If a god exists, why does he/it need my buy in?
Why is believing in a god ...necessary to living a good and productive life? (It's not but I'm interested in learning from Christians here, why they feel otherwise)
Thanks!
Why should one care that God exists?
Moderator: Moderators
Why should one care that God exists?
Post #1I'm an atheist but also a former Christian. Instead if asking Christians to show me evidence of god's existence (which there is no objective proof; the Bible isn't proof of anything) why not tell me and other atheists, why is believing relevant? Why should anyone care if a god exists?
If a god exists, why does he/it need my buy in?
Why is believing in a god ...necessary to living a good and productive life? (It's not but I'm interested in learning from Christians here, why they feel otherwise)
Thanks!
If a god exists, why does he/it need my buy in?
Why is believing in a god ...necessary to living a good and productive life? (It's not but I'm interested in learning from Christians here, why they feel otherwise)
Thanks!
Every silver lining, has a cloud.
Post #131
[Replying to post 129 by tortured soul]
There is natural rebelliousness through independence before the law is given, and there is willful disobedience once laws reach the understanding. It doesn't take long for a child to understand the word no- an explanation is not needed. And where does, "pushing the boundaries originate? Why does this happen? And firm means what? Legalities?
One: an inquisitive nature is not "willful disobedience". Do you concede this or not?
Two: How does this child learn what "no" means until he learns the consequences of not following the rules? Willful disobedience can only come with full understanding of the rules and consequences.
Three: Given that the child must be allowed to develop, and make mistakes and learn from said mistakes, what is your argument then? I fail to understand how learning, trial and error (for infants and toddlers) is evidence for anything other than what it is, a developing mind. I do not see this as evidence of a "god inspired rebelliousness". I see this as evidence for the developing nature of virtually every living thing on the planet.
Given that you have already conceded that toddlers do not know why they are doing what they are doing (in your words - rebelling), then god has what, "inspired" them to create a form of self-induced suffering? That is what you consider evidence? That would seem to me to be a very cruel god indeed, implanting a desire inherent to all babies to dangerously defy their parents, which could result in death, disfigurement, scarring (emotional and physical) and brain damage.
There is natural rebelliousness through independence before the law is given, and there is willful disobedience once laws reach the understanding. It doesn't take long for a child to understand the word no- an explanation is not needed. And where does, "pushing the boundaries originate? Why does this happen? And firm means what? Legalities?
One: an inquisitive nature is not "willful disobedience". Do you concede this or not?
Two: How does this child learn what "no" means until he learns the consequences of not following the rules? Willful disobedience can only come with full understanding of the rules and consequences.
Three: Given that the child must be allowed to develop, and make mistakes and learn from said mistakes, what is your argument then? I fail to understand how learning, trial and error (for infants and toddlers) is evidence for anything other than what it is, a developing mind. I do not see this as evidence of a "god inspired rebelliousness". I see this as evidence for the developing nature of virtually every living thing on the planet.
Given that you have already conceded that toddlers do not know why they are doing what they are doing (in your words - rebelling), then god has what, "inspired" them to create a form of self-induced suffering? That is what you consider evidence? That would seem to me to be a very cruel god indeed, implanting a desire inherent to all babies to dangerously defy their parents, which could result in death, disfigurement, scarring (emotional and physical) and brain damage.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #132
.
Does God, or belief in God, make people (adults and children) more likely to obey authorities (preachers, parents, teachers, politicians, etc)?
Are religious people (those who care if God exists) less likely to become criminals (in spite of incarceration statistics that say otherwise)?
How does any of this relate to the OP ("Why should one care that God exists")?tortured soul wrote: There is natural rebelliousness through independence before the law is given, and there is willful disobedience once laws reach the understanding. It doesn't take long for a child to understand the word no- an explanation is not needed. And where does, "pushing the boundaries originate? Why does this happen? And firm means what? Legalities?
Does God, or belief in God, make people (adults and children) more likely to obey authorities (preachers, parents, teachers, politicians, etc)?
Are religious people (those who care if God exists) less likely to become criminals (in spite of incarceration statistics that say otherwise)?
