Which is better, believing in a god or not?

Yes people die, and yes terrible things occur. But don't blame God for the terrible things in the world if you wont give him credit for all the beautiful things as well. Most of the problems on this earth would be fixed if humanity got their shit together. But regardless, If god were to fix everyone's suffering that would require taking away the free will of every person on this planet. Whether we like it or not there are bad people that do bad things. Most misery is cause by other humans, whether that means that the person directly caused them harm or by that person failing to do what they could to help.
Thus the question emerges. Is it worth losing our free will to fix the problems of the world? In my opinion the answer is no. Partially because I don't believe you could call a life without being able to choose anything a life at all. It would be just a movie played out in front of us, it wouldn't be you. Secondly, I just plain don't like the idea of not being able to choose what I want to do.

I'm not putting the blame on "god" I'm simply saying that even with his so-called "almightyness" he can't give millions of thirsty, hungry people some mana like he did with the Israel lights?
Why doesn't he do this?
Only two reasonable answers: either he doesn't care about saving human lives.
Or he simply can't because he's not all powerful because he doesn't exist.
Don't believe me? Go watch the video on YouTube "sun gods:history of religion"

Not to be rude but I don't think a video on youtube proves anything. It has the same weight as any other argument, but it isn't proof, nor does it convince me of anything. And I don't believe that he couldn't save everyone, but even if he did I don't think that would be as helpful as you think. You probably don't believe in an afterlife, a heaven. But lets say that one exists like in the christian faith. If heaven is a place where you spend eternity in happiness, then any suffering in this life is a small price to pay (even if that suffering may be something as terrible as death). To get to heaven you must wish to be with him, or love him, or try to follow his word, or something along those lines. Exactly what it take to get there is unknown as none of us have the intellectual capabilities that God has. Regardless, if he just saved everyone people would just take it for granted, and if something in their life wasn't perfect, or the way they wanted it to be they would resent him. This would especially be the case if that person witnessed someone else being saved but not themselves. I would believe that overall the population either never be thankful for what God has done for them (we are not thankful for what he has already done, as you seem to hate him), or they would resent him. This would not help humanity towards its true goal, reaching heaven. On earth it should be our responsibility to help others and to relieve their suffering. God is not trying to make this life easy or painless. He is trying to make it meaningful. What is a lifetime of pain compared to an eternity of happiness?

If I give him credit for all the evil things then it's a fact that the beautiful things he's created pale in comparison...so...he's an asshole overall even if I do.



Not really. Millions of yearly stillborns, rampant disease and hunger arent' a cause of humanity not 'getting their shit together' it's more just the fact that nature doesn't play favorites.



Nope, not really. And besides the fact is he could make things way better, without taking away the free will of others. If it's conceivable that many problems and evils in the world could be fixed without taking free will away(and they can) then this argument doesn't hold up.



Failing to help is not the equivalent of causing the harm done to someone else.

I'm not guilty of murder if I don't take a bullet for another person.

I'm not guilty of committing genocide because I don't have enough money to donate to starving children in africa.

These are facts.



Since elimination of free will isn't required to fix many of the world's problems, that's actually not a question that emerges.



Um...wah?

Seriously, while I believe in free will I can almost guarantee it's not the same kind of 'magical' free will you believe in. I'm a compatibilist. That is, I believe the world, and us, are essentially deterministic in nature, but I believe free will is a part of this determinism. I can guarantee my free will isn't real free will though in your eyes.

Saying, "I don't like the idea of no free will" isn't an argument to not get rid of it, it's just your personal subjective opinion of value that has yet to have been justified.



There are plenty of videos on youtube with a lot of substance in this debate, I recommend giving them a shot instead of close mindedly writing them off as 'just videos'.



Oh this should be good.



Ok, here's where you show you clearly don't understand your own arguments, and let off something that I find is deplorable.

1. If heaven is indeed a place of eternal happiness and bliss, then God can make an existence where everyone is eternally happy and experiences eternal bliss...why...can't...he...do...that...here?

Your previous argument was that God can't do that or else he takes away our free will, so are you saying there's no free will in heaven? Interesting that.

And 2. You just completely devalued this life. The only life that we KNOW we have. You just reduced this life to being nothing more than a welcome mat you wipe your feet on, because hey, the REAL life comes afterward.

