# Do you WANT there to be a God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Conversation\ **Tags:** Philosophy\ **Created:** [January 10, 2023, 1:48am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698 "2023-01-10T01:48:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 12:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/61 "2023-01-15T00:14:42Z")

Closing Topic temporarily. One person is currently submitting a comment so I will let that one in. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 2:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/62 "2023-01-15T14:48:21Z")

---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 2:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/63 "2023-01-15T14:50:07Z")

Comments open again. The pause was useful, moderation-wise. ---

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 7:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/64 "2023-01-15T19:50:20Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > Of course, I actually don’t believe his morality is made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary. Then you have just refuted your claim that morality can only based on God’s nature. Do you need me to explain why? ---

**Author:** ![djkriese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e495f1/32.png) [@djkriese](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/djkriese)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 7:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/65 "2023-01-15T19:50:46Z")

I do not think that holding to the arbitrary, personal preference argument (while demanding that people acknowledge this law of God in their hearts caveat) is great. It is clear that you have not dealt with secular morality. You can even make cases based on sound logic and quantifiable positions. All it takes is for someone then to point out the cultural influence or flaws in biblical morality (you might claim that they do not exist). Slavery always immoral (even from a secular perspective) yet was divinely sanctioned. Please do not take the whole biblical slavery != chattel. It is still terrible. Having a specific test for female unfaithfulness and a resulting abortion is immoral. Murdering populations in constant tribal warfare and taking sex slaves (or I mean wives that you married in a bit based on horrific and inaccurate virginity tests) is immoral. Is continuation of bullshit, the best that could be done in that time? Eternal torture for finite sin, tolerance of prejudice/racism in “feeding widows”, second class dressed up status of women, the romanization of biblical standards in Paul’s writing over time, even the use of textual communication in an ancient language is pretty suspect. While a common apologetics position, the whole “my morality is objective/better/true” is tired, ineffective, and not well supported. ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 7:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/66 "2023-01-15T19:51:37Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > The believer has myriad explanations or interpretations available to them that would explain these supposed contradictions. You might believe these explanations are a “stretch” or inadequate, but if any such explanation is even possible, there is no logical contradiction involved in this God existing. That’s only true if the “explanation” actually makes sense. If I, for example, told you that square circles must exist because horses are purple, that would not prevent a square circle from being a logical contradiction. All you have here is an imaginary purple horse. > [@jmk00001](#): > > Personally, I believe a universe in which humanity faces and overcomes adversity is a better universe than one in which that does not occur. Tell that to the people who face but do not overcome adversity. I guess they’re all just unavoidable collateral damage from your heroic story. > [@jmk00001](#): > > Again, you might find that unconvincing, but if it is even possible, there exists no contradiction. But it isn’t possible. > [@jmk00001](#): > > The only person who would be completely incompetent to judge what is good or evil is the sort of person you (most likely) claim to be, a person born into a godless, meaningless, universe. Why would that be? Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma? > [@jmk00001](#): > > The big question, really, is how you can pretend that anything is really evil or good at all, or on what basis you believe the Old Testament God is a “monster” or not. While there is no ultimate or entirely objective basis for morality, there is a basis in human attitudes and social goods. Thus we consider genocide to be a bad thing, and it’s a bad thing whether perpetrated by Nazis or YHWH. You disagree? > [@jmk00001](#): > > You might say His actions appear incompatible with divine attributes as defined or derived from the Bible I wouldn’t. I’d say that the divine attributes defined and derived from the bible all arise from his actions. But that’s a digression irrelevant to this discussion. > [@jmk00001](#): > > You _really_ believe such a God would be a moral monster. You don’t? You’re OK with killing off all life not on the Ark, killing all the firstborn of Egypt, condemning a substantial majority of the human population to eternal torture, and so on? > [@jmk00001](#): > > But, according to who’s morality? Your made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary one? It may be made up, but it’s not baseless or arbitrary. What, though, is the basis of your morality? How do you know it isn’t arbitrary? I’m afraid none of your comment reveals a great deal of thought. > [@jmk00001](#): > > > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > > > Even if we credit your premise (we do not), the goodness of belief in God says nothing about whether God actually exists. > > Agreed. Then why did you mention it? ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/67 "2023-01-15T21:45:52Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > I just mean to point out that any such inborn tendencies as you describe above could not ultimately be deemed a foundation for any absolute morality. That’s perfectly fine. I, along with many (but not all) other atheists, don’t believe that “absolute morality”/“objective morality” exists in any case. So I have no objection to be told that I lack something that I don’t believe exists. My evaluation of morality tends to be more practical than epistemological. I see no evidence (from, for example, demographic data) that Christians live objectively better lives than atheists do, so I discount the claim that Christian morality is superior – with or without an “absolute” basis. ---