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
tortured soul
- Apprentice
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:17 am
Post #133
[Replying to post 130 by KenRU]
"Don't stick your finger in that electrical socket" is a command from the parent, who has understanding, to the child, who is naturally inquisitive. The child, once again, attempts to stick his finger in the socket, and another "no" is given. Again, the child is seen going towards the socket, this time a slap on the hand comes, and a firm, No is given. The child turns red and throws a fit. Why did that happen? Why did it have to go that far? When does the inquisitive nature turn into willful disobedience?
Willful disobedience is the result of the inquisitive nature being suppressed by a "higher power". The best a parent can do, exactly what God does for the earth, is to keep a balance in the life of the child. A child could continue eating something he likes with no self-control, when does a parent say enough? And why should the parent have to go this far? Do you not see that something within has the ability to propel a person into extremes?
God inspired rebelliousness, or natural passion inspired independence which leads to rebelliousness? I agree with the latter. But that is what the parent is for, correct? To give the knowledge- but if the independent nature wills otherwise, negative consequences can result. The man did not eat from either tree, content to remain in his static pursuits, but the woman was told a counter argument against God's cautionary command, that "You will not die." (the first theological conversation) She had a choice who to believe and adhere to. After eating, she taught the man the counter argument, and they both chose to ate. If you do your duty as a parent to teach the child, and the child does what he wants anyway, and the results are negative, are you to blame? How many children are dead because the parent turned their head for second and died by something they had told the child over and over not to do? Where does this nature come from?
"Don't stick your finger in that electrical socket" is a command from the parent, who has understanding, to the child, who is naturally inquisitive. The child, once again, attempts to stick his finger in the socket, and another "no" is given. Again, the child is seen going towards the socket, this time a slap on the hand comes, and a firm, No is given. The child turns red and throws a fit. Why did that happen? Why did it have to go that far? When does the inquisitive nature turn into willful disobedience?
Willful disobedience is the result of the inquisitive nature being suppressed by a "higher power". The best a parent can do, exactly what God does for the earth, is to keep a balance in the life of the child. A child could continue eating something he likes with no self-control, when does a parent say enough? And why should the parent have to go this far? Do you not see that something within has the ability to propel a person into extremes?
God inspired rebelliousness, or natural passion inspired independence which leads to rebelliousness? I agree with the latter. But that is what the parent is for, correct? To give the knowledge- but if the independent nature wills otherwise, negative consequences can result. The man did not eat from either tree, content to remain in his static pursuits, but the woman was told a counter argument against God's cautionary command, that "You will not die." (the first theological conversation) She had a choice who to believe and adhere to. After eating, she taught the man the counter argument, and they both chose to ate. If you do your duty as a parent to teach the child, and the child does what he wants anyway, and the results are negative, are you to blame? How many children are dead because the parent turned their head for second and died by something they had told the child over and over not to do? Where does this nature come from?
Post #134
[Replying to post 132 by tortured soul]
Again, the child is seen going towards the socket, this time a slap on the hand comes, and a firm, No is given. The child turns red and throws a fit. Why did that happen? Why did it have to go that far? When does the inquisitive nature turn into willful disobedience?
It happened because the child is naturally inquisitive and doesn't understand why he can not continue.
How far it goes is determined by the inquisitiveness of the child.
It turns into willfulness when the child is able to understand the consequences for said decisions - which will not happen for a while.
A child could continue eating something he likes with no self-control, when does a parent say enough? And why should the parent have to go this far
Parents use their judgment and decide what is best for their children's health and happiness. As for why this happens, it is because we are biologically driven creatures.
Do you not see that something within has the ability to propel a person into extremes?
I see it all the time. In both kids and adults. It in no way shows me evidence of a "god-inspired rebelliousness". Genetics and environment are sufficient explanations. And, to boot, these explanations have evidence to support their veracity.
How many children are dead because the parent turned their head for second and died by something they had told the child over and over not to do? Where does this nature come from?
I have no idea what this is supposed to prove. Perhaps that the god you believe in is cruel? Mortality rates for children have gotten lower and lower as science and education becomes more readily available to the masses. So, does this prove that god is influencing us less?
Again, the child is seen going towards the socket, this time a slap on the hand comes, and a firm, No is given. The child turns red and throws a fit. Why did that happen? Why did it have to go that far? When does the inquisitive nature turn into willful disobedience?
It happened because the child is naturally inquisitive and doesn't understand why he can not continue.
How far it goes is determined by the inquisitiveness of the child.
It turns into willfulness when the child is able to understand the consequences for said decisions - which will not happen for a while.
