Why be good?

[Simon Moon]

"In the absence of evidence to the contrary" refers to the reliability of the people...not the message or events they testify to.

IOW, if I know you to be a shady character, criminal past, drug use, etc...or you are shown to be lying under oath, etc., then that is evidence to the contrary that you are a reliable person.

OTOH, if I know you to be of sound character and reputable in other matters, I will have a tendency to believe you on the basis of your reliability.

So, if a person exhibits all those negative attributes you mention, but believes the same as you, do you have less tendency to believe them if they claim to have an experience with your god?

Or what about the opposite situation. 

A person has impeccable honesty, and reputable character, yet they claimed to have an experience with a different god than the one you believe in. Do you give their claims any credibility?

[JuliaL]

Well, I am.  Were they an accurate reflection of reality, they would be critical to my primary goals-- to avoid suffering, specially my suffering.
It's just that I find the proposition that the scriptures are a collection of bronze age tribal histories and mythical tales of greatness much more plausible than the one where it contains distilled truth from some ultimate supernatural being.

Thank you, Julia. Many people find the ethical teaching of Jesus to be very inspiring...what are your thoughts on them?

Some good, some not so good.

Granting as a hypothetical that the attributions of the biblical authors were accurate quotes:

I wasn't too keen on his advice for slaves to obey.  Col 3:22
The deal about hating your family in favor of the cult was pretty heinous. Matt 10:37
As is killing your kids for misbehaving.  Matt 15:4 Mark 7:10
I don't think castrating yourself is a good idea.  Matt 19:12
I'm not sure I can render Caesar Caesar's stuff because I think he's dead.

Some of the other points were pretty progressive for the ancient world.
Don't step on the weak just because you can.
Living in Wisconsin, I really liked "Blessed are the cheesemakers."

He got the untouchables together and created a constituency with staying power.
All with just a few 'you are special' memes.
Respect (makes vague hand motions signifying gang signs without actually knowing what they are.)

Overall, I'd give him a B- with a C+ for style (downgraded for copying from others.)

[Whateverist]

Have you ever found even one atheist who was primarily concerned with the accuracy of scripture?  Weird.

No, so you can be the first! 

If you wish to argue effectively against theism - and Christianity, in particular - then you must know our arguments and our scriptures better than we know them ourselves.

But I have no desire to argue against xtianity or any of the multitude forms of god belief.

Even if I had such a desire, there is no way on earth it would be worth wasting my precious days studying the verses of the bible. That thing is not a page turner and if I wanted the history of that time I could do better.

And if you think the scriptures are inaccurate, it will be invaluable to actually know them yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting from a few atheist websites.

As if. No such sites get my time and, unlike yourself, when I want to discuss something I certainly wouldn't pass off other peoples ideas as my own. I wonder where you even get such an idea. (Oh yeah, you're an apologist.)

The reason is that once the Christian asks you something that is NOT covered by those sites, you will have nothing left to fall back on.

Make sense?

Not at all. You assume I would want to argue about what the verses mean. Who to hell cares? Makes no difference to me.

[Randy Carson]

Some questions for you:

What do you think about the pope? Do you agree him on everything or don't care? Something in between?                                    


What do you consider yourself politically? Conservative? Liberal?


How do you deal with catholics who disagree with you on some issues?

Would you mind asking those questions in the Ask a Catholic thread?

They seem off-topic here.

Thanks.

---

No, so you can be the first! 

If you wish to argue effectively against theism - and Christianity, in particular - then you must know our arguments and our scriptures better than we know them ourselves.

And if you think the scriptures are inaccurate, it will be invaluable to actually know them yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting from a few atheist websites. The reason is that once the Christian asks you something that is NOT covered by those sites, you will have nothing left to fall back on.

Make sense?

Not really.  The point that many of us have said over and over and over in one way or another is that no written or oral eyewitness account alone is sufficient to prove the supernatural.  Full stop, no more is necessary.  

However, some of us for one reason or another have read a lot scripture, not to mention theology.  And it doesn't take much looking to find contradictions, anachronisms, and portions that contradict what we do know about the Biblical period.

Just out of curiosity, what proof of the supernatural WOULD be sufficient, and how would or could it be provided?

---

"In the absence of evidence to the contrary" refers to the reliability of the people...not the message or events they testify to.

IOW, if I know you to be a shady character, criminal past, drug use, etc...or you are shown to be lying under oath, etc., then that is evidence to the contrary that you are a reliable person.

OTOH, if I know you to be of sound character and reputable in other matters, I will have a tendency to believe you on the basis of your reliability.

So, if a person exhibits all those negative attributes you mention, but believes the same as you, do you have less tendency to believe them if they claim to have an experience with your god?

Or what about the opposite situation. 

A person has impeccable honesty, and reputable character, yet they claimed to have an experience with a different god than the one you believe in. Do you give their claims any credibility?

I KNOW about Christianity and a good deal about other religions (to varying degrees). Therefore, I would evaluate what these people (the good one and the bad one alike) had to say based on what I already understand. They may or may not be correct. A "good" and otherwise trustworthy person can be completely wrong in their theology (if they've had an "experience" with a "different" god, I would probably suspect that a demon was involved). Conversely, the scum of the Earth may know that Jesus died for them (and be saved). However, if I knew that they were untrustworthy, I might still doubt their story. People CLAIM all sorts of things for any number of reasons.