> [@jmk00001](#): > > The reason I started this topic is that I was interested, as I mentioned, in how other atheists could or could not relate to Thomas Nagel’s statement that he didn’t want to live in universe where there is a God. **The reason is that I believe, in the end, we all either choose to believe, or we don’t, and for many that choice boils down to the fact that they just don’t _want_ there to be a God.** [My emphasis] I think the fact that you came into this conversation with this _strong preconception_ has prevented you from understanding what we have been saying. Speaking for myself, to the extent that I see my beliefs as a “choice” at all, my beliefs are **NOT** based on what I “want” to believe, but on what, to me, makes more sense of the world. I do in fact believe in a very large number of things that I wouldn’t want to have to believe in, given a choice, simply because believing them makes the world make more sense. Thirty years ago, I found that the world made more sense without belief in God than with, so I stopped believing – what I “wanted” didn’t come into it. I think a large reason that you got fairly ambivalent answers may be (i) because atheists may simply not normally think in terms of ‘wanting to believe’ or not (so find it a stretch to think in such terms) and (ii) most atheists view God as a _purely hypothetical_ concept, so one needing proper defining before any opinion can be forthcoming (and see the opinion as heavily dependent on that definition). ---

**Author:** ![jmk00001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@jmk00001](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/jmk00001)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 1:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/69 "2023-01-16T01:43:36Z")

> [@Tim](#): > > Tell that to the atheists in Muslim contries who are liable to be executed for their apostasy. Come on now. I think you understand the context in which that statement was made. Read the next sentence. > [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#): > > > [@jmk00001](#): > > > > There is a leap of faith in either direction, because there is not sufficient evidence in either direction to say with ontological certitude one way or the other. > > No, there isn’t. Most atheists don’t claim to know there are not any gods. They just don’t believe in any of them in particular. No leap of faith required. A distinction without a difference. > [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#): > > That a person should be condemned for making an honest judgment upon incomplete evidence is insane. Indeed, which is why neither I nor Christianity hold that doctrine. Strawman. Incomplete ≠ insufficient. ---

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 1:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/70 "2023-01-16T01:43:43Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > There are sufficient reasons and evidence to believe, if one _wants_ to believe. I think that is false. I’ve known people who _want_ to believe, even to desperation. But they cannot get past what they perceive as reasons and evidence to the contrary. ---

**Author:** ![jmk00001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@jmk00001](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/jmk00001)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 1:44am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/71 "2023-01-16T01:44:00Z")

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > > [@jmk00001](#): > > > > There are sufficient reasons and evidence to believe, if one _wants_ to believe. > > Of course, just as there are sufficient reasons and evidence to support that the earth is flat for people sufficiently motivated to believe it. lol I don’t think you missed my point, but are pretending you did. That’s a nice little rhetorical trick. Nevertheless, I will clarify. What is meant by “sufficient reasons and evidence” is such reasons and evidence that, when considered objectively, demonstrate the belief is epistemologically fully warranted. Obviously, whatever reasons and evidence a flat-earther might conjure, it would not be sufficient to warrant belief. Again, I’m not making the case here, expecting to convince you of all the sufficient reasoning and evidence. That would be folly. All that is already out there, and you reject it for all the reasons I don’t expect you to enumerate here. > [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > Anyway, since I and others have openly and clearly stated that we _would_ like the god you describe to exist, your thesis that atheism is just an emotionally based belief does not seem to be supported. Strawman much? All of your claims to the contrary, I believe my thesis is still live. My little informal survey here is interesting, but far from conclusive 😉 > [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > There is not enough evidence to say much of anything with “ontological certainty” Yes, exactly my point. And, yet, if one is so inclined against holding a particular belief, they may just, for some reason, find a way to raise the epistemological bar high enough that their personal threshold for belief just so happens to never actually be met. Nor could it ever be. > [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > Well, that’s a really weird position. How is coming to a conclusion that you **feel** is best supported by reason and evidence an immoral act? You are going to have to connect the dots for me on that one. [emphasis mine] Interesting choice of words. > [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > Yup, which is why faith is at best useless, and not uncommonly actually dangerous. I try to avoid **that crap** as best I can. Another interesting choice of words. ---