I find that deplorable and reprehensible. You should be ashamed of all the delineation you just did of all the suffering in the world.



this is just silly preaching. Congratulations, you have the 8,529,471'st opinion as to what it takes to get to heaven.



...So...your argument that saving everyone wouldn't be a good thing...is that people would still resent god, even if he did save everyone...because life isn't perfect.

Before I tear into this complete non argument, I want to be clear, is that what you're saying?



Nobody hates him here. Atheists don't believe he exists, we can't hate that which doesn't exist. That would be silly. Besides, PLENTY of people are thankful for what he's done, so why are you speaking as if everyone as a whole can either be one or the other?



Ah yes. Reward. That should be our true goal. Not helping each other, not reducing the suffering of each other, not making each other's lives meaningful and happy, our TRUE goal should be getting that sky cake.(If you don't get the reference, refer to Patton Oswalt)



Yet again, you demonstrate a complete lack of empathy by delineating all pain and suffering in the world. None of it matters now because there's an eternal happy afterlife to wait for afterwards.

Your position is reprehensible and deplorable, and you should feel bad for holding it.

Also, we're well aware that if a god exists, he's not trying to make this life easy or painless, that's one of the main reasons why it seems unlikely that there is one, because that would be an incompetent lazy god that has a severe lack of love for his creation...and that's not the god that anyone seems to believe in.

Evil is only an absence of goodness. Although that is just wordplay some would say. If you consider the creator of your existence and the existence of everything you hold dear to be an asshole... Usually your own existence is important. But obviously if you wish to have this opinion you are welcome to.



Actually I would think especially in today's world with the current technology and medicines the suffering could greatly be eliminated. If some of the higher class countries put aside just a bit of money (just some of which that goes to waste or is lost due to corruption) for hospitals, sewage systems, and other health and sanitary needs in the 3rd world countries then there would be less stillborns, disease, and hunger. No we cant keep everyone from dying, but I think you would agree that a good deal of people could be saved from their suffering just from putting aside time and money for it.



Even if everyone in the world had food, shelter, water, medicine, etc there would still be people that would cause problems in the world. Every single person in this world cause issues for others. Even if everything was given to us this would still be the case. The only way to change this would be to take away free will.



I suppose what I said was just poorly worded here. I am not the best writer and I will be the first to admit that. I'm wasn't trying to say that someone is guilty of murder id they don't take a bullet for someone. The best I can do to express this thought is to give an example. You somehow know that one person is going to murder another person, yet you do nothing because you don't feel like going through the effort. I guess I should say it is wrong to blatantly ignore problems that you could easily do something about.



It may not be required to fix many of the world's problems, but I believe we were talking about fixing all of the world's problems. In which case it would be necessary.



Lol once again I am a pretty terrible writer. When I say free will I mean something similar to what you do (if I'm understanding what you wrote). I simply mean the ability to analyze a situation and choose to do whatever you wish. Usually this means choosing the idea or path that you believe will be best for you.
But you can choose to do whatever you wish. And what I mean when I say the free will would be taken from us I just mean that you no longer have the choice. You would be forced to take a certain action.

And yes I know saying "I don't like it" isn't a real argument, I didn't mean it to be. I'm just saying that personally I don't like it.



I am open minded. As I said they have the same weight as any other argument. It seemed like the writer pointing to a youtube video implying something like "watch these because they are the end all be all of arguments."



1.Actually I believe something you don't realize that I should explain. Once again this was a failure on my part. I believe that heaven and hell are the same place. If you were good (or however else we are supposed to be judged, I can't say exactly what it would be) then you are in heaven which is the residence of God. You would happy because you would be in the presence of God and so on and so forth. If you were bad (or however yo want to define it) then Gods radiance would eternally torment you because you carry great sin in the holy presence of God, therefore causing what should be eternal bliss to be like a hell. If this doesn't make sense then I'll try to explain it better later if you ask for it.

2. I am not saying the suffering of this life is no big deal. It is. I know firsthand. I was clinically depressed for 4 years with a strong urge to kill myself for 2 of them all the while being bipolar. Ya that sucked. It may not be as
bad (or even close to as bad) as other things, but it wasn't pleasant. But comparatively, no this life is unimportant compared to the next. That's common logic given that there is an afterlife (which I know is another debate).



