It's not God who orders that though is it?

Perhaps I am not getting your point, because your original argument seems to me to rest entirely on how belief in a "perfect, wise" creator being affects human behavior. And my point is, not always in good ways. Sometimes in good ways (as I have posted on at greater length), and sometimes in very horrible ways. The question wasn't about the existence of a god, but about belief in a god, and as an extention how such beliefs affect human actions.

it does not have to be God that orders it - it is their belief in God that allows them to rationalize their behaviour

You put to[o] much emphasis on man.

This whole discussion is about how belief in a god or gods affects humankind -- not about your personal belief system. Emphasis on man's reactions and how a belief in a god affects said reactions is, in fact, the entire topic of the debate here.

one of the ten commandments [is] thou[ ] shall not kill.

One of the other 10 commandments - in fact the 1st -- is that "thou shalt have no other gods" business that is the source of so many holy wars.

As a point of interest, the original text of the Sixth Commandment read "thou shalt not kill other Israelites." You could kill all the Canaanites, Babylonians, Akkadians et. al. that you liked.

I have never known of any Christian . . . to ask for anybody to be put to death

You've never known of Christians asking for someone to be put to death? Then you've not read history. Start with imperial Rome and its campaigns throughout Europe and Asia, and also pay particular attention to the Reconquista, all nine of the Crusades into western Asia, the Saxon Wars and spread of the Holy Roman Empire, the Baltic Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the European witchcraze, the conquest of the Americas, the McCarthy era, and the bombing of abortion clinics by wingnutty members of "Christian Century." I'd be mighty surprised if you could find a single ten-year block anywhere in the last 1500 years during which Christians were not asking for some other group of people to be put to death.

"never put anyone to death for not believing in him" - HA!

anyone who doesn't believe in him gets eternal damnation

"I have never known of any Christian who is a firm believing to ask for anybody to be put to death." - if Osama bin Laden was caught tomorrow how many people would be speaking out for him not to be killed?

Nicepost.

One thing though.. don't take the debate description as my main point. I didn't want to put too much there as it would've all pointed towards my side of the argument rather than just give a brief intro to what we should be talking about.

So let's go into your talk about how law work just fine. Laws are changing all the time right? Now if they were good, then they wouldn't need to be changed. And if they have been changed then whose to say that they do not need to be changed again? God's Words will always be right till the end of time. We just don't see it, but in the end we will see it. So we can be here right now running around trying to make it all right, or we can follow Gods advice and we'll get there in the end. It's hard and loooooong to explain but ask me what God says that is wrong (one of those rules thats in all religions) and then tell me that if what he says isn't wrong... why should we not follow him.

Also, you do err in your inference that I implied you believe in God.

Oh yeah...

A lot of bs...

Your debate is nothing more than the illustration of demagoguery without the use of the word demagoguery while at the same time a debate about whether or not a demagogue should use the word God .

Finally, we have a winner!.. Kinda. You're right. (although I never knew the word demagoguery) Right so you DO know what my debate is about, but I don't know you're position.So it's kinda useless to argue when you don't have a position.

Well, I've been debating theists quite aggressively for a few days now on this site, and frankly I'm a little worn out from it. You need to try to understand, that you are looking at the world from a completely different perspective than I am. I know, because I was very religious until my early twenties, it's 2 completely separate mindsets, and it's almost like two different languages one trying to communicate with the other, but I will go through your objections from my point of view the best I can.

1. I believe one can account for their perspective on good and evil in humans. We are a pack animal, always have been. Even dog's, with 0 knowledge of any religion, know to protect and "be kind" to others in their pack, including their owner whom they see as the pack leader. In the same way, we as humans I believe naturally act in a manner which serves the "pack" even often at expense to ourselves. Those who remain within this norm of pack behaviour we call "good" those without we call "evil".

Being brighter and more complex than dogs or any other pack animal, of course this instinct within ourselves becomes complex. But natural and observable none the less with or without any type of creator.

2. True, if there was a creator, it would make sense to find our purpose of creation, even if our purpose for being created was strictly for his amusement. But I don't believe in intelligent design either, so not sure how that pertains to my arguement.

3. Again, justice is established using our general and natural idea of empathy. And as we see this is not a constant, but shifts with time as we evolve. Empathy is a very natural instinct most humans are born with, which has developed because it does serve for the greater good of humans, even in the circumstance that it should not be in one instance or another the greater good for oneself.

This is from us (again) being a pack animal. I think you'll find that if you take away our big brains, we really are a pathetic and week creature compared to most mamals.