---

Thank you, Julia. Many people find the ethical teaching of Jesus to be very inspiring...what are your thoughts on them?

Some good, some not so good.

Granting as a hypothetical that the attributions of the biblical authors were accurate quotes:

I wasn't too keen on his advice for slaves to obey.  Col 3:22
The deal about hating your family in favor of the cult was pretty heinous. Matt 10:37
As is killing your kids for misbehaving.  Matt 15:4 Mark 7:10
I don't think castrating yourself is a good idea.  Matt 19:12
I'm not sure I can render Caesar Caesar's stuff because I think he's dead.

Some of the other points were pretty progressive for the ancient world.
Don't step on the weak just because you can.
Living in Wisconsin, I really liked "Blessed are the cheesemakers."

He got the untouchables together and created a constituency with staying power.
All with just a few 'you are special' memes.
Respect (makes vague hand motions signifying gang signs without actually knowing what they are.)

Overall, I'd give him a B- with a C+ for style (downgraded for copying from others.)

A couple of those made me chuckle. You were kidding there, right? 

[Esquilax]

The nature of the claims IS significant.

If you claim to have had lunch with your wife, and I know you are married, no biggie.
If you claim to have had lunch with Tom Hanks (or President Obama depending upon the version), I might believe you if I also know you work in the film industry.
If you claim to have had lunch with the Avengers, see point #2 above.
If you claim to have had lunch with a dragon, then I have to evaluate this based on other information. Have similar claims been made about dragons eating lunch with humans before (and not having them FOR lunch)? What about other creatures - are they known for sharing a meal with humans?

Notice how the nature of your conditional acceptance changes the moment you reach the supernatural claim; for all the mundane claims your solution is "if I have additional knowledge that corroborates the initial claim," but for the supernatural one suddenly it's "do a lot of people make this claim?"

Why are you expecting more evidence for the claims you at least know are possible, but less evidence- no evidence at all, in fact- for the claims you have every reason to think are impossible? Could it be that a consistent application of requiring evidence in accordance with the nature of the claim would mean your god claims do not have sufficient evidence backing them up?

You may recall that I said we accept what reliable and knowledgeable people have said - in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You may recall that I and others have rejected this fiat, simplistic assertion from you, and explained that the metric involves more calculus than just "are they reliable?" and "can I prove them wrong?" You may also recall what the burden of proof is, and in doing so, recall that you're trying to reverse it.

The fact that you continue to assert the same refuted point does not suddenly make you right.

Now, many in this forum have suggested that they would not believe their ten best friends or their wives, etc. if they were told about an extraordinary encounter with God. Well, I suppose skeptics do exist. Maybe they are all atheists.

But I think that there is a greater likelihood that someone could see Jesus than that they could have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

So the commonality of a claim influences its truth value? The existence of other gods are common claims elsewhere in the world; if you're privileging your god over theirs you must have some additional premises involved that you're trying to hide.

A common claim can still be mistaken...it is not proof of anything. But my own experience and that of people who I know well leads me to believe that "lunch with Jesus" is far more likely than lunch with the Avengers or a dragon.

So what you're saying is, you'll believe a claim that all the evidence available shows to be impossible, if you trust the person making the claim? If your dad converted to islam, you'd accept the existence of Allah as true?

You don't, for a moment, want to consider how much a nebulous concept like what you personally find to be reliable can be altered by how much what the claimant is saying matches the things you already believe to be true? Because we have a term for that: it's confirmation bias.

[rexbeccarox]

83 pages in, have you found any reasons to be good yet Randy?  Did you find what you were looking for, or no?

Apparently not; I asked him pages ago, two or three times, and we still haven't been blessed with his answer. Kinda funny, since that's the thread topic, and he's admonished others for not staying on topic.  He said he also had to do some reading to figure out what his version of "good" is.

So, Randy: what is good, what are your reasons for being "good", and what have you learned about why atheists try to be their own versions of "good"?

(notice the plural "versions")

[robvalue]

Did someone mention "God not interfering with free will"? God has absolutely no problem doing this multiple times in the bible so either this is a bogus argument or the bible is inaccurate.

I can only assume that if Randy lost his faith he would start killing people with a shotgun and taking candy from kids. This thread seems to paint theists as psychopaths being reigned in by a series of threats. They look out the window to see atheists behaving in sensible, moral ways without any such threats and can't fathom how they can possibly do this.

The conclusion is glaringly obvious: morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion is, at best, a moral "guide". And let's be clear that actual morality (maximising wellbeing and minimising harm for life on Earth) is not the same thing as what makes God happy or angry, except by coincidence.

[rexbeccarox]

This is the last post I made (on p. 76), asking Randy why he should be good, literally the topic of this thread. He's answered countless people since then, but not once answering that simple question; the question that he titled the thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-33629-po...#pid960838

Randy, why is it so hard for you to tell us why you're good? Many people have answered that question, but you haven't, and you're the OP. It's time now.

[robvalue]

I agree. And how "good" are you really being if your only motivations are avoiding punishment and getting rewards? Randy is inadvertently making atheists look amazing here.

I don't for one second think Randy would actually do all the things he thinks he would do if he lost his faith. It's just a demonstration of how much religious thinking can warp your view of reality when "God" becomes fundamentally entwined with every aspect of your life, and causes you to think in the simplistic, black and white terms that religion thrives on.

[Iroscato]

Thirded. Come on Randy, do tell us what exactly keeps you from instantly turning into an axe murderer?