Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Jaysyn]

... the negative moral & ethical influence of the Christian religion.

The actual teachings of Christianity or how some abuse such teachings? There is a difference. I would be interested in hearing how Christian morals and ethics, particularly as presented in the New Testament, would be negative.

Feel free to read "The God Delusion" then.

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Beautiful example of a strawman argument / appeal to pity. The answer, of course, is no. Now give me a reason you have to have religion to tell you that killing another human, another member of your tribal group so to speak, is wrong.

How is that a strawman argument? A strawman argument is one that a person sets up and portrays as another person's position and then rebuts that, instead of rebutting what the other person's position really is. Mine is merely a hypothetical scenario that I ask people to answer to see how consistently they apply their view of morals. It seems to me that if one believes that morals are manmade and based on the majority of the members of a society, to be consistent, the answer should be "yes", not "no". Nobody has yet explained how a "no" answer is consistent with an initial position of morals being manmade and based on the majority. As to your last sentence, I really did not understand what you want me to explain. If you restate, I will try to answer.

Maybe not a strawman, I thought you were inferring the made up society would be an atheist society. However your argument remains an appeal to pity (they are killing each other!) as well as an argument from personal incredulity (I can't believe a non-religious society can have mores & ethics, so it must not be possible).

My question at the end, put in simpler terms is: Why do we need religion to tell us that killing another human being is wrong?

[Minimalist]

Why do we need religion to tell us that killing another human being is wrong?

Religion makes an awful lot of exceptions to that rule, Jay. Some might even say that it isn't even a "rule." Merely a "suggestion" and not applicable to people who believe in a different sky-daddy at all.

[tavarish]

As I have told you before, Zen, I think the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of God. Does the existence of the universe necessitate that conclusion? No, but it is evidence nonetheless, even if you take the existence of the universe as evidence of something else altogether.

That's absolutely ridiculous. How you bridge a gap with such a bald assertion that has no explanatory value is beyond me. With your reasoning, I can say that the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of celestial fairies. There's no connect there. An assertion by itself isn't evidence. The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe - not necessarily something outside it.

Evidence is not something that is such that it necessitates only one conclusion. If you hold that, I think you have a very narrowminded view of what evidence is. Evidence is that which one relies upon as support for their conclusions. Even in science, it is possible for different scientists to look at the same body of evidence and conclude different and even incompatible things (even if you exclude scientists who are creationists).

Yes, that is why we subject this evidence to different methods of testing to come to a general consensus - and even that is contested time and time again. Welcome to science, where certainty is never certain.

Give me an example in which two people have a fairly comprehensive amount of evidence for something and comes to vastly different, but equally valid conclusions. One example.

I also think the existence of morals is evidence of God. Again, does the existence of morals necessitate the conclusion that God exists? Certainly not, but I think it is the best explanation.

I know many here hold that morals are manmade and only based on what society (the majority) holds as appropriate but I simply do not agree. This has come up a couple of times in my conversations here. To those who hold that what the majority of a society says is right is right, I have presented the following:

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

So you're asking someone with a morality that is removed from the one you just presented to comment on it?

I'd need some details, as it's not really clear where the divide is.

1. Did the minority member do anything to warrant this? We operate in such a society, where it is justified to kill in self defense - the aggressor being the minority.
2. Is this in a time of war? A society of soldiers is ordered to attack enemy combatants and often times, shoot to kill on sight. This is also a large part of our moral structure.
3. Is this a rite of passage, or arbitrary law? Tribal cultures can embrace these actions as necessary for their survival, an example would be Sparta in Ancient Greece.

Usually the answer is no and the reason given is because the member of the minority has rights also.

No, it is entirely dependent on the circumstances and situation.

But if your position is that morals (right and wrong) are only determined by the majority of a society, then on what basis would the members of the minority have rights at all?

First, you're making a weird argument in which those who advocate moral relativism have to somehow borrow from a theistic worldview if they are to condone and condemn certain actions. What you're not accounting for is that humans aren't robots or automatons. We don't make decisions based on right and wrong, we judge based on experience, threat, reward, compromise and circumstance. We have a brain in order to discern what is the correct choice of action that leads to our survival, happiness, and coexistence within a societal framework.

Making distinctions between scenarios doesn't make you evil, it means you have the capability to think through a situation without giving an automated response that may or may not be the most beneficial to yourself or your society. Human beings operate on empathy - generally we don't want to do things to others that we wouldn't want done to ourselves. Note I said generally, because the "golden rule" can be broken.

If right and wrong are determined my majority of a society, then it seems to me it would logically follow that a member of a society only has the rights granted by that majority. Consequently, this apparently inconsistent position of some, to me is evidence that even those who hold that morals are manmade and based on what the majority in a society says recognize that minority members of a society have certain rights separate and distinct from simply what a majority gives them. I think this logically leads to a conclusion that such rights come from an ultimate source which is God.

Let's take a different scenario.

Piranhas are vicious eating machines that will literally eat away the flesh of anything it comes into contact with - yet they don't show aggression towards each other, but work quite well in groups to survive. Do they have a God given construct of morality as well?