What I'm saying is that even if everything was given to them people would still find something to be unhappy with. We have real life examples of this with some celebrities taking anti-depressents, and dying from drug overdose. They have about anything they can wish for, so why are they so unhappy? Having things doesn't make you happy (although it can help).



Well maybe I misinterpreted. It seemed as if you had a personal vendetta against him. And I have seen people who detest him. They blame most of their issues on him thinking that will somehow make themselves feel better. So actually there are lots of people who hate him. I do not know many atheists, so if I didn't understand something I am sorry.



Once again bad writing. Each human's goal should be just as Jesus commanded which is to love thy neighbor and love thy self. If everyone did these two things then everything else would fall into place, including heaven. What I should have said is that humanity's ultimate destination should be heaven (one where they aren't burning).



Like I said earlier I'm not saying this life isn't important or that suffering is not terrible. But if you want to look at it from a logical standpoint infinity is greater than 80 years or so. I'm sorry if this somehow offends you. And if you want to look at it this way this life and the suffering are very important because it determines how the next life is for you. I don't know if that makes it better for you or not. Probably not. I'm sorry if life isn't great for you right now. I would help you if I could but there isn't much I can do over a computer. Honestly when I had all those depression issues what kept me going was the thought that one day this would all be worth going through, that there was something more than just suffering.



Are you a parent? Did you have good parents? I cannot say I am a father yet (I'm still in college so it would be tough raising a kid) but I know that when parenting one of the things you do not want to do is to give your children everything they want. Oftentimes they don't even know what they should want. When the parent doesn't give what the child wants then the child becomes mad at the parent, even if it is for the child's own good. The child calls the parent stupid or evil, or an asshole, or other things like that because they simply just don't know what really is best for them. That's a pretty (corny/) blatant metaphor so I won't bother to explain that.

Now onto another argument I would like to here your opinion on. It isn't an argument to prove God's existence, but rather show why you should probably believe in God. It goes a little like this...

Why would you not believe in God (or at least do the things that he says) and risk having an afterlife of eternal pain when all you have to do is give up an hour a week and just change the way you act a little and you could gain eternal life? That is probably not the best way to put it but it should get the idea across. Basically if you choose not to believe in God and he is not real well good for you, but you don't gain anything really. If you don't believe in God and he is real well you are screwed forever, all for just a few things in this life. If you believe in God and he is real well then that's great, because you have eternal life. If you believe in God and he isn't real well then you went to church and lived like a good man for nothing (which is not that big of a deal). There is so much to lose if you do not believe in God, yet so much to gain if you do.

Also... This is quite the long post haha

edit:
Also I would just like to ask something so correct me if I am wrong. Don't most atheists believe that humans are virtually the same as all other animals? Its just that genetically we are a bit different which leads to a human being a human. Really we are just another animal, even if we are a little special?

The reason why I ask is because if this is what you believe I am confused about a few of your responses. You say all this human suffering is a terrible thing (which it is) but why do you believe this? How is it different from another animal dying if that is all we are? What leads you to take your moral values, your ethical stances?

In other words what do you think determines right and wrong? As an atheist you have nothing higher that determines what is right and wrong. How can you say that someone who commits random acts of murder is wrong? Their opinion should way as much as yours, correct?

In what grounds do you base your ethical code? I do not think I have heard a satisfactory response from an atheist on this answer (although I rarely talk to people about this type of thing) so I am interested in your response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

here a nice little video on youtube. this one deals with free will, which many consider to be the final argument of the monotheistic religions on the fairness of eternal damnation or salvation for the mere belief or un-belief in their creator god.

I just joined this very day and was surprised to see such a lively long post on this topic.

By the way steve, yes i would risk it because my soul/heart/mind cannot reconcile the existence of an unknown/unseen/unconnected being which poses more questions than answers. I'd rather spend all of my efforts in working for the good than drive myself crazy with the unanswerable question of the existence of a creator. If he/she/it exists good, if not good also. There is enough that the powers of the universe have granted our species to live out meaningful and worthy existences. That is my current stand on this anyway.

Enjoy your life, and find your voice.

Wow talk about evasion. Did you watch the video?
He won't save humans because we will take it for granted? How do you know we would? Or are you just assuming that, because you have the need to justify the absence of his "justice".
He gave the Israel lights food SIX days out of the week? Why can't he do that now?
Answer that with some evidence after watching the video(s) & if you can't find the time to do so, well your view point is bias & not worth my time.

