Why be good?

[Silver]

Thank you, I'll help myself to your stuff.

[Homeless Nutter]

 How are you able to judge what is trivial to God? 

I'm made in god's image, apparently. Didn't you say that yourself?

Isn't that just your opinion? 

No. That's your opinion. Apparently.

And if he gives a loophole, doesn't He give the same to everyone equally?

Again - no, but it's nice that you're trying. Obviously people who die suddenly, at very young age or suffering from dementia, or mental disability don't get much of a chance to reflect upon their relationships with god, before death. Unless you're saying it's entirely possible to repent for one's sins AFTER death, in which case - sure, I'll do that. But then - who will go to hell?

[Randy Carson]

He made us in His image.

And here it is, that exact problem I predicted, where theists attempting to answer this question do so in vague irrelevancies, with the expectation that we'll just take the leap of faith between those two unconnected points. Well, I won't: how does "god created man in his image," in any way entail that "god gets to judge us"?

What part of "He made us" is unclear?

"He made us; we belong to Him" (Ps. 100:3) does not merely suggest the voluntary giving of our lives to God; it implies His objective right as Creator. Everything that exists belongs to God.

God does not opine. He knows. And He doesn't have to think it through and come to a conclusion through a process of discovery. He knows.

Except if he doesn't, which is kinda the important part; beyond the fiat assertion that god just knows, you have absolutely no way of confirming that, and worse still, you're conflating an assertion of certainty with the actual state of knowledge one has about an event. I can proclaim I know this, and I know that, but that doesn't mean I actually do, it just means I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that I do.

If we are speaking about God, and God is properly defined, then He is by definition an omniscient being.

For example, it's impossible for god to know everything, because he would not be able to know that he knows everything; obviously, if god is ignorant of the existence of things, he would still believe himself to know everything, while actually not, as he is unaware of the things he does not know. That's kinda how ignorance of things works. Unknown unknowns are a problem for us all, god is not excluded from that merely because you believe god knows everything.

You speak of the possibility of being ignorant of the existence of things because that is your human experience. God, however, created all things out of nothing. Therefore, if something exists at all, it is because God created it or somehow defines it Himself. (Evil for example is not a created thing but it is defined in its relation to God Himself who is all good.) And because God is omnipresent, there is no possibility that some undiscovered thing is tucked away in a corner into which God has not yet looked. God does not discover and there are no such corners.

Because might makes right.

Oh, that and the fact that God does not opine. He knows.

So, a completely immoral, morally relativistic claim, from the man who started this thread talking about how he believes in objective, transcendent moral absolutes... so there's the basis of this thread up in smoke, good job there.

Since God is the creator and all things (including us) belong to Him, then yes, He gets to set the rules. And as a perfect being, His rules are also perfect.

Oh, and the completely unjustified fiat assertion. Can't forget that.

Or you could just reason it out and arrive at the same conclusion. But you won't, so fiat assertion it is.

There are no atheists in foxholes. When you think you are about to die, you'll be ready to get serious with God.

Okay, serious question: what the fuck is actually wrong with you?

Is this a serious question?

Why do you think it's at all acceptable to behave this way? Why do you think you have this right to dictate to me what my position is, to tell me what I know and feel? Do you honestly think that's a good way to go about conversation? Do you see me doing that to you?

Yeah, actually...in almost every post people assume what Christians believe even when what is claimed to be a Christian belief is flatly erroneous. Some of these errors are honest mistakes. After all, why should atheists spend a lot of time researching what Christians (and Catholics in particular) actually believe? Other errors are due to misunderstanding or mere parroting of things posted repeatedly in this forum. I think the setting up of an intentional straw man is rare, but it happens unintentionally quite often.

And how dare you, by the way, impugn the beliefs of atheists, including those who have died protecting your presumptuous, condescending ass from all manner of things? Where do you get off speaking for the atheist soldiers, risking their lives for all of us? Who the hell do you think you are?

Oh, got your hackles up now, eh? But for no reason. I did not disrespect any soldiers in any way.