Or could it just be that a society that systematically kills itself won't survive long enough?

So to me, all of this is evidence of God even though you might not be convinced of it. Furthermore, that is why I consider statements like "There is no evidence for the existence of God" inaccurate and unreasonable. I think statements such as "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists" are more appropriate and accurate.

You think the reason people don't kill each other is a reason to believe in God. Would an immoral person be reason not to believe in a God? How can you make the distinction?

I agree with that. And I do not think I have ever said such a thing here. Do I think/believe that God exists...obviously I do.

Please provide good reason for this belief. It's all well and good that you believe something, but to convince others requires evidence. Something you, AngelThman, Watson, ecolox, fr0d0, Arcanus, tackattack and any other theist that has posted here has failed to do. It's not that looking at something produces different results. It's that you have different standards of what is fact and what is fantasy. Personally, I like to live in reality - a place that has not shown me any evidence of anything outside looking in.

[Thor]

I think the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of God.

The mere existence of the universe is evidence of nothing. This has to be about the lamest argument in the creationist's bag. "Hey! I exist! Therefore, God created me!!"

Evidence is not something that is such that it necessitates only one conclusion.

"Evidence" must lead you to a reasonable conclusion. Going from "the universe exists!" to "god created the universe!" is a stretch of gargantuan proportions. By your logic, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Godzilla created the universe.

Evidence is that which one relies upon as support for their conclusions.

But the important thing is whether or not those conclusions are reasonable. I could feel a cold breeze while sitting on my couch and conclude that it was caused by an evil spirit entering the room (which would, of course, necessitate an exorcism). Someone else could investigate and conclude that the cold breeze was caused by a drafty window. Which conclusion is more reasonable?

I also think the existence of morals is evidence of God.

What crap. "God" tells us that slavery is okay. He tells us that we should kill people who work on Sunday. He tells us that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Our morals are much higher than your god's.

Again, does the existence of morals necessitate the conclusion that God exists? Certainly not, but I think it is the best explanation.

It's a better explanation than the more reasonable conclusion that people realized there must be some code all should follow for the benefit of everyone in the tribe/community/nation? Don't you think people realized very early on that it was necessary to cooperate with one another to ensure survival? Did we really need some deity to come down from a mountain and tell us that we shouldn't kill or steal from each other? Hell, I'll guarantee that even the cavemen had mores that frowned upon harming or stealing from another member of the community.

To those who hold that what the majority of a society says is right is right, I have presented the following:

Whoa! I don't think anyone would say that something is "right" just because the majority of a population says so. Murder is always wrong. As is rape. And slavery.

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Of course not! This would be wrong and immoral!

Usually the answer is no and the reason given is because the member of the minority has rights also.

This is one possible response.

But if your position is that morals (right and wrong) are only determined by the majority of a society, then on what basis would the members of the minority have rights at all?

Who here has said that right and wrong are determined by majority vote?

If right and wrong are determined my majority of a society,

It's not.

then it seems to me it would logically follow that a member of a society only has the rights granted by that majority.

Wrong again. We all have basic rights as human beings. The problem is that there are governments around the world that take away those rights at the point of a gun.

Consequently, this apparently inconsistent position of some, to me is evidence that even those who hold that morals are manmade and based on what the majority in a society says recognize that minority members of a society have certain rights separate and distinct from simply what a majority gives them. I think this logically leads to a conclusion that such rights come from an ultimate source which is God.

Quite the logical gymnastics ya got going there. Okay, if "God" is the ultimate source of morality, why do even the most devout believers disagree on issues of morality? Fervent believers come down on both sides of moral issues, convinced that they are on "God's" side. Things like capital punishment, abortion, gambling, polygamy, etc... have no absolute consensus. If "God" gives us our morality, there should be NO disagreement among believers on any moral issue. It should be crystal clear! But it's not!

So to me, all of this is evidence of God

And you haven't shown us any "evidence". All you have done is to make weak arguments.

[AngelThMan]

...If we go by your argument, a chess club could be called a "religion"...

There are no deities involved in chess. But there are in atheism. Atheists spend half their time unworshiping God, and other gods. They don't just 'not believe in God,' they unbelieve. The difference between 'not believing' and 'unbelieving' is that the latter requires a frequent assertion or thought that one doesn't believe. Atheists probably talk about God more than the average believer. So there is definitely a God, or gods, involved in atheism.

I'll use the Santa Claus analogy which atheists love to use so much. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I don't have to constantly repeat that I don't believe in Santa Claus. People who don't believe in Santa Claus don't have to join forums for Santa non-believers. Catch my drift? The atheist religion is one where people share common beliefs, and spend a lot of time unworshiping (or maligning) God.

[Darwinian]

I'll use the Santa Claus analogy which atheists love to use so much. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I don't have to constantly repeat that I don't believe in Santa Claus.

You would if half or more of the people around you constantly went on about Santa Claus, and how much he loves you and wants a relationship with you. And how he is judging you and the fact that if you don't live up to his standards you will be on 'The List' which will be 'Checked Twice' and you don't want to end up on 'The Wrong List'.