Neither are better or worse, the best thing is having a choice in the matter. I chose not to believe in God, but that doesn't make it wrong for other people to. You can not have a right or wrong in this because no can tell you if you're right or wrong (or they can try but fuck them what do they know).

You really didn't say anything here, so all I'm going to say in response is, "Goodness is just the absence of evil." to your silly word play.



What do you think is going on? The 1st world countries are hoarding mountains of money and laughing while the 3rd world countries starve? 2 things to that.

1. Even in first world countries, stillborns, disease, and a vast amount of deaths happen every year due in little part to people's 'free will'. The fact of the matter is, countries are in debt, most first world countries are in debt to other countries, who are in debt to other countries, because debt is what drives economy. Taser has a video explaining how this is the case. So no, 1st world countries not only don't 'eliminate' these problems, but in fact, even if they did, they don't have much money to just be lending to other countries to do the same thing. That's why charities exist in the first place.

2. Even if we WERE capable of going along with your plan, as a Christian you should be against it, "Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime".



Both of which you're claiming we have, when we in actuality don't. How much debt is the US in now?



Again, are you honestly saying, "Because he can't make the world PERFECT without taking away free will, he's going to let problems he could easily solve without taking it away run rampant."? Please tell me your argument isn't that stupid.



Sure, but most people DO do things about problems. I, for one, donate to charities whenever I have the extra cash. I almost donated to Invisible Children, but thanks to Anesthetize being an insufferable douche and finding out they were frauds I managed to stop myself.

Plenty of people do their part to help, my question is: Why doesn't god?



Again, is your argument, "Because taking away our free will would be required to fix ALL the problems in the world, God refuses to fix MOST of the problems that wouldn't require it."? Please please please tell me you're not that stupid.



Again, I'm a compatibilist, my definition of free will is not the same as yours. Also, none of this is really relevant.



And what if it could? What if the video had sources for information and explained why you were wrong on so many different points? You don't know. Essentially your response was, "There's no way a simple youtube video could prove me wrong about anything, it's just arguing, just like you." IF this is yet another result of your poor writing skills, fine, but if you suck that bad at conveying your ideas, I recommend not making posts criticizing serious positions and attempting to engage in debate.



Not only doesn't that make sense, but you made that up.

Gah, you're like Jokerfight and his concept of an afterlife. You don't really have any clue what the afterlife is supposed to be like, you just made one up that seems to make sense to you.

And besides that your concept still goes against your argument about free will. Because You're saying if you were good now, you'll always be happy, which means you'll NEVER be bad, and if you're NEVER bad, then you really don't have the choice to be bad. And the people who WERE bad will ALWAYS be in torment, even if they WANT to make the choice to be good, because they don't have that option, it's all done now. They're forced to just be bad and sinful and suffer. Your heaven takes away free will, plain and simple, yet you advocate for it, and not the same thing for earth.



Dude? You can either have it one way or the other.

Either life and all its suffering matters, or it doesn't. You can't say in one sentence it does, and then say, "But there's also an afterlife, so at the same time it also doesn't matter."

Pick one and stick with it.



...So you're saying you don't have an opinion? Because if you don't I'd ask why you brought this up, and if you do, then my comment stands...so...which is it?



Right, ok. So, lemme get this straight. God doesn't make life better for everyone to the furthest extent he can(prior to having to take our free will away) because...well...some people will just complain anyway. So why bother?

I'm going to make an analogy. We'll call it "God's Burning Orphans."

Say a fireman is on a truck. The truck is on a call to save a burning orphanage. The fireman then goes to the second floor to get the orphans trapped up there. Several of the orphans look up and are so happy to see him, but ONE of the orphans screams ,"NO! I DON'T LIKE FIREMEN!"

In your explanation for why God doesn't fix so many things, you're saying that the fireman isn't being an asshole when he goes, "You know, I came to help, but if one of you is just gonna bitch that you don't like me, screw you all." and leave.

Do you understand why your response is shit yet?



Well if there are people that hate him and blame stuff on him then they're not atheists by definition. But in any case nobody HERE is doing that. Nobody HERE is saying, "IT's god's fault disease is so widespread!" what we're saying is, "Disease is widespread...either God allows this, or he doesn't exist." and some of us(the atheists) are saying, "Maybe it's because he doesn't exist."