**Author:** ![jmk00001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@jmk00001](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/jmk00001)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 1:44am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/72 "2023-01-16T01:44:27Z")

> [@djkriese](#): > > I do not think that holding to the arbitrary, personal preference argument (while demanding that people acknowledge this law of God in their hearts caveat) is great. > > It is clear that you have not dealt with secular morality. You can even make cases based on sound logic and quantifiable positions. > > All it takes is for someone then to point out the cultural influence or flaws in biblical morality (you might claim that they do not exist). > > Slavery… > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > > [@jmk00001](#): > > > > The believer has myriad explanations or interpretations available to them that would explain these supposed contradictions. You might believe these explanations are a “stretch” or inadequate, but if any such explanation is even possible, there is no logical contradiction involved in this God existing. > > That’s only true if the “explanation” actually makes sense. If I, for example, told you that square circles must exist because horses are purple, that would not prevent a square circle from being a logical contradiction. All you have here is an imaginary purple horse. I don’t demand anybody acknowledge anything, and I don’t expect anyone here will. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind here. Like I explained, people believe things for all sorts of reasons, and the probability of “reasoning” them out of their belief is about zero, at least over any short to intermediate term time horizon. I didn’t come here to do that. I simply wanted to hear people’s reactions to the Nagel quotation, and I explained why - out of curiosity mostly. If you go back and read my prior posts, I’m not laying out methodical arguments, defining all my terms, listing and defending premises, and what not. No, what I essentially did was state my beliefs and opinions with minimal argument or support. But, not because I don’t have such argument and support. Arguing about this or that Biblical passage’s morality is a waste of time. I’ve heard all your complaints, and investigated them. Like I said, it’s very easy for the skeptic (much less 15 such skeptics) to sit back and nit pick someone else’s views, or even worse, their word choice. For me to sit here and try to respond to 15 skeptics’ nitpicks, arguments, and misunderstandings on every conceivable moral question in the Old Testament (slavery, tribal warfare, etc.) would take writing books, which have already been written by others. And, I wouldn’t convince any of them anyway! I understand I am not talking to someone I just met randomly at a party, who, in casual conversation, it happened to turn out was an atheist. No, the people in this message board, many of them anyway, have made it part of their very identity arguing with and debating people who hold religious views, not just on this message board, but elsewhere as well. I am under no delusion of convincing such a person of anything, regardless of the soundness of my arguments or the breadth of my evidence. Such a person is dyed in the wool, die-hard, fully invested in their views for all sorts of reasons that don’t necessarily have anything to do with reason and evidence. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > While there is no ultimate or entirely objective basis for morality… > [@Tim](#): > > That’s perfectly fine. I, along with many (but not all) other atheists, don’t believe that “absolute morality”/“objective morality” exists in any case… So, then we agree. Atheists have no objective, absolute morality. I believe you need to ponder more what that means. > [@Tim](#): > > Speaking for myself, to the extent that I see my beliefs as a “choice” at all, my beliefs are **NOT** based on what I “want” to believe, but on what, to me, makes more sense of the world. I think all of our beliefs are based much more on desires and emotional needs than virtually anyone is willing to admit. Most of our “reasoning” and “making sense of the world” is backing up a deep-seated, often even denied to ourself, want or felt need. Again, I don’t expect to convince you of this here. But, perhaps you might ponder it more with my having mentioned it than had I not. ---

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 3:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/73 "2023-01-16T03:21:24Z")

