Why be good?

[abaris]

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:

I've been here for give or take seven months. And personally I've seen about three of four "why be good" threads started by theists with exactly the same gotcha arguments. The only thing that amazes me is them coming here and still thinking to have something original or never heard before to offer.

Randy's no different than the others. Instead of giving some insights, he immediately raises his scripture buckler when asked about his person. So they all give the impression of not being real persons but bible automatons, the only variation being their personal affiliation to a certain brand of christianity. I remember having virtually the same one sided discussion with another still active member on this board, where I tried to nail him to a very simple question: What is your opinion as a person? To which he only resorted to bible quotes and more bible quotes.

Given that kind of experience I'm not really surprised they view atheists as a homogenous hive mind, since they give the impression of leading that kind of existence themselves. And notice that Randy like all the others presented the prospect of hell as one of the major reasons to be good. That tells more about the nature of these people than they probably know about themselves, since it implies, if they weren't afraid of damnation, it would be open season for pretty much anything on this world.

[Randy Carson]

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?"

Actually, that was just an example of the type of questions I might ask. But what you skipped over is the fact that I also asked myself similar questions for the first three claims.

1. Is Equislax even married? Is his wife out of town for the week? Are they separated or divorced? The questions may not ACTUALLY be asked...but our minds work such that in a flash, we know when something does or does not line up with all the other things we know to be true about you, your wife, and the circumstances which may or may not prevent or enable you to have lunch with her on any given day. "I had lunch with my wife." "Oh? I thought she had a new job across town...", etc, etc.

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?

I have not done this. You may note that I have spent considerable time arguing FOR the evidence of Christianity.

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.

You claim that it has been refuted.

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.

That does not follow. The "truth value" is independent of whether many or few people believe it. However, over time, people generally find their way to the truth, so IF large numbers of people believe a thing, it might be true OR false, but either way, the numbers would at least suggest some investigation.

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?

I have repeated said the opposite. In fact, I did in the very passage you just responded to.

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.

I understand confirmation bias. That's what this forum thrives on.

---

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.

Gee, despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that I would like to do some reading in order to be able to formulate a GOOD reply, you (and others) insist on an answer now.

I have to leave for work in 15 minutes, and I need to grab a shower...can I really do the question justice in the next few minutes? Probably not. So, this is NOT what I might have written if I had more time, but here goes:

In brief, if I am "good", it is because of the trajectory my life is on as a result of my faith in Jesus Christ. Apart from that, I, like anyone else, am capable of anything - even the worst sins. Here is an analogy:

Once, I was once like a comet racing through space completely independent of anything else. However, by God's grace, I was captured by His gravitational field, and now, I orbit my Lord and Savior. Even though my sinful nature is constantly pushing me outward (concupisence is the inertia that would shoot me out into darkness), God's hold on my life keeps me in orbit. (His grace is the centripetal force that keeps me following Him.) 

And, praise God, it is a death spiral. Little by little, inch by inch, in this life and the next (purgatory), I am dying to myself as I am drawn into the Son.

[Iroscato]

...So as suspected, the only thing stopping you from becoming an axe murderer is because you think Sky Daddy is watching you.
You might think you're some maestro in the art of bullshit, but I'm afraid it's remarkably easy to cut through.

[Longhorn]

If it is true that the only reason you aren't committing atrocities is your belief in a higher power, then a)please do not ever stop holding that belief and b)please consult a mental health professional, because you are severely lacking in empathy and that is a very worrying sign.

Assuming, of course, you're not just bullshitting us and possibly yourself.

[Randy Carson]

...So as suspected, the only thing stopping you from becoming an axe murderer is because you think Sky Daddy is watching you.
You might think you're some maestro in the art of bullshit, but I'm afraid it's remarkably easy to cut through.

It's not just that I think He's watching...though that is true of all of us, you included. 

It is that He helps us avoid things which are not good - if we ask for help.

A man goes on a business trip to Las Vegas. He's alone and decides to have dinner in the hotel restaurant/casino. He's eating at the bar, when an attractive woman sits down next to him. She's a hooker, and he knows it. 

Does he say, "No thanks" because God is watching? Or because he loves God and wants to avoid sins which separate him from God?

[Exian]

So, Randy, why am I good?

[Longhorn]

You're late for work, Randy

[Iroscato]

...So as suspected, the only thing stopping you from becoming an axe murderer is because you think Sky Daddy is watching you.
You might think you're some maestro in the art of bullshit, but I'm afraid it's remarkably easy to cut through.

It's not just that I think He's watching...though that is true of all of us, you included. 

It is that He helps us avoid things which are not good - if we ask for help.

A man goes on a business trip to Las Vegas. He's alone and decides to have dinner in the hotel restaurant/casino. He's eating at the bar, when an attractive woman sits down next to him. She's a hooker, and he knows it. 

Does he say, "No thanks" because God is watching? Or because he loves God and wants to avoid sins which separate him from God?

That's the exact same fucking thing, moron - your attempts to garnish option A with word salad aside.
Option C - he decides the benefits of intercourse with the extremely attractive woman will outweigh the negatives, takes her back to his room and bangs the Holy Ghost outta her.

[abaris]

Does he say, "No thanks" because God is watching? Or because he loves God and wants to avoid sins which separate him from God?

Or maybe, just maybe, because he loves his wife and keeps it in his pants. No god required. On the other hand, there has been some outrage about catholic priests not keeping it in their pants. With children. You may have heard that on occasion. And let's make it less discriminatory. There have been evangelical pastors caught in the act too. So decency isn't an all exclusive package for christians.

Keep on digging man, I'm starting to enjoy this.

[Randy Carson]

If it is true that the only reason you aren't committing atrocities is your belief in a higher power, then a)please do not ever stop holding that belief and b)please consult a mental health professional, because you are severely lacking in empathy and that is a very worrying sign.

Assuming, of course, you're not just bullshitting us and possibly yourself.

Is it really so extreme as that?

Sure, we all have basic understandings of right and wrong (I say these are from God; some but not all atheists in this thread say they are from societal convention or agreement or evolution).

However, there's no reason to believe that all Christians would become axe murderers if they "lost" their faith. But conversely, I think the "Mad Max" analogy used much earlier might have some truth to it in the total absence of God.

Let me put it this way: you, as an atheist, benefit from the fact that you live in a society that is still largely influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. A look at ISIS will give you some indication of what your life would be like if Christianity were not still pulling us to the "right".

Or would you look forward to living under Sharia law? And what would life be like if there were no authority at all?