Humanity's ultimate destination should be heaven...as a whole. Because...nobody...anywhere...at any time...ever...deserves eternal burning. The fact that there's burning going on for some people for eternity is not the sign of any sort of justice, or anything like that, it's God being...vengeful. That's all it is. It's not even a punishment. Not like you end up 'getting out of hell'. It's not like you spend a few years in hell, and then get the eternal bliss. This is a permanant thing, you don't get rehabilitated...you're just...burned.



No, you're saying it is important, but that if heaven exists, it isn't important. Which is why I'm saying your position forces you to devalue this life.



I'm sorry you were depressed for several years, and I strongly suspect it was the fact that you gave up taking responsibility for the shit in your life and put things in the hands of a higher power that helped you get through it. However don't equate your depression with the world's suffering...just...don't. It's not even close to the same thing. I'm not talking about myself here, I'm talking about the starving kids in africa that are afraid some warlord is going to happen by and chop their heads off or enslave them to a forced labor camp, or the fact that they're born with several diseases, or that their brothers and sisters were never born because of disease, or that they lived to be only a year old because of disease, take your pick. You're saying, if a heaven exists, then these people's suffering do not matter, because they'll be(presuming they go to heaven) happy for the rest of eternity. You're saying their suffering doesn't matter.

It's either that, or heaven doesn't exist, and this life DOES matter, those are your options. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.



No, but making life lessons easy to learn and not forcing children to learn it the hard way is something all parents want to do, and if they can do, ought do. We're not talking about 'giving us everything we want'. We're talking about 'stop letting so much bad shit happen to us'. As a child, if I fell down on my scooter and scraped my knee, my mom would disinfect it, wash it, put a band aid over it, and get me a knee pad so...you know...I don't have to go through that anymore. OR, and here's a better idea, she could get me the knee pad before I ever scraped my knee to begin with!



Well it really was a shitty metaphor, because you just equated me asking that a god not be too lazy and incompetent to let so much suffering happen in his creation to being a spoiled brat that wants everything and cries when he doesn't get his way. Good job on that.



It's called Pascal's Wager. And it's been debunked so many times I'm surprised you didn't know my response to it. Hell I must have debunked it several times over the course of this thread.



This post is going to be the most epically long post in all of Fakku.

Instead of writing a brand new rebuttal I'll just copy paste my rebuttals to it in the previous posts in this thread.

The first time I rebutted it:

"This is incredibly retarded, for the following reasons.

1. The god that exists, hypotetically, isn't defined whatsoever.
2. Some gods could care less, according to theology, that we believe in them.
3. This presupposeds a god that, despite the fact that the atheist might be being intellectually honest about their atheism, would punish them anyway, as WELL as would reward a christian, simply for believing, JUST in case there is a heaven. Such a fickle god I wouldn't worship in EVEN IF they did exist.
And 4. To suppose that one doesn't lose anything by believing in god and having no god be there when they die is wrong. Fractally. You have wasted your entire life. You have spent innumerable amount of times thinking about an imaginary friend, you've made decisions, and thought about moral dilemmas in accordance to a completely imaginary framework. You raised your kids to believe in this imaginary thing(presumably) and have possibly doomed them to the same fate."

So in this one, I focused on the logical fallacies and problems with the argument itself.

Aaaaand the second time:

"When I think about this question I think about 2 very interesting characteristics attributed to this god. Optimal love...or optimal mercy whatever you want to call that, and the other being omniscience. And if this is true, it then follows that if this being DOES exist and I die and meet him, he KNOWS me. And I mean REALLY knows me. Knows me better than I could ever even hope to know myself. This isn't a being wracking its brain trying to figure out "Why can't this guy believe in me?" No, this god knows every single piece of the causal chain that led to my atheism. This being would understand that I am in fact nothing more, and nothing less than a product of my all consuming experience of life. Every interaction I've ever had that ever changed me or influenced me. Every action that ever caused me to care about theology and philosophy. This god would understand, intimately, my understanding and thought process. He would know my views on morality and ethics and know why I find my secular way to be better to approach issues better than to approach issues on faith. He would understand why I think that I would live a good life. He would understand why I think that I have made good choices, even if christians don't. He would be aware of all the actions and characteristics that I've seen attributed to him by christians, as well as scripture. He would be aware why those actions and characteristics seem undeniably incompatable to me, not just with one another but with the observable world as we know it. He would know about the time in my life in which I picked up a bible and read the whole thing cover to cover. He would know about my earnest desire to learn the bible by reading multiple translations including original hebrew to direct english. He would know the HUNDREDS of verses I've come upon which I found horrifying, or absurd, or completely incompatable with the notion that this was inspired by a just and loving being concerned with our salvation...even if christians don't. So it stands to logic that if I met this being I would be completely shocked, floored, and confused to see that I was wrong. And my only question would be, "Where did I go wrong in my reasoning?" This god would know that I took Truth extremely seriously, and would know I never doubted anything simply because I found it comfortable to not find it to be true. I wouldn't have to make any excuses for myself. the omniscience of this being would make me feel perfectly represented. All of my motives would be perfectly known to this being. He would know that I had preferred the existence of a loving god all along, and would love to worship a god that was all loving, just that everything I found was incompatable with the existence of such a being. He would know that I didn't observe anything in reality that couldn't be responsible to natural processes. He would know that my disbelief was perfectly compatible with everything I knew, and everything I thought. When I take into consideration the knowledge of this being, and the compassion attributed to this being...it's difficult to concieve this being wouldn't be, in some sense, proud of me. Proud that I had employed the logic and intellect he had endowed to me. I can't imagine this god would be offended that I had exercised everything I could to find Truth in the universe, it's hard to see that he would send me to hell for this. So really the only possible reason he would have for sending me to hell would be vengeance, as it's not a rehabilitation thing, people don't come out of hell eventually having been shown the error of their ways. And if it IS the case that simple belief is all that is required, and that rapists and murderers and thieves would all be welcomed to heaven with open arms simply for accepting JEsus into their lives, and I would be sent to hell ever lasting simply for not being convinced, honestly...then I'm ok with going to hell, because it's hard to concieve of how I could spend eternity with a being like that anyway.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Pascal's Wager is the dumbest reasoning ever for believing in a god...and if people actually DO believe for that reason, then it's a simple fact that they haven't bothered thinking it through enough."

And this second time, I showed why it's a problem within the christian theology to even use this argument, which is funny because christianity is the only religion the argument was supposed to be used for.

Do EITHER of those responses show you why I think that argument sucks?



Mine's longer. Suck it.



I'd say anyone scientifically literate in biology would say humans are animals. Don't really need to be an atheist to believe humans are animals...because we are.



The fact that I have a higher thinking brain than most animals and am capable of recognizing consequences of actions, and the fact that I've evolved the ability to feel empathy, my entire species has and I know other people feel the same empathy I feel so I can call them on their bullshit when they do things that are morally wrong...among many other things...



As a theist unless someone tells you what's right or wrong you have no way to determine what's right or wrong. Is that what you're saying? Seems kind of childish. Why can't you determine it? Why can't you figure it out without someone telling you, "Don't do this or you're bad?"



For a great number of reasons. Most importantly I can say that their actions are not conducive to a thriving society, which is a goal I and the rest of society share, and, I suspect, even the murderer shares. Everybody who does evil things think they're doing the right thing. Hitler thought killing the Jews would make his society and people great. This was an objectively incorrect hypothesis, so he was immoral for doing what he did.



So I'm going to leave off with the content from the original post of my latest topic I made about...well...this exact thing. It's a rather long post, but what the hell I already made a goddamned essay out of my response to you.

So every once in awhile I like to make a long ass post about my current view of morality and meta ethics in response to how I've been vetting myself in the public forum(youtube, school, etc.). My last post about this particular topic appears to be...extremely old, and I can't seem to find it. But I know my original script and I'll add a spoiler containing my last post about morality(Which concerns why I feel theistic morality is dead, and why I feel morality itself has become a bit of a science).



Now then. An issue that seems to repeatedly come up when it comes to MY version of morality, that a subjective value and definition of morality can result in objectivity concerning 'oughtness' seems to be a point of contention among people that I present this with, and I'd like to address it.

This grows from an extreme loyalty to a misconception about David Hume.

Anyone who's been engaged in the conversation about morality has heard David Hume's Is/Ought gap. That methodological naturalism when applied to investigating the universe can tell us what IS the case about the universe, but it cannot tell us what ought be the case. A prescriptive normative fact cannot come from a descriptive fact, in essence.