Well, I can answer a bit of that: you're flat wrong, is what you are, and I can tell you why. You probably haven't met my wife, she hasn't been around the forum much lately, but do you want to know why that is? She's sick. She's been sick for a long time, close to death more than once, actually. Her deconversion began on what could very much have been her deathbed, in intensive care, as her organs started failing and your god was nowhere to be found, as her family prayed for her recovery, and she placed her faith in god to cure her, forgoing medical treatment to that end.

Do you know what saved her life? Giving up on your god, and going with the medical treatment. The limitations of her ability to believe your puerile nonsense saved. her. life. She was at her sickest in that moment, obviously, as her condition was only getting worse when she had faith, and in that moment the beautiful atheist woman I know and love began to emerge. She was about to die, and she was ready to leave your useless concept of a god behind, and you do not get to speak for her!

She had another low point just recently, could have easily died then too, just after we got married. She didn't, three surgeries later and she's getting better, but there was no prayer, there was no entreaties to god to save her, there was no hospital bed conversion, nor any sacharrine nonsense; when she bled so much, spontaneously and suddenly, that she needed a blood transfusion, the chaplain came, and the chaplain was refused when he offered to pray with us. My wife is stronger than the weakness you wish to snidely foist upon us, and you do not get to speak for her, or for me, or for any of us.

Maybe I sound mad. Maybe through your haze of self-righteous asinine horse shit you picked up on that. Well, it's true, I am angry. It drives me to apoplexy when I see arrogant moral monsters like you loftily descending from your perch to deign to tell us unwashed heathens what we believe. It truly angers me when you feel you have the right to rob us of our voices, to jam your self-reinforcing delusions into our mouths, all the while luxuriating in the pretense that you're here for an intellectually rigorous debate. It pisses me right the fuck off to watch you swan around and pretend you know better than me, a complete stranger, about what I believe.

So congrats for that. Good job. Not a day goes by when you aren't a poster child for the utterly repulsive things your religion degrades its believers into.

Since you are angry, this is probably not the best time to answer your post.

I will say this: in a previous post, I have pointed out that many people who claim to be atheists are angry with God, and many forum members disagreed with me on that. Well, I think you have provided some anecdotal evidence that I may have been right.

I will try to remember you and your wife at mass tomorrow.

---

There are no atheists in foxholes. When you think you are about to die, you'll be ready to get serious with God.

You are quite the officious, condescending ass, aren't you? Who the fuck are you to dictate anything about anyone other than yourself?

When I was a Naval Officer, I was licensed to lead PTSD support groups. I was stationed at MCAS Miramar in San Diego, CA. I talked to hundreds of Marines and Soldiers who were and remained atheists while getting shelled, shot at, and blown up. Each and every one of them used the fact that they have one life to live as motivation not only to persevere in theater, but also to get better afterwards.

How dare you dictate for them what that experience was like, they who put their lives on the line so you could tell them what staring at death is like.

Fuck you, Randy Carson.

Thank you, Mike, for your service to our country. I also appreciate the experience you shared above.

As you may know, the aphorism "there are no atheists in foxholes" originated in World War II though the actual source of the quote is uncertain. Aphorisms express general truths spoken or written in memorable form, so while the universality of the experience it expresses may be questioned, I question whether "each and every one" of the marines and soldiers you spoke with would agree with your assertion. Here's why:

According to Wikipedia, 

To empirically examine the question, "Are there atheists in foxholes?" Cornell University behavioral economist, Brian Wansink examined 949 post-combat surveys of World War II American infantrymen and observed that these soldiers' reliance on prayer rose from 32% to 74% as the battle intensified. To test the lasting impact of combat on religious behavior, a follow-up survey was conducted 50 years later with a different sample of veterans from all branches of service. The second study showed that 50 years later, many soldiers still exhibited religious behavior, but it varied by their war experience. Soldiers who faced heavy combat (vs. no combat) attended church 21% more often if they claimed their war experience was negative, but those who claimed their experience was positive attended 26% less often. The more a combat veteran disliked the war, the more religious they were 50 years later.

We have two different sets of data, yours and Wansink's, that point in opposite directions. Since your anecdotal evidence seems at odds with the formal research performed by Wansink, I can't help wondering if there isn't some problem with your methodology or a bias in your reporting of the data you collected. 