Minus our big brain, without the abilty to work together as a whole, and this means establishing rules and a sense of justice, we would be quite extinct right now, having all been eaten by lions and tiger and bears oh my.

4. I would argue no one "grounds it", even the religious. What difference does it make what one's morals are grounded in if they have them none the less? The only relevent point is that a god is unnecessary for one to have a reason to live or a moral compass to live by. I never said the religious don't feel their morals are grounded, I simply offer myself as proof that the idea many of the religious have, that life without a god is somehow empty, is quite incorrect.

5. mass murder read it, tons of examples. Just as many examples of the religious killing as of the non-religious killing. There is no proof to back up the idea that a person who doesn't believe in a god is more or less likely to kill, than one who believes in a god, and somehow twists it so that their god encourages the act of killing. Your arguement holds no water.

6. I don't see what you're refering to, if you are numbering this according to my highlighted points, there is no evidence either way, and that's my point. There's a lack of evidence here.

7. But this is the point. Your original arguement puts forth that, the religious are more moral because they have specifically religion to guide them. My point is again, while religion guides the vast majority of the human population (82% apx) those not guided by a religion are just as likely to be "good" or "evil" which would appear to make the belief in a god unnecessary in order to be "moral"

8. lol, this was hard to read. I'm not impressed by pretty words when discussing theology. I'm not swayed by mindless examples. My belief is one caught in a rip-tide is just as likely to drown whether they believe in god or not. You seem to be under the impression that there is something in life to be saved from. I do not see it this way. This is what I'm talking about when I say that it's like two people trying to communicate in two different languages. You do not seem to understand that I do not believe there is anything to be saved from in the general sense, and in the literal sense, I've never seen or heard of god saving anyone whose life was in mortal danger. Some live, some die, belief in god does not change these odds at all. The religious listen to example after example of people saying "I was saved" it's indoctrinated into the fiber of your being. From the outside, it looks like silly people looking for an easy way out. No one is saved, because there is nothing to be saved from. We live, we die, we make what we make out of it in the time in between. God plays no role. Some choose to believe in a god, but those who do not are just as happy, and quite often more so, than those who do. And in the end, whether someone believes in a god or not, they die and it's lights out. I don't think a religious person will "live forever" any more than I believe I will "live forever". What one believes is irrelevant ultimately outside of what they do with it here on earth while alive.

Now, the religious can hardly (if at all) wrap their heads around the concept of simply being dead. It's like they have to believe there is an after-life, and by default, have to believe that everyone else must on some level at least want to believe there is an afterlife.

I assure you, I do not on any level believe in an afterlife. I do not want to on any level trick myself into believing in an afterlife. I believe it is self-destructive to fool oneself in such a way.

9. You have some typos that make this hard to understand. I think what your saying is that my account of how religion started is off,

in which case the point flew clear over you, which it always does when I get into these discussions.

Again, it's nearly impossible to explain to one such as yourself.

But I'm not trying to explain exactly how religion began.

I was simply giving an alternative example in order to point out my opinion that

religion is quite unnecessary. That is what th point was.

There is no point in me trying to guess how it all started (though I imagine it was from an inherent need within born of self-realization to not cease to exist at some point, which is not even the theory I put forth, but there you go)

As I was saying, there is no point for me trying to guess though how it all started, and I don't care how or why it all started.

My only point is that it is unnecessary.

Objection to Objection 3:

Atheistic regimes have slaughtered upwards of 100 million people

And religion hasn't done its share of slaughtering? How about the unrecorded atrocities committed in the name of god during colonial times? and the continuing killings going on now the name of that same entity in the middle east and all over the world? what about sacrifices done to god by the mayans and astecs? Killings in the name of one god or another are in everyone's history books. Why continue perpetuating myths?

When you mention atheistic regimes I assume you are referring mostly done by communism, in which case the reason behind it was ideology... not "atheism". Whereas in the religious killings, the name of god was actually used as a reason.

re: grounding question (from above):

Put 100 devout people in separate rooms and ask them 100 moral questions (e.g. if a pregnant woman has cancer, can she get chemotherapy to likely save her life if it would likely kill the baby?) - you will get many different answers and different justifications - so if there is objective morality, humans cannot converse with god and figure out what it is. We would still be left with subjective morality only we would be judged by a god who has an objective morality and sends people to the lake of fire based on a morality they can't know.

"If Intelligent Design is correct it would be wise to find out for what purpose we were created" - how would you go about doing that? even with a god, what is your higher purpose, live a life of suffering that the god had provided you while loving that god?

"Explain to me then how justice is established?"

