would intervene, I said I would trust that God would handle things the way he always has. No matter how I might feel about the results of something has no bearing wether it is right or wrong. Maybe god felt it was time to turn earth over to insects so he chose to start a decline of mammals that might take 10 million years to finsih, not for me to say.
I projected myself into the position of an athiest, no one else. I tried to imagine how I could make decisions I would not want to make but felt I had to. As I believer I felt I could be relieved of that process, as an athiest I felt I would need to try and fix it. Just me.

Truly, and awesomely bizzare point of view. I guess that explains why religious conservatives don't hive a hoot about global warming.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by fumster

Truly, and awesomely bizzare point of view. I guess that explains why religious conservatives don't hive a hoot about global warming.

Well, God will intervene. Or not, whatever.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Lets say the world was in a horrible crises, food shortages, disease, rampant criminal activity, competition for resources just to survive. Some tough deciions had to be made based on sound scientific research that inorder to save the planet and the human race 1/2 the population must die or we loose all. As a believer I would proably fail to make that decision.

So what do you do if your god tells you to kill half the population?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

So what do you do if your god tells you to kill half the population?

If you don't have sense enough to read the thread before you post an idiot response like this you don't deserve and answer.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Kenm

Right.

This situation was man made and had no bearing on the thread. The decison what to do about this was easy yet they still seemed to take their time about it.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by fumster

Truly, and awesomely bizzare point of view. I guess that explains why religious conservatives don't hive a hoot about global warming.

Well, what would you do? Let the world die off or kill 1/2 the population to save the rest? Or are you just like me and can't really deal with the answer?

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I never said Ihoped god would intervene, I said I would trust that God would handle things the way he always has.

Of course it was man made, just as everything else that is justified by any god is man made.

The perpetrators' god was invoked to justify the war in the first place, as it was by every other army for or against, and these victims' belief in their god (or disbelief in the perpetrators'), was used to justify their assembly-line murders.

Not that it made made much difference.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by badger5149

If you don't have sense enough to read the thread before you post an idiot response like this you don't deserve and answer.

You are aware that there are several instances in the bible where god commanded just that, right?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Kenm

Of course it was man made, just as everything else that is justified by any god is man made.

The perpetrators' god was invoked to justify the war in the first place, as it was by every other army for or against, and these victims' belief in their god (or disbelief in the perpetrators'), was used to justify their assembly-line murders.

Not that it made made much difference.

You know as well as I do that God was just used to sell the idea. So far it looks like human nature will abuse power when they have too much regardless of their beliefs or lack there of. If you have 90% of one group and 10% of another without a well written and enforced constitution you may have problems.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Munch

You are aware that there are several instances in the bible where god commanded just that, right?

Yes I am aware but the bible is not related to this thread.

[Bryan Ekers]

How do you distinguish people who've been commanded by God from people who only say they've been commanded by God?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Well, what would you do? Let the world die off or kill 1/2 the population to save the rest? Or are you just like me and can't really deal with the answer?

In theory, if there were absolutely no other alternatives, then, yeah: kill half to save half, rather than let all die.

In practice? I couldn't possibly deal with it! I'll be under the bed, hoping someone else makes the decision.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by badger5149

You know as well as I do that God was just used to sell the idea.

Was Allah invoked on 9/11 just to sell the idea? Was the Christian god invoked just to sell the idea by the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Most Christian believers in the West, I venture, would answer yes to the first and no to the second, for the very same reason followers of Allah would answer no to the first and yes to the second.

Of course the other one is stupidly wrong and therefor evil, so let's bomb the shit out of them and let God/Allah decide.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

How do you distinguish people who've been commanded by God from people who only say they've been commanded by God?

This is actually a good question, if someone says they are commanded by God I feel they are lying or crazy. I feel when a decision is too big for me and I am forced to act I try to base my motives on what I would call spiritual principles, maybe you would simply call it ethics. I feel when I do this I am somehwhat relieved of guilt when the outcome is not what I had hoped for and I tend to act more decisively and intuitively.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by badger5149

This is actually a good question, if someone says they are commanded by God I feel they are lying or crazy.

Does that include Noah, Moses, and Abraham?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by fumster

Does that include Noah, Moses, and Abraham?

You would not be asking if you followed the thread

[Bryan Ekers]

Y'know, maybe the reason we keep falling back on Judeochristianity is because you haven't deigned to describe what your God is like, so we use the more familiar general example.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Y'know, maybe the reason we keep falling back on Judeochristianity is because you haven't deigned to describe what your God is like, so we use the more familiar general example.

I think he worships a tame lion.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Y'know, maybe the reason we keep falling back on Judeochristianity is because you haven't deigned to describe what your God is like, so we use the more familiar general example.

You know how deists believe in a god who set up the universe and its laws and started it all running and then fucked off? Well his god does all that and absolves him of responsibility for making hard decisions.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I think he worships a tame lion.

Me gusta mucho!

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

You know how deists believe in a god who set up the universe and its laws and started it all running and then fucked off? Well his god does all that and absolves him of responsibility for making hard decisions.

Well, he still seems to think his god will intervene or choose not to intervene if something bad happens, hence no requirement for action on his own part.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by badger5149

If you don't have sense enough to read the thread before you post an idiot response like this you don't deserve and answer.

I'd read every one of your posts before posting that -- in part because I'd been waiting, in vain, to see if you'd respond to mine, back on page two -- and I've just now re-read every one of 'em, and still have no idea which post or posts you're referring to. (Can you at least mention a post number?)