A child could continue eating something he likes with no self-control, when does a parent say enough? And why should the parent have to go this far
Parents use their judgment and decide what is best for their children's health and happiness. As for why this happens, it is because we are biologically driven creatures.
Do you not see that something within has the ability to propel a person into extremes?
I see it all the time. In both kids and adults. It in no way shows me evidence of a "god-inspired rebelliousness". Genetics and environment are sufficient explanations. And, to boot, these explanations have evidence to support their veracity.
How many children are dead because the parent turned their head for second and died by something they had told the child over and over not to do? Where does this nature come from?
I have no idea what this is supposed to prove. Perhaps that the god you believe in is cruel? Mortality rates for children have gotten lower and lower as science and education becomes more readily available to the masses. So, does this prove that god is influencing us less?
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
-
tortured soul
- Apprentice
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:17 am
Post #135
[Replying to post 133 by KenRU]
So, you believe that genetics play a role in conduct? I agree. Yet, who laid the foundation for those particular genes, or, who is the source? Biblically, it is the man and woman, who received it after eating from the tree of the pursuit (independent curiosity) of opposing information.
The judgments that parents receive, passed to their children, are of course, experienced through their own actions, what they have perceived in the actions of others, or what they have been taught- thus defining for themselves what is beneficial for them, or what is unbeneficial (exemplifying the knowledge and pursuit of independent good and evil derived from the source, which is the tree of knowledge.)
Is God influencing? or allowing mankind to influence themselves through the pursuit of independent, and\or social knowledge? If God chooses to influence a person, it is to show His independent eternal free will, but if there is cruelty, it is on mankind's part, who express their cruelty every day- to be seen by all. Should we blame the person, or despise God for everything that goes wrong?
So, you believe that genetics play a role in conduct? I agree. Yet, who laid the foundation for those particular genes, or, who is the source? Biblically, it is the man and woman, who received it after eating from the tree of the pursuit (independent curiosity) of opposing information.
The judgments that parents receive, passed to their children, are of course, experienced through their own actions, what they have perceived in the actions of others, or what they have been taught- thus defining for themselves what is beneficial for them, or what is unbeneficial (exemplifying the knowledge and pursuit of independent good and evil derived from the source, which is the tree of knowledge.)
Is God influencing? or allowing mankind to influence themselves through the pursuit of independent, and\or social knowledge? If God chooses to influence a person, it is to show His independent eternal free will, but if there is cruelty, it is on mankind's part, who express their cruelty every day- to be seen by all. Should we blame the person, or despise God for everything that goes wrong?
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #136
Let's be clear I am not trying to slight you but understand your background in this area. You have only used the bible to justify your claims. As I treat the bible as mythology, I dont see any reason to take your claims seriously. Furthermore if you could support your claims with empirical evidence I would be happy to address that.tortured soul wrote: [Replying to post 128 by DanieltheDragon]
Leave your assumptions about me to yourself, you should know better. Right? Are you wilfully disobeying the rules? We have already discussed the natural independent nature, which yes, leads to natural rebelliousness. Read previous posts to catch up.
There is natural rebelliousness through independence before the law is given, and there is willful disobedience once laws reach the understanding. It doesn't take long for a child to understand the word no- an explanation is not needed. And where does, "pushing the boundaries originate? Why does this happen? And firm means what? Legalities?
I am caught up and I disagree with everything you claim. Your claims to me don't sound as though they come from experience. They don't sound like they come from someone who has studied the psychological development of a child. That is just my observation about your claims.
If we are addressing hypotheticals by someone who does not have a background in childcare or the psychological development of children. I don't see how they can be relevant to the discussion at hand.
Let me give an example of what I mean.
Hinduism is illogical because it has multiple gods that don't coexist together.
This is a statement from ignorance because I don't know really anything about Hinduism. I could make up whatever argument I wanted to about hinduism regardless if the argument had merit.
You have to be able to support your argument. Your hypothetical about a child repeatedly and willfully ignoring his parent about an electrical socket is a false dichotomy.
Essentially the argument itself ignores a myriad of possibilities that are the cause for the behavior. Instead the argument presents Rebellious vs non-rebellious and does not take into the context of which the situation entails.
I presented two clearly different possibilities that have been ignored.