Isn't it just as likely that our desire for perfect justice was the impetus to assign this attribute to god?

"Atheistic regimes have slaughtered upwards of 100 million people"

Wouldn't the god that created all the terrible atheists have even that blood on its hands?

"In what do you have hope? and not the wishful thinking kind, that does no one any good. The confident certain kind that you can stand on" - seems like you just want to dismiss positive thinking just like atheist want to dismiss god - if thinking good thoughts has just as much positive outcome and hope etc., then it is just as valid

The problem with pascal's wager is that it doesn't say which god you should believe in - using pascal's logic you should probably just find out which god is the most jealous of belief in other gods, has the best reward and worst punishment. So if the flying speghetti monster promises worse than weeping and gnashing of teeth, then you should believe in it rather than YWYH.

The decent of man more aptly accounts for our dichotomous moral values that treats people of our clan/country/team etc better than others. during the process of evolution we had to learn how to cooperate with human beings to be more successful hunters but compete against other tribes etc. for resources.

if we went with: love thy enemy, love thy neighbor as thyself, and to be perfect sell everything you own and follow me - we would have a much different society than we have today

Downvoted, because you copy-pasted your response to me and reposted it as a dispute to someone else with a position not entirely dissimilar from mine.

And how do you account for the vast amount of religious people who also commit "evil"?

I argue that determining what is "right" or "wrong" based on belief is inaccurate and subjective. People do things "because god told me so" (no matter what god that is) without questioning why or really thinking for themselves. Scientific reasoning (I do not mean just science but perhaps the use of the scientific method) can lead us to find a "greater good" in a more objective way. Why is homosexuality wrong? Why is sodomy wrong?

A better measure would be to check whether or not your actions are harmful to you or to others, and then measure your behavior accordingly. This is better than just "god told me to do it" which leaves the issue open to having any god tell you any kind of crazy thing "god told me to go kill the abortionists". There was actually a case a couple of years ago in one state about a pastor who killed a doctor that was performing abortions. And the congregation supported him.

Im sure you will say "well, that is extreme, bla bla bla" and make some excuse about how those people were not true followers... but the thing is, religion is subjective and it is left to ones "relationship with god". How do you explain to that man that killed the abortionist that his relationship with god is not legitimate? How would YOU argue for that? Do you have a direct line to god?

things get easier if we have the means to determine whether our behavior is harmful to ourself or others. Now science can tell us a lot about how to behave in ways that are less harmful to ourself, to the environment, and to society in general. The bible does not say anything about protecting the environment, which is an issue of importance to all of us. But in my personal identification of "right" and "wrong" I say the overuse of pet bottles is wrong, because Ive learned the effects they can have on the environment. - Just an example.

What greater goods have come from the belief in God? I want you to explain to me how religion is NOT subjective. When followers have to listen to a pastor/priest interpret things for them. Or when followers constantly justify their own behavior with an explanation that all that matters is a "personal relationship" with God. I really wonder how God is speaking to all these people directly in ways that contradict each other.

nah uh - is not a valid argument against what someone says

I think I see the problem here.

You live on a different planet.

1. again, there's 0 proof Christians give any more to charity than anyone else. Where are your statistics? There's no reason to think that Christians give more than a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or Atheist. There's no proof. It's your opinion, and your opinion is not based on anything at all.

2. If tomorrow god came and took all the Christians I'd be super glad because you guys are annoying. That aside though, there's no such thing so unfortunately it's not going to happen. If it did though, everyone would get along just fine. I mean, you people didn't even start showing up on this planet until 300 years after that guy Jesus (who may have never even existed) died, and everything was just peachy without you.

3. Yeah, god is a private thing, and you have the right to believe in god or the easter bunny or big foot or whatever the hell you want. Problem is, Christians don't want religious freedom you nuts want everyone to believe your own insanity. But nope, sorry, the constitution is clear. Church and State are separate, and god should not be in public schools in any form whatsoever. Start your own school if you don't like it, but don't try to put it on everyone else.

3. So when something bad happens like 9/11 we all of a sudden ask God why did he remove his protection. Total Hypocrisy

You dumbass. 9/11 had nothing to do with "god's protection"

it was terrorists.

God has never stopped a single tragedy in the history of the world, and he's not about to start just because you force your silly beliefs on other people.

And your insinuation that somehow people die because of what they believe is not only incredibly stupid. But offensive, evil, and frankly why so many bright people like myself have gone from indifferent about your silly cult, to downright hating it.

Without question God is in favor of men who love him.