Maybe not, but I do have a question for you, Mike:

Are you suggesting that I should believe your eye-witness testimony concerning what you observed and reported in your written account above?

---

When you think you are about to die, you'll be ready to get serious with God.

You're quite mistaken.  I've been in that situation twice, and that fact can be attested to personally by another person on this forum (Kitty Galore).

At no time during either ordeal did I even give a single thought to "God".

This caricature of atheists that you've constructed isn't even amusing, it's insulting.

First, see my response above to SteelCurtain.

Second, are you suggesting that I should believe your personal testimony concerning what you experienced and reported in your written account above?

---

And if he gives a loophole, doesn't He give the same to everyone equally?

Again - no, but it's nice that you're trying.

God does not give everyone an opportunity to seek Him and ask forgiveness during the course of their lifetimes? How can you be certain of this?

Obviously people who die suddenly,

Perhaps not at the exact moment of death but this does not mean that they did not have a chance to alter the trajectory of their life earlier.

 at very young age or suffering from dementia, or mental disability don't get much of a chance to reflect upon their relationships with god, before death.

None of the people in these categories have the capacity for sin. They are not culpable.

Unless you're saying it's entirely possible to repent for one's sins AFTER death, in which case - sure, I'll do that.

Sorry. After death is too late. You have to choose in this life.

But then - who will go to hell?

Dunno. The Catholic Church has named some who are in heaven but not one who are in hell.

---

There are no atheists in foxholes. When you think you are about to die, you'll be ready to get serious with God.

I was a firefighter in the USAF, and have confronted my own possible demise several times more since then as well.

I can tell you that I was much too busy thinking about how I was going to stay alive to spare a single thought to your god ... And my brother firefighters might well have been praying for all I know, but they kept it to themselves.

If your god truly does exist, he is unworthy of my worship, and the proximity of death doesn't change that for me.

Also, it is a terribly shabby deity you worship if you must use fear to change minds regarding his existence.

Pretty sad you have to trot out something palpably false even as you claim to be pursuing truth. Color me amused.

First, thank you for your service to your country. I appreciate that very much. I also thank you for sharing your experiences with me.

Second, is it reasonable for me to believe your personal testimony concerning what you experienced and reported in your written account above?

[dyresand]

And here it is, that exact problem I predicted, where theists attempting to answer this question do so in vague irrelevancies, with the expectation that we'll just take the leap of faith between those two unconnected points. Well, I won't: how does "god created man in his image," in any way entail that "god gets to judge us"?

What part of "He made us" is unclear?

"He made us; we belong to Him" (Ps. 100:3) does not merely suggest the voluntary giving of our lives to God; it implies His objective right as Creator. Everything that exists belongs to God.

I'm no creation of a being name yaweh  

[Esquilax]

What part of "He made us" is unclear?

The part where that has any connection to the claim that he has ownership of us. My parents made me, they don't own me; why is this any different for your god? Because he says so, and you have conferred upon him some authority over everyone else?

"He made us; we belong to Him" (Ps. 100:3) does not merely suggest the voluntary giving of our lives to God; it implies His objective right as Creator. Everything that exists belongs to God.

Oh, okay: so god claims that he owns us, based on nothing, and you believe it. And this is sufficient reason?

If we are speaking about God, and God is properly defined, then He is by definition an omniscient being.

Okay, well, I'm not going to play a semantic game with you, I'll just ask this: how do you know that the god that you worship fits that definition, then?

You speak of the possibility of being ignorant of the existence of things because that is your human experience. God, however, created all things out of nothing. Therefore, if something exists at all, it is because God created it or somehow defines it Himself. (Evil for example is not a created thing but it is defined in its relation to God Himself who is all good.) And because God is omnipresent, there is no possibility that some undiscovered thing is tucked away in a corner into which God has not yet looked. God does not discover and there are no such corners.

... Unless something existed that god did not create, and was not privy to. And unless there is some corner that god was unable to look into. Aside from the fiat assertion that neither of those things exist, you've given absolutely nothing to say otherwise, and yet you continue to make the positive claim that they don't, which has a burden of proof attached.