1. asserting independence associated with the rise of identification of self awareness
2. Testing the boundaries.
the second point is the most common. This happens because a child is still learning the rules. So it tests the boundaries that are set in place. When you say no don't touch the outlet. The child probably doesn't know what an outlet means. They might understand the no but they might not understand what you are saying no about this takes TIME it takes time to learn what not to touch and why. The repeated action is to test and figure out what is causing the no in the first place.
FYI swatting a child will almost always cause a repeat in the behavior it is not an effective means of discipline. There is a very good reason for this that I would be happy to discuss in another thread.
Post #137
[Replying to post 134 by tortured soul]
If God chooses to influence a person, it is to show His independent eternal free will, but if there is cruelty, it is on mankind's part, who express their cruelty every day- to be seen by all. Should we blame the person, or despise God for everything that goes wrong?
Using your own logic, we should absolutely blame god. You said that toddlers do not yet fully understand this "drive" or the "consequences" of their actions. God put this drive in them, right? So, god inspires little children with undeveloped minds to (using your example) insert their finger into light sockets and die. Since no one is perfect (both from a biblical and scientific point of view) and parents are bound to make mistakes, then we must allow that some children will die from this "rebelliousness" god inserted into them, right? Using this logic, God would most certainly have to be blamed, no?
There is no cruelty on the parents' part. The cruelty would be in the divine being that put a drive into a child that he/she could not possibly control or understand.
If God chooses to influence a person, it is to show His independent eternal free will, but if there is cruelty, it is on mankind's part, who express their cruelty every day- to be seen by all. Should we blame the person, or despise God for everything that goes wrong?
Using your own logic, we should absolutely blame god. You said that toddlers do not yet fully understand this "drive" or the "consequences" of their actions. God put this drive in them, right? So, god inspires little children with undeveloped minds to (using your example) insert their finger into light sockets and die. Since no one is perfect (both from a biblical and scientific point of view) and parents are bound to make mistakes, then we must allow that some children will die from this "rebelliousness" god inserted into them, right? Using this logic, God would most certainly have to be blamed, no?
There is no cruelty on the parents' part. The cruelty would be in the divine being that put a drive into a child that he/she could not possibly control or understand.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
-
tortured soul
- Apprentice
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:17 am
Post #138
[Replying to post 135 by DanieltheDragon]
As I was backpacking through Oklahoma with four others, I came across a beat up Chevy truck. Gathering our money together, we purchased the truck and set out towards New Mexico. The driver was an unbeliever who scoffed at me continuously over my God, constantly blaming him for everything. I could tell he was getting frustrated in thought so he gunned the vehicle, pushing it to the limits. We didn't even get out of Tulsa before the engine began billowing smoke and a gut wrenching metallic crack and pop completely killed the engine.
The driver, opening the hood, began cursing and kicking dirt, throwing water on the over heated engine, which only caused another massive metallic crack that had us all backing away from the vehicle. We weren't going anywhere, and the water was wasted, we were hot. The driver, his girlfriend, and my brother-in-law decided to make the trek to the next exit to get more water. While my wife and I stayed behind, I told her we would pray in the name of Jesus to get this truck to New Mexico. So we prayed, believing our God hears.
When they returned with the water, I told the scoffer to start the engine. He stuck his finger in the ignition (there was no need for a key, the truck was old, in fact, it couldn't even get into reverse) and tried to turn it over- no avail. Once more, and the engine sparked to life. I prayed that it would get us to NM, and it did, where it completely died the moment it was parked. Needing the money, I called a junkyard and sold the truck for scrap. The owner of the yard came to pick it up, and opening the hood, began to look puzzled, asking, where did you say you drove this from? We told him, Tulsa- smiling he said, You don't have to tell me anything, but that would be impossible, your entire block is completely cracked, you have no fan belt, and there is no filter to get you through that far of a trip through the desert. Laughing, the junkyard owner slammed the hood closed and began to back up his large tow truck.
My scoffer friend, actually got angry at what the man had said, grabbed his bag out of the truck and slammed the door, the Chevy cross symbol landed at his feet. Looking at me, he rolled his eyes and said, I refuse to take that as a sign.
This is one of so many experiences I've had with the God of Christianity- which only confirms what I believe to be truth. This is what I know.