Near as I can tell, the closest you came to addressing it was your response to Der Trihs, who'd asked about religious leaders killing people because God demands it; you replied that -- well, that it's a line of thought you may entertain at some point in the future. So what could possibly be more sensible than seeing if you're finally ready yet?

For what it's worth, though, you went on to pretty much answer the question anyway:

This is actually a good question, if someone says they are commanded by God I feel they are lying or crazy. I feel when a decision is too big for me and I am forced to act I try to base my motives on what I would call spiritual principles, maybe you would simply call it ethics. I feel when I do this I am somehwhat relieved of guilt

Well, there you go: like plenty of atheists, you're perfectly capable of making your decisions based on what people would call "ethics". Oh, sure, you theoretically differ from them in that you'd defer to commands from God -- except that, in practice, your position is ultimately indistinguishable from theirs, given that you categorically reject any alleged commands from God that conflict with your principles (or ethics or whatever you call 'em).

So they reach the same decisions you would, by following the same process you use -- except they don't bother with the step that's doing no actual work in your reasoning; they skip straight to the part about ethics and principles instead of (a) wasting a moment along the way before (b) getting there eventually.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, he still seems to think his god will intervene or choose not to intervene if something bad happens, hence no requirement for action on his own part.

It's the "or choose not to" part that's key. In other words, his god will continue to act in a manner indistinguishable from chance and scientific law. But because he's given it a name, he can feel like it's God's responsibility and not his.

Hey, badger, did it occur to you that if there were a god like that that maybe it lets natural disasters and famine and global warming continue is not because it is ok with them and has a master plan, but because it wants you (well, all of us, perhaps) to man up and make those hard decisions anyway?

[Bryan Ekers]

"Hey, I sent you two rowboats and a helicopter!"

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

So they reach the same decisions you [badger] would, by following the same process you use -- except they don't bother with the step that's doing no actual work in your reasoning; they skip straight to the part about ethics and principles instead of (a) wasting a moment along the way before (b) getting there eventually.

And without the luxury of being able to transfer the responsibility of any Sophie's Choice decision onto the shoulders of a fictitious super being who, it's evident, will pat the believer on the head as though he were a pet poodle doing his master's incomprehensible will.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by


Well, there you go: like plenty of atheists, you're perfectly capable of making your decisions based on what people would call "ethics". Oh, sure, you [B

theoretically[/b] differ from them in that you'd defer to commands from God -- except that, in practice, your position is ultimately indistinguishable from theirs, given that you categorically reject any alleged commands from God that conflict with your principles (or ethics or whatever you call 'em).

So they reach the same decisions you would, by following the same process you use -- except they don't bother with the step that's doing no actual work in your reasoning; they skip straight to the part about ethics and principles instead of (a) wasting a moment along the way before (b) getting there eventually.

This is where I was hoping the thread would lead. No difference in how any decent person arrives at the decisions we do in life. We examine our motives or objectives and then do it. The only difference is with my belief in a higher power I may not fret or feel as guilty for as long as someone who feels total responsibility. I share that as being an imperfect human and it gets me off the hook a bit quicker. For me I feel it is healthier, you may very well have an equally effective mechanism for dealing with guilt, I don't. I enjoy having limits on what I need to feel resposible for even though I am a very responsible person who has always carried a pretty heavy load.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

It's not really a matter of being absolved as much as it is just accepting that a force much bigger and more powerful than me started all this and he probably knows where it is going.
I believe in using every brain cell on the planet to solve problems before they reach catostraphic stages but when the wave finaly rolls in whatever wall I have up to protect my family with will just have to do and if I know I did my best I have no guilt.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by badger5149

It's not really a matter of being absolved as much as it is just accepting that a force much bigger and more powerful than me started all this and he probably knows where it is going.

How would you hypothetically distinguish such a force (that "knows where it is going") from a purely random universe with no specific goal?

I believe in using every brain cell on the planet to solve problems before they reach catostraphic stages but when the wave finaly rolls in whatever wall I have up to protect my family with will just have to do and if I know I did my best I have no guilt.

Is this something a believer can do that an atheist cannot? I don't readily see the relevance?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

How would you hypothetically distinguish such a force (that "knows where it is going") from a purely random universe with no specific goal?



Is this something a believer can do that an atheist cannot? I don't readily see the relevance?

This is where we have a major difference, I don't feel science has even approached a level to be able to discount the possibility of an intelligent plan. We think of time and space relative to our physical beings. If something we so large that we could pass through it without even being aware of it's presence then time would be just as irelevant to this object or being. For all intents and purposes it would not even exist. Too many humans from too many cultures have reached out to a god of their choosing for me to just discount this as superstitious. I feel something in us is a part of something we are not able to recognize but we somehow feel connected to it regardless, it just feels very natural to me.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by badger5149

This is where we have a major difference, I don't feel science has even approached a level to be able to discount the possibility of an intelligent plan.

Well, I don't see how religion has approached a level to be able to prove the possibility of an intelligent plan, despite a ~12000 year head start. I get that some mechanism evolved in the human brain to make unproven beliefs tenacious. I figure it's that "fear of tigers" thing, where believing in the unlikely (there's a tiger in that cave, so I'll stay away) might waste time but doesn't hurt, whereas being skeptical (there's no tiger in that cave, until the day that there is and you get eaten) is occasionally fatal.