Since God is the creator and all things (including us) belong to Him, then yes, He gets to set the rules. And as a perfect being, His rules are also perfect.

... Unless he's not perfect, but just thinks that he is. See, you can't cover for one assertion, with another assertion.

Or you could just reason it out and arrive at the same conclusion. But you won't, so fiat assertion it is.

I think it's pretty clear that my reasoning, on any subject, does not contain a god. If you ask me to reason things out, but you don't add a shred of new evidence to my pool of knowledge, chances are I'm not going to suddenly agree with you at the conclusion.

Is this a serious question?

It's growing more serious by the second, yes.

Yeah, actually...in almost every post people assume what Christians believe even when what is claimed to be a Christian belief is flatly erroneous. Some of these errors are honest mistakes. After all, why should atheists spend a lot of time researching what Christians (and Catholics in particular) actually believe? Other errors are due to misunderstanding or mere parroting of things posted repeatedly in this forum. I think the setting up of an intentional straw man is rare, but it happens unintentionally quite often.

And all of these errors? They're either things we've actually encountered other christians as believing- did you just not notice that your religion is bigger than just what you and your particular sect of it believe?- or consequences of that belief that we see, but christians tend to just dismiss by fiat. Like the idea that god cannot know he's omniscient; that's a simple logical outgrowth of the claim itself, and yet all you've done is dismissed it with "god is defined as omniscient." It's kinda the trouble with dealing with theists in general; you'll privilege what you already believe over objections to it, based on faith. We're coming at this issue from two extremely different angles.

Oh, got your hackles up now, eh? But for no reason. I did not disrespect any soldiers in any way.

When you rob them of their voices by speaking for them, you are disrespecting them. The fact that you don't see it, just makes it worse.

Since you are angry, this is probably not the best time to answer your post.

I will say this: in a previous post, I have pointed out that many people who claim to be atheists are angry with God, and many forum members disagreed with me on that. Well, I think you have provided some anecdotal evidence that I may have been right.

You know what? Go fuck yourself, you fucking animal. I explained goddamn well why I was angry, I made it pretty fucking clear that I'm angry at you for the sheer arrogance and presumption of the statement you made, and that I was angry from a personal place, not only because this is a particular bugbear of mine, but because of a highly personal experience. You didn't waste a single breath in trying to turn that into another predatory opportunity to preach and discredit, just like you did when you found out I was abused as a kid. You're just fucking lying now.

I will try to remember you and your wife at mass tomorrow.

Make sure you go to confession too; wouldn't want all that false witness you just bore to net you a place in hell.

[SteelCurtain]

As you may know, the aphorism "there are no atheists in foxholes" originated in World War II though the actual source of the quote is uncertain. Aphorisms express general truths spoken or written in memorable form, so while the universality of the experience it expresses may be questioned, I question whether "each and every one" of the marines and soldiers you spoke with would agree with your assertion. Here's why:

According to Wikipedia, 

To empirically examine the question, "Are there atheists in foxholes?" Cornell University behavioral economist, Brian Wansink examined 949 post-combat surveys of World War II American infantrymen and observed that these soldiers' reliance on prayer rose from 32% to 74% as the battle intensified. To test the lasting impact of combat on religious behavior, a follow-up survey was conducted 50 years later with a different sample of veterans from all branches of service. The second study showed that 50 years later, many soldiers still exhibited religious behavior, but it varied by their war experience. Soldiers who faced heavy combat (vs. no combat) attended church 21% more often if they claimed their war experience was negative, but those who claimed their experience was positive attended 26% less often. The more a combat veteran disliked the war, the more religious they were 50 years later.

We have two different sets of data, yours and Wansink's, that point in opposite directions. Since your anecdotal evidence seems at odds with the formal research performed by Wansink, I can't help wondering if there isn't some problem with your methodology or a bias in your reporting of the data you collected. 

Maybe not, but I do have a question for you, Mike:

Are you suggesting that I should believe your eye-witness testimony concerning what you observed and reported in your written account above?