As I was backpacking through Oklahoma with four others, I came across a beat up Chevy truck. Gathering our money together, we purchased the truck and set out towards New Mexico. The driver was an unbeliever who scoffed at me continuously over my God, constantly blaming him for everything. I could tell he was getting frustrated in thought so he gunned the vehicle, pushing it to the limits. We didn't even get out of Tulsa before the engine began billowing smoke and a gut wrenching metallic crack and pop completely killed the engine.
The driver, opening the hood, began cursing and kicking dirt, throwing water on the over heated engine, which only caused another massive metallic crack that had us all backing away from the vehicle. We weren't going anywhere, and the water was wasted, we were hot. The driver, his girlfriend, and my brother-in-law decided to make the trek to the next exit to get more water. While my wife and I stayed behind, I told her we would pray in the name of Jesus to get this truck to New Mexico. So we prayed, believing our God hears.
When they returned with the water, I told the scoffer to start the engine. He stuck his finger in the ignition (there was no need for a key, the truck was old, in fact, it couldn't even get into reverse) and tried to turn it over- no avail. Once more, and the engine sparked to life. I prayed that it would get us to NM, and it did, where it completely died the moment it was parked. Needing the money, I called a junkyard and sold the truck for scrap. The owner of the yard came to pick it up, and opening the hood, began to look puzzled, asking, where did you say you drove this from? We told him, Tulsa- smiling he said, You don't have to tell me anything, but that would be impossible, your entire block is completely cracked, you have no fan belt, and there is no filter to get you through that far of a trip through the desert. Laughing, the junkyard owner slammed the hood closed and began to back up his large tow truck.
My scoffer friend, actually got angry at what the man had said, grabbed his bag out of the truck and slammed the door, the Chevy cross symbol landed at his feet. Looking at me, he rolled his eyes and said, I refuse to take that as a sign.
This is one of so many experiences I've had with the God of Christianity- which only confirms what I believe to be truth. This is what I know.
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #139
.
[Replying to post 137 by tortured soul]
Your testimonial supporting religion is as credible as other "evidence" offered in support of religion – unverifiable personal tales. People have all sorts of tales about their experiences with the "gods" (thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared by humans).
Some of those unverifiable tales became what is known as the bible. Many believe the tales to be literally true and accurate and that one of the "gods" influenced human lives. Others ask for evidence that the tales are true and evidence that any "god" was involved.
Stories and claims being accepted and perhaps believed by worshipers is no indication that they are true or accurate – or that they are the least bit convincing or appropriate in debate.
[Replying to post 137 by tortured soul]
Your testimonial supporting religion is as credible as other "evidence" offered in support of religion – unverifiable personal tales. People have all sorts of tales about their experiences with the "gods" (thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared by humans).
Some of those unverifiable tales became what is known as the bible. Many believe the tales to be literally true and accurate and that one of the "gods" influenced human lives. Others ask for evidence that the tales are true and evidence that any "god" was involved.
Stories and claims being accepted and perhaps believed by worshipers is no indication that they are true or accurate – or that they are the least bit convincing or appropriate in debate.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
tortured soul
- Apprentice
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:17 am
Post #140
[Replying to post 138 by Zzyzx]
This must mean that Plato never existed, or Caesar Augustus, or Aristotle, or the supposed 300 Spartans that stood their ground. Your argument has no firm ground to stand upon, in fact it has crumbled before your feet. If you have proof that say, Aristotle existed, then I will believe you, I need to see his bones, for a text that has some name on it means nothing. Whatever anyone tells me then, say, they went out to eat at a specific restaurant a couple months before and had a certain meal, nope, I can't believe them, they don't have any proof, and since they threw away the receipt and the food has already been digested and released, well, now they definitely didn't go. Even though I wasn't there, I can tell them that what they experienced is unverifiable, inaccurate, and untrue.
This must mean that Plato never existed, or Caesar Augustus, or Aristotle, or the supposed 300 Spartans that stood their ground. Your argument has no firm ground to stand upon, in fact it has crumbled before your feet. If you have proof that say, Aristotle existed, then I will believe you, I need to see his bones, for a text that has some name on it means nothing. Whatever anyone tells me then, say, they went out to eat at a specific restaurant a couple months before and had a certain meal, nope, I can't believe them, they don't have any proof, and since they threw away the receipt and the food has already been digested and released, well, now they definitely didn't go. Even though I wasn't there, I can tell them that what they experienced is unverifiable, inaccurate, and untrue.