However, while this is true, It should never be misconstrued that Hume was a complete subjectivist concerning morality. This gap was simply an observation on his part. There's nothing to indicate(and indeed his literature seems to indicate the opposite) that he didn't believe that normative facts can be derived from presumed moral value X.

This is where the point of contention generally stems. I'll address the main concerns here, and see if I can't satisfyingly address the problems people bring up.

1. "Presuming moral value X is still only your subjective preference and opinion."

My response to this is...so what?

Presuming a subjective value X does not negate the proposition that an objective ought Y can be derived from it. To say that the subjective value renders the entirety of any moral statement or action I can say or do subjective, is a fallacy of composition.

To illustrate this problem I'd like to draw an analogy to a jet and a jet engine.

For the purposes of this analogy the Jet will be the entirety of a philosophical meta ethic, and the jet engine will be the values that drive it, and the characteristic of 'flight' is objectivity. Now, a jet engine cannot fly, on its own. The fallacy being made, however, is extending this lack of ability to fly to the entirety of the jet.

To make the illustration a little more clear, I'll break down the structure of a moral statement, and explain where subjectivity and objectivity come into play:

If I value human life, I ought not murder.
^ subjective value ^ objective logical conclusion.

This brings me to the second contention with my view on morality.

2. "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value."

Certainly I can't tell you what you objectively ought to value. But I CAN make an appeal to a common need for society in creating at the very least, a basis for moral values. All societies require certain things to survive, for instance, so then these would be some things to value, in order to continue society, and the only people that would reject these values would be people who do not find survival, valuable.

You might then make the argument: "Then why should I value survival?" Well, I would argue that survival is objectively valuABLE, and that's all that's necessary to concede that you should value it. Because it's capable of being valued, and there's no valid reason to NOT value it. There are a million reasons to make concerns and values for yourself reflecting survival, biological or social. Take your pick: Familial, societal, emotional, desirable, ALL of the preceding contain a vast array of reasons to value survival. And there isn't a reason to NOT value it. And if one can find a reason, I would contend that they would need to explain why it is their reason for devaluing survival supersedes that of the reasons to value it.

TL;DR version

Moral values are subjective by definition, but this doesn't undermine the concept of objective morality in the slightest.

While I can't tell you why you objectively ought to value anything, I can give you a vast array of reasons why you should value some basic things societies need to value in order to survive, and if you're going to say that it's not enough, I would submit you'd be required to submit a valid and sound reason that supersedes all of mine to devalue survival if you're going to argue this point, otherwise it's moot.

Believing in a god adheres you to certain responsibilities and pressures, so... no.

That is a fucking horribly long post and for that reason i didn't read it . All i wanted to say is that , i know that you are really active on this topic , you speak a lot but didn't you understand yet that cristians wont change their mind by logical arguments ? They have faith in god , faith mean they beleive in something with no logical reasoning . Even if you were to write a book as big as the bible to say why religion is bullshit , cristians would still say : " whatever , i have faith" . Just saying that it's pretty useless to write the longest post on fakku ever if it's to be on this topic , you're just losing your time ...

...I'm not here to convert the christians that are set in their ways. I'm here to argue against the christians so that the people who are on the fence on the issue can see that my arguments are logical, my reasoning sound, and believe my side to have a lot more validity than that of the christian or any other kind of theist.

Besides, effective argumentation won't immediately convert a christian(99% of the time) but sometimes all it takes is the planting of seeds. A couple months or years later, if they keep thinking about what I say, perhaps I'll sound more and more reasonable. It's happened before, where I'll get people who message me(not here, but Youtube and other places) thanking me for taking the time to talk to them, and that they're no longer a theist in part, thanks to me.

If I can convince ONE person reading this thread that atheism is a better position than theism, I've done my job.