Well, that's just a crazy bald assertion, and if you want to believe it OK, but it's not a relevant point. Without question Ma'at is in favor of those who follow her laws; without question Juno is in favor of wronged wives; without question Ishtar is in favor of gettin' it on. Those are neat points too, but like yours, not real relevant nor provable as actual fact.

Our founding fathers built this nation based on God . . . written into the constitution

Well, then, I am REALLY confused as to just what Article VI and the First Amendment are doing in our Constitution. Because the only mentions of "religion" that I remember in the Constitution are the one that starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of . . ." and the one that reads "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office." And the word "god" doesn't appear in the Constitution AT ALL.

I hardly ever see or hear about agnostics giving anything to any charity.

I hardly ever see or hear about Christians who aren't pathological. Following your line of "it's what I want to see therefore it must be true," all Christians must be looney-tunes.

On the other hand, I know tons of Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Bah'ai, neopagans, agnostics, and atheists who volunteer in their communities. I'm most certainly not a Christian and I volunteer. Do you actually know any non-Christians upon whom to base an opinion about which religious communities are and are not doing charity work?

It's a given fact the Christians . . .

It's a given fact that the Christians make crap up and claim it's a given fact. For this we actually do have proof: creationism, for example.

If tomorrow God came down and took all the the believers away . . .

. . . it would do wonders for the economy. The rest of us will divvy up your property and take your old jobs.

But that aside, if tommorrow all the Christians disappeared with their wrongheaded notions about how humanity is at the center of creation and is destined to "rule" the earth but is also somehow innately flawed because their god doesn't know how to make people properly, the world would tick along just fine, and I firmly believe that humanity would be far better off without that particular collective delusion.

when something bad happens like 9/11

So . . . the Christian god and Osama bin Laden sided together on the whole 9-11 thing. Doesn't that sorta suggest that your god has converted to Islam?

At any rate, it's pretty ludicrous to assert that if everybody just claps their hands and says "I do believe in fairies" loudly enough that your god will keep anything "bad" from ever happening. Bad things happen to pretty much everybody, Christian or otherwise. I would hope that your quest for faith would lead you to something with a little more depth than "eek don't let anything bad get me."

I mean, seriously, did you just put forth the argument that you worship a being who would blow up a building in a fit of pique because not enough people like him? I realize your religious mythos includes Sodom and Gommorah and all that so perhaps it's not inconsistent, but honestly, your god sounds kinda like Timothy McVeigh there, bud. That's not praiseworthy, that's morally reprehensible.

Your point there reminds me of a story an anthropology professor of mine used to tell.

This professor lived and studied among the Karen people of Tibet, whose traditional religion is more or less a mix of polytheism and animism. One day some Christian missionaries happened along. The Karen don't prothelytize, so at first they listened politely to the missionaries and then told them it was nice that they were so excited about their god. Then the missionaries suggested that the Karen should worship their god too, and the Karen elders weren't so keen on that idea.

So after much talk, one of the missionaries told the Karen elders a parable. "There was a great boat on the ocean, and one man on it was a Christian; and the boat was capsized and sank, but God saved the one Christian man."

So the Karen elders told the missionaries that they wanted to talk among themselves about this parable for a bit, and they would come back with their answer at the end of the day.

At the end of the day, after meeting together and discussing the Christian parable, the Karen elders called for the missionaries and told them: "After discussing your story all day, we have decided that we are not impressed. We have considered the matter very thoroughly, and we are convinced that our gods could have saved all of the people on the boat."

Why not give the judgment of charity and not condemnation. Wouldn't you expect that if you were visiting a foreign country?

So, where is your post that illustrates charity in lieu of condemnation toward ‘fachrulisme’?

Secondly, my counsel is an act of charity. It could be said that I spared ‘fachrulisme’ from a scathing assault against his/her faith, whatsoever that may be.

Lol. No I think you're sick in the head. If you think the world works without police, army, governments, courts, laws, teachers, doctors etc. then you need to be locked up.

Let me repeat - GOD IS NOT JUST THE ULTIMATE 'PUNISHMENT'. HE IS ALL. HE LOVES YOU THE MOST, HE GUIDES YOU THE BEST, HE DOES EVERYTHING BETTER THAN ANYBODY IN REAL LIFE CAN. THAT IS WHY HE IS GOD. If you have an IQ above 50 you would understand what I'm saying. So far you haven't.

Please explain to me what the definition of God is? Then tell me whether or not that definition means He is better than any human alive. It does right?... hmmmm..... So doesn't that mean by following somebody who knows all is the right way in life?... I don't know about you, but to me I would follow somebody who knew everything and would do the best for me rather than to follow somebody who knew quite a bit and would do the best for me. ANYday.