> [@Tim](#): > > That’s perfectly fine. I, along with many (but not all) other atheists, don’t believe that “absolute morality”/“objective morality” exists in any case. So I have no objection to be told that I lack something that I don’t believe exists I don’t know that I wholly dismiss the idea of _anything_ that could be described as “objective morality,” but what is fairly obvious is that the opinions of a god could not establish such a morality. Morality arises from human experience, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. > [@Tim](#): > > Speaking for myself, to the extent that I see my beliefs as a “choice” at all, my beliefs are **NOT** based on what I “want” to believe, but on what, to me, makes more sense of the world. I think that part of the problem here is that many of us at one point or another in our lives have recognized that we’ve made the mistake of engaging in motivated reasoning on some subject or other. People who cultivate positive mental habits note the error and resolve to do better. People who do not wish to cultivate positive mental habits double down, insist that motivated reasoning has led them to the right conclusion, and accuse everyone else of motivated reasoning. So when I hear “we all choose what to believe,” I hear “I am a sloppy, sloppy thinker who does not care whether the things I think make any sense.” ---

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 3:22am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/74 "2023-01-16T03:22:37Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > > [@Tim](#): > > > > case… > > So, then we agree. Atheists have no objective, absolute morality. I believe you need to ponder more what that means. As a matter of fact, theists actually are more deficient in this regard. Consider this for Christians (although a similar line of reasoning holds for most theists): By definition, God is all-encompassing. All knowing, all powerful, infinite in being, knowledge, power, everything. This is God. Mankind, OTOH, is finite, mortal, limited in being, knowledge, power, everything. In an infinite universe governed by an infinite, all-knowing God, it is a necessary and inescapable fact (FACT, I say) that there necessarily exists something - a confounding fact, a contrary being, an new understanding, etc. - that contradicts whatever a human thinks they know about God. This goes for anything they think they know about God’s morality, INCLUDING any understanding one thinks the Bible gives them. (If you are going to argue this point, we are done, since you are claiming to be the infinite, all-knowing God you purport to worship. That’s enough hubris for this forum, I think.) What does this mean? @jmk00001, even if there is an absolute, objective morality that flows from an infinite God, you have no chance - zero - of comprehending this morality. None of us do. This is a necessary result of the mortal dealing with the infinite. Thus, I would argue that, even if there was an absolute, objective morality, the fact that no person can comprehend it makes as real and useful as if there was no such morality. In other words, Christians are no more guided by some absolute morality than are atheists. ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 3:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/75 "2023-01-16T03:23:00Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > Such a person is dyed in the wool, die-hard, fully invested in their views for all sorts of reasons that don’t necessarily have anything to do with reason and evidence. I know, you don’t mean to be insulting, right? It just comes out that way. But I think you’re fooling yourself here regarding your motives. You didn’t come here just to ask questions. If you had, you would have paid attention to the answers rather than substituting your own. > [@jmk00001](#): > > So, then we agree. Atheists have no objective, absolute morality. I believe you need to ponder more what that means. You really don’t understand this. Atheists have no objective, absolute morality. But neither do you. You only imagine you do, and you can’t defend that claim. > [@jmk00001](#): > > I think all of our beliefs are based much more on desires and emotional needs than virtually anyone is willing to admit. So reason is useless? Some would call that projection. ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 4:36am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/76 "2023-01-16T04:36:10Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > > [@Tim](#): > > > > Tell that to the atheists in Muslim contries who are liable to be executed for their apostasy. > > Come on now. I think you understand the context in which that statement was made. Read the next sentence. My point makes sense in that “context”, and your “next sentence” mischaracterises the issue. It is **easier** to simply ignore the contradictions in your beliefs than to address them. It is **easier** to ‘go along to get along’ than to articulate your doubts and risk alienating friends and family. It is **easier** for an atheist to simply shut up and take it than to stand up for their First Amendment rights and risk harassment and death threats. It is **easier** to pretend to still be a good observant Muslim than to announce your apostasy and risk death. There is nothing _easier_ than accepting the religion that you were spoon-fed from birth, especially when it is the majority religion in your locality. > [@jmk00001](#): > > So, then we agree. Atheists have no objective, absolute morality. I believe you need to ponder more what that means. Yes, but as I don’t believe that objective, absolute morality doesn’t exist, I also believe that _ **you** “have no objective, absolute morality” either._ I actually explicitly pondered the shortcomings of both purely-absolute and purely-relativist moralities a couple of decades ago – and came to the conclusion that the only viable option was a middle ground between the two – and that this is in fact what everybody adheres to (if perhaps with different balances between the two), no matter how they characterise their moralities. > [@jmk00001](#): > > I think all of our beliefs are based much more on desires and emotional needs than virtually anyone is willing to admit. And here again we return to _your preconceptions_. If you are going to return to your preconceptions _ **whatever** _ we say, then why did you bother to ask us the question in the first place? I would also point out that your statement is more than a little egocentric (in assuming that we all form our beliefs the same way you do) and patronising (in telling us how we form our beliefs). It is also more than a little self-serving, in that it allows you to dismiss atheists’ rejection of theism as merely based on “desires and emotional needs” rather than reason. You probably find this _ **“easier”** _ than addressing the reasons for our rejection. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 1:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/77 "2023-01-16T13:38:17Z")