I understand why you say this because there are a lot of Christians who don't think about what they believe at all and use "I have faith" as a silly excuse for it. I like to think about what I believe. I'm not good at arguing my point of view and probably not the best at explaining it. But I do genuinely enjoy reading responses from people with beliefs contrary to my own. I'm still young (and so in many ways stupid), so I don't know all that much concerning theological arguments and philosophical ideas. And I know I may be wrong. But whether I am wrong or right I must make an attempt to learn others' opinions on the matters first. I have not yet had the chance to talk with people who are intelligent in these matters, and I would like to continue hearing some of your answers, wether I agree with them or not. Even if I cannot successfully defend my points (which I doubt because I suck at it) I could still learn something from it.

edit: And I know that was Pascal's wager but I have never heard someone argue against it before so I was interested in what you would say, same with the last question I had.

edit2: and BigLundi I just read your most recent post. I sincerely doubt you could convert me, although I'm still open to reason. But I really do appreciate your responses. Because I don't want to believe something that I do not know much about. And having argued your side of it for quite some time you probably know more arguments for theism than I do.

edit3: and I will be back to pose a few more questions. Unfortunately I do not have any time tonight to think about and write a good post. But I will be back. As I said before I detest Christians who hide behind the "I have faith" thing. That is the reason why the Christian argument for so many things are underdeveloped...
I would like to hear more of your answers, at the least they are very interesting and are arguments I have not heard before.

I'll be glad to debunk any argument you come up with, but I'd like to point you to a christian philosopher's opinion when it comes to arguments of this sort.

An argument shared by many theistic philosophers since the 1800's with Soren Kierkegaard.

Alvin Plantinga, in reference to the big three main arguments, the Cosmological, Ontological, and Teleological arguments: "None of these arguments, nor even all of them taken together, I think, can
sensibly be called a proof, if a proof is an argument such that it isn’t possible
to reject it without irrationality. Of course that’s not saying much; there aren’t
arguments of that level of stringency for much of anything in philosophy."

Thank you. I will be the first to admit I am ignorant of many things concerning theology. But I would like to learn more about all of this.

The last quote you gave I believe it is true to a certain extent. Most likely no one can completely prove without a doubt that there is a god. But that does not mean there are not arguments that point to his existence. Also I should clarify that the people I do not like are Christians who don't even try to figure out their own faith and choose to remain completely ignorant of what they believe using "I have faith" as an excuse to be lazy and remain ignorant.

Anyways... Like I said before I am busy and don't have to much time tonight but I will be back. I guess I will leave you with a question. If we were not created by a god then how do you suppose we came to be in existence? I will not ask talk about the creation of the universe, although you are welcome to answer that. I will not start the first cause argument, frankly I find it tedious (although once again you are free to address it. I believe in evolution to a certain extent, although I am a very skeptical that life could change so drastically from something like a few cells all the way to a human being. But even if that were possible, that we could develop from a few cells, those cells must have come from somewhere. One of my friends told me one theory was that the cells may have developed in the sea when lightning struck the water or something like that. I am not too sure on that. But whatever he said it did not really seem plausible. It does not make sense that a cell, with DNA/RNA, mitochondria and all the rest of that, could just come into existence and start functioning, and then mutate randomly to a higher life form. I seems much more likely that someone made us than these cells just happened. So how exactly do you suppose we came into existence?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

It was an interesting read and I appreciate the link. I may have missed something you were trying to prove but i think they basically said that in the end they had no idea how life started. He (the scientist) also said he does not think that his grandchildren will know. From most of what I have read (this article included) scientists still cant really say exactly how this may have happened, as well as they have no experiments that actually replicate the creation of life, even in a staged environment. The closest was the experiment done by Standly Miller. Then from whatever they create, there is still no actual proof that those very low levels of life could mutate eventually into human beings. As far as I am aware of (and I may be wrong) no one has gotten a group of cells to mutate into a higher level organism.

The problem with this question is that no matter what it is that I give you, no matter what natural explanation is given as to how life arose on earth, there really is no way to prove that God in some way WASN'T behind it.

However, before I go ahead and do so anyway, I'd like to point out that presuming that the natural explanations are true, but that God guided them anyway is problematic for your position because of the logical tool known as Occam's Razor. While it's not a law of logic, it tends to be the case ,and it's reasonable to accept, that when two hypothesis' have the exact same amount of evidence as each other, the one with more unnecessary entities is to be discarded, and the one with less to be preferred. God, in this case, is an unnecessary entity when one accepts all the naturalistic explanations for the origins of life and all that.

But, you asked a question, so here's your answer.

I'm an atheist too, but I push it onto others if they decide to bombard me with their teachings, or calling me a worker of Satan or "The evil one", because really, where the hell is your proof that I worship Satan and that not believing in god will lead to consequences?