Ofcourse People need other people to guide them. THAT IS WHY GOD SENDS DOWN PROPHETS. They are there to tell people God's word.

This is just plain silly. Are you saying only through education can people be right? There are millions of people out there who are uneducated and I would say they are more likely to go to heaven than I am. Education has f*ck all to do with this.

I've said from the start not to bring different cases of religion in this. This is purely an argument about God, regardless of what religion is brought in. Not religion, not religious texts, scriptures, rules etc. I could go into greater detail and dismantle your argument but we'll be going into something completely different.

Words that have no meaning if atheism is true and words that shouldn't exist if atheism is true;

good,deeper,educated,understanding.kindness,importance,well-being,well,harm,undesirable,attained,personal dignity,reward,practical ,scientific,Morality,subjective,opinion,religions,God,proving,opinion,laws,allowed,concepts,books,interpretations,greater good,right,wrong ,harmful.

If you're arguing for atheism it sure sounds like you are borrowing language from another worldview to support your view.

Your an athiest for other reasons than that don't kid yourself.

Then tell me why we haven't after thousands of years and what makes you think we every will? I know of only one thing that has, and that you deny.

LOL!

Who said to tell the truth is the greater good? You're assuming that telling the truth always results in the greater good huh? I bet you can think of 1 billion ways in which a lie can work better.

Again, I am not saying God is a lie. I am first trying to state whether or not belief in God for the masses is better than lack of belief... and then whether that belief should be promoted.

You're now bringing religion into the argument. It's kind of annoying when people do that when it completely misses the point. But just for the sake of it... let me destroy it.

it has given way to horrible things through fanatism

The key word in this is FANATISM. NOT RELIGION. A fanatic in ANYTHING will always result in extreme actions. Take PETA for example. They are not religious, but they can definately take a lot of shi far.

It has also allowed governments to control populations through the use of those beliefs.

Governments will always control populations. That is what they do. If it's not religion they're using, it will be something else. The GOVERNMENT is RESPONSIBLE for USING RELIGION, NOT RELIGION ITSELF!

It has also fostered artificial divisions between different cultures, eventualy leading to wars.

Whether you like it or not, people are ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENCES. These differences are ALWAYS GOING TO BE USED by PEOPLE OF POWER for THEIR OWN OBJECTIVES.

Do you get the picture? Religion should not be taking the blame.

I don't think we need God anymore to know what is good or bad. I think people are capable to figure things out on their own.

Well atleast you've answered the question. However it's not really an argument.

The point I've CONSISTENTLY made is that people are NOT able to figure out things on their own. That is why we have laws and rules. My point is that God is better at this than any human alive.

That's a valid point about the Abrahamic faiths, and again perhaps Confucianism, being comparitively "aggressive." I'd have to take a closer look at other monotheistic religions in antiquity (the cults of Mithras and Akhennaton were both big ones) to make a determination about whether moral absolutism seems to be a facet of monotheism generally or just of Judaism-Christianity-Islam.

I am not certain if I am saying that Eastern and other faiths are based more on "philosophy," just that their ethical structures are not necessarily a black-and-white list of "thou shalt not"s. They are frequently presented more as broad precepts to be applied situationally rather than as hard-as-fast rules about certain proscribed behaviors.

I think we have different understandings of what a religious society leads to. I don't blame you but that's simply because you're basing your thoughts on history, but moreover history of certain religions as Christianity, Islam and (not so sure) Judaism. However what would you say to a Buddhist society? Or a Hindu society? Certain religions have been detrimental, but imo other religions, some extinct, some not, did not have the problems you've described. egyptians? Ancient chinese and indian? ancient greeks etc. etc. They were all deeply religious societies (correct me if I'm wrong) which did not have the same borders as you're describing (again correct me if I'm wrong).

hmmm.........

People will have differences, but what about religions that not only accept other people's beliefs or lack of them?

I do not think it's right to accept people for what they are... or SOME people anyway. When it comes to race, nationality, eye colour, hair colour, religions (not cults) etc. people should and do live side by side. Some issues are contreversal i.e. sexuality, cross-gender, physical enhancements etc. which I think should be eliminated.

I ain't not hitler dude, lol. I don't have a problem with differences and in touch with points made earlier the religions I am in favour of have always been very tolerant to certain issues, so wouldn't it be better for not just an extremely tolerant religion, but broad, flexible and continuously evolving religion?

I hear you and understand all of those things you mentioned. It's a theological discussion on why there are so many bad things that happen in the world.