In that situation I expect you would be just like the average atheist is with your God character.

[Minimalist]

But there are in atheism.

All this time and you still don't have a fucking clue, Angel.

I'm starting to think you are hopeless.

[rjh4 is back]

Feel free to read "The God Delusion" then.

I'll pass.

Maybe not a strawman, I thought you were inferring the made up society would be an atheist society.

I do not see how anything I said could have lead you to that conclusion.

However your argument remains an appeal to pity (they are killing each other!) as well as an argument from personal incredulity (I can't believe a non-religious society can have mores & ethics, so it must not be possible).

It seems you still missed my point altogether. The scenario is not an argument. It is a question to those who think morality is manmade. The question is to see if one is consistent in applying what they believe. As I said before, if one holds to morality being manmade and up to the majority in a society, the logical answer to my question would generally be "yes". So when I get a "no" answer I want to know the basis for it since it does not seem to logically follow. Note, I never said whether or not the society is religious or not and it is irrelevant to the question. So I do not see what I presented as an appeal to pit or an argument from personal incredulity.

My question at the end, put in simpler terms is: Why do we need religion to tell us that killing another human being is wrong?

Who said anything about religion? No we do not need religion to tell us that killing another human being is wrong. But I think that the idea that God created us and put into us the idea that killing another human being is wrong is a much better explanation for the fact that most think that (that killing is wrong) than the idea that morality is manmade. Awkward wording I think but I hope you understand my point.

Tav and Thor, I do not have time to answer everything now. I will try though.

[Ashendant]

...If we go by your argument, a chess club could be called a "religion"...

There are no deities involved in chess. But there are in atheism. Atheists spend half their time unworshiping God, and other gods. They don't just 'not believe in God,' they unbelieve. The difference between 'not believing' and 'unbelieving' is that the latter requires a frequent assertion or thought that one doesn't believe. Atheists probably talk about God more than the average believer. So there is definitely a God, or gods, involved in atheism.

I'll use the Santa Claus analogy which atheists love to use so much. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I don't have to constantly repeat that I don't believe in Santa Claus. People who don't believe in Santa Claus don't have to join forums for Santa non-believers. Catch my drift? The atheist religion is one where people share common beliefs, and spend a lot of time unworshiping (or maligning) God.

Unworshipping is the same as blasphemy, you're thinking of Not-worshipping.
We talk the same about god as everybody else the problem is that we're a minority(a growing one)and so we're far more noticeable, and other religions finds constantly time to pick on us and, after hundreds years of pissing contests(religious war) between religions, now they have one common enemy and we the atheists are tired of religious crap that slowed progress for at least a thousand years, and we're loud and vindictive.
VEN-DETTA!!

Because Santa didn't slow humanity evolution for a thousand years, and the belief of santa is a myth that isn't defended by anyone.

And you're wrong again Atheism is not a religion, what you're thinking is a life philosophy, and to our fallible but probable logic, the abrahic god is either malevolent or non-existing.

[Thor]

There are no deities involved in chess.

And there are no deities involved in atheism.

But there are in atheism.

BZZZZTTT!!!

Atheists spend half their time unworshiping God, and other gods.

This doesn't even make sense! Does someone on a hunger strike spend their time uneating?

They don't just 'not believe in God,' they unbelieve.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

The difference between 'not believing' and 'unbelieving' is that the latter requires a frequent assertion or thought that one doesn't believe.

So what's the cutoff? If I argue with believers every day, I'm guessing you would say that makes me an "unbeliever". But what if I only argue once a week? Or once every two weeks? Once a month? At what point do I go from "unbeliever" to "not believing"?

Atheists probably talk about God more than the average believer. So there is definitely a God, or gods, involved in atheism.

Yes, atheists talk about god(s). But you saying that gods are involved in atheism is about as bright as saying that death is involved in opposing capital punishment. (Because opponents of capital punishment talk about death.)

I'll use the Santa Claus analogy which atheists love to use so much. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I don't have to constantly repeat that I don't believe in Santa Claus.People who don't believe in Santa Claus don't have to join forums for Santa non-believers.

And what if you were constantly bombarded by people who told you that "Santa" was a real being who had magical powers. And that if you behave badly, "Santa" would put you on the "Naughty List". What if your entire society featured things like "So help me Santa" in oaths, or "In Santa We Trust" on our money? What if people came to your door trying to spread the "Word of Santa". What if people wanted to base our laws on what they think "Santa" would want us to do? What if some believers in "Santa" made it their mission in life to kill those who didn't believe in "Santa"?

Would you then maybe speak out?

The atheist religion

You want to keep repeating "atheism is a religion" as if that somehow makes it true.

is one where people share common beliefs,

In that case, a political party is a "religion".

and spend a lot of time unworshiping (or maligning) God.

I actually spend most of my time unfishing, unrunning, unbowling, ungambling, unsailing my unyacht and unskydiving. I also like to unrape, unkill and unsteal.