How does that survey say anything about atheists? It says that most religious people rely on religion more when staring at death. If anything, the data corroborates my experience. I sat in groups over two years with thousands of Marines. The overwhelming majority of them were very religious. I'm sure that helped them in battle. I didn't say anything about them losing their religion on the battlefield. (Although some few did.) That survey says absolutely nothing about atheists in foxholes.

As my experience is anecdotal, you should take it at that. If you choose to not believe that there are Marines and Soldiers out there that are smart enough to not buy into your death cult, I know ignorance is bliss. Have at it.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, the OP thanks us for our service...and just think..we did it all so that he could continue to shitpost -about us- in comfort...lol.  

[Esquilax]

How does that survey say anything about atheists? It says that most religious people rely on religion more when staring at death. If anything, the data corroborates my experience. I sat in groups over two years with thousands of Marines. The overwhelming majority of them were very religious. I'm sure that helped them in battle. I didn't say anything about them losing their religion on the battlefield. (Although some few did.) That survey says absolutely nothing about atheists in foxholes.

Yeah, that was my first thought too: Gee, you mean that the majority of soldiers from a series of majority-religious countries, are religious? Who would have thought?

If your sample size is full of religious people, then your results are going to skew toward religion. But since the religious affiliation of those soldiers was neither recorded nor mentioned, we have no way of knowing how many of those soldiers were atheists who turned to religion during wartime, which is kind of a crippling blow to Randy's attempt to use that study to prove that atheists turn religious in danger.

But what's also funny is what happens when you do what Randy did not, and actually go looking for the study he's quoting; now, it's behind a paywall for the most part, the best you can get is a couple pages, but the results, language, and overall tone of the report do not agree with the point Randy was making. But I wouldn't take this study seriously even if it agreed with me, because the methodology was so poor; for the WW2 part, the sample group was asked to reflect upon an experience they'd had sixty years ago, as the data collected was all self reported, in the year 2000. Of a proposed sample group of 7,500, only 1123 people actually responded, making the sample size criminally small, given the scale of the war. For some reason, German soldiers were excluded entirely, without explanation. Problematically, the questions within the survey this tiny, tiny sample size was asked to answer were geared exclusively and specifically toward christianity (for example, when asked "what is your favorite book?" answers of "the bible" were coded as a religious response, whereas any other religious text was to be coded as a non-religious response). So, you know, take all that with a grain of salt.

But hey, you know which group of people scored the highest on church attendance? Non-veterans. Those who did not experience combat during the war. The level of church attendance, when compared to those who experienced no danger at all, actually goes down. Yes, there are differences in church attendance based on the intensity of combat experienced (though it's worth noting that no effort was gone to to establish whether these soldiers were atheists or theists before entering combat) but overall, the number goes down, not up. Like I said, I wouldn't take this study seriously for a number of reasons, but that fact alone disproves what Randy is trying to say, and he does take the study seriously.

And as one final cherry on top, one final demonstration of the dishonesty with which Randy is conducting himself, why not look at the wikipedia page he cites? Here it is. Oh, and what's this? To get to the paragraph on the study that he quoted, Randy had to scroll past and ignore a section entitled "notable counterexamples." In fact, the study itself is a part of that section.

[Whateverist]

Hey we all enjoy our shit posts, his are just a lot deeper.

[Thumpalumpacus]

First, thank you for your service to your country. I appreciate that very much. I also thank you for sharing your experiences with me.

A better way of showing your appreciation would be to avoid denigrating veterans with this foxhole atheist bullshit.

Second, is it reasonable for me to believe your personal testimony concerning what you experienced and reported in your written account above?

Here's my DD214: http://s6.tinypic.com/30s7pme.jpg

Here are my (mostly mundane) decorations, including my firefighter's badge: http://s6.tinypic.com/35jmt13.jpg

Here's the first airplane crash I worked: http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-...file/2395/

As for what I reported from my life-threatening situations, those are my experiences. Whether or not you believe them doesn't matter to me. But pray tell, how many foxholes have you been in? How many tight corners? How many times have you looked death in the face?

And most importantly, why would you assume that your response would be shared by everyone else, including atheists?

You cannot speak for me or millions of others, and I'd suggest to you that the wise course is to stick to blathering about your own superstition, and at the same time avoid imputing it to those whose experiences you do not know.