Christian bloggers protesting fake EA protest

"The vast majority of the Christians I know (and I know a lot of them) do not strive to be better people out of a fear of God or Hell. They do so out of love. They recognize the importance of relationships. They are tired of letting others down and of letting themselves down by being selfish. They want to be the best fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, or persons that they can be. They believe that there are good reasons to be good and that those reasons are not really about fear."

In my experience, and I believe this can be supported by just observing people, good people will act like good people and bad people will act like bad people regardless of their faith or lack thereof. There is nothing to support the notion that religion makes better people.

"1. Why are these ideas so universal? Especially given how much at odds they are to the survival of the fittest tendencies of nature, red in tooth and claw?"

This is an easy one. "Universal" morality (