---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2023, 1:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/78 "2023-01-16T13:38:31Z")

> [@jmk00001](#): > > > [@Roy](#): > > > > You also have to look at the tremendous harm belief in gods has done throughout history. Religious wars and terrorism. Crusades. Genocides. Bigotry and racism. Inquisitions. Child abuse and protection of those responsible. Separating families. Forced conversions. Medical neglect. Witch trials and executions. > > > > A lack of belief in moral accountability may not help, but belief that one is doing one’s god’s will can be actively harmful. > > Besides the fact that such things are only immoral in a universe I believe we live in… Utter codswallop. There are plenty of other belief systems (including not just atheist and non-Christian theist systems but also different versions of the Christian universe than the one you believe we live in) all of which have their own moral and ethical codes. If you truly believe that only your personal belief system includes morals, you are so deluded there’s no point discussing anything with you. So I’ll just point out your other howlers: > [@](#): > > I never said no evil was ever done in the name of religion or that there have never been negative consequences of religious belief. No, you said that “_if you look at all the tremendous good belief in God has done throughout history, it becomes obvious that the consequences of that belief_ not _being there throughout history … would have been tremendously negative_”. But that assessment requires comparing the good outcomes of belief in God with the bad outcomes of said belief - which you didn’t even attempt to do. > [@](#): > > The very idea that you are arguing that such things are evil at all proves my point about the vast goodness that resulted from belief in God, particularly in the West. It is to a large degree a consequence of the widespread belief in the Christian God that you deem all these things evil in the first place. Poppycock. If I deem all these things harmful (not ‘evil’, that’s a loaded term) its in spite of the widespread belief in the Christian God held by the people who perpetrated these acts. If widespread belief in the Christian God didn’t make these perpetrators consider their own acts evil, it’s not going to have much effect on me. > [@](#): > > It is plainly obvious to anyone who can look at the world objectively, with even a minimal understanding of history, that all our modern notions of human rights, equality, tolerance, moral responsibilities - even the development of science itself - is largely the result of Christianity. Also poppycock. Christianity does not include human rights, equality or tolerance. Those are largely the result of the Renaissance, philosophy and English common law. > [@](#): > > Might science have eventually been developed somewhere else in the world? Eventually, perhaps, but _in the world we actually do inhabit_, the fact is that it developed in one place, not in the Far East, not in the Middle East, not in the New World. It was developed in that part of the world once called Christendom. Also poppycock. Much of the roots of science lie within ancient Greece and Egypt, Byzantium and Arabia, including those such as Ptolemy and Aristotle. > [@](#): > > There was no “Dark Age” of Medieval Europe. I didn’t say there was. Again, you seem to be arguing against your expectations of responses, and not the actual responses you have received. > [@](#): > > You can argue all day long about whether the Europeans who explored the New World were _evil_ conquerors or not…[ I didn’t say anything about Europeans in the New World either. > [@](#): > > but the reason they were the ones doing the exploring and conquering (vs. the other way around) is because they were more technologically advanced than the rest of the globe, and you can’t just chalk it up to ancient Greek philosophy and the Roman culture that died centuries earlier. You can’t just chalk it up to later Christian culture either, but that is clearly what you are trying to do. ---

> [@jmk00001](#): > > Sorry, I do not mean to offend. As I mentioned before…I actually believe you have the same moral foundation as I do (one of us just doesn’t recognize it as such). That is offensive. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2023, 1:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698/80 "2023-01-23T01:41:05Z")

3 posts were split to a new topic: [About Thomas Nagel](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/about-thomas-nagel/15760) [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-you-want-there-to-be-a-god/15698.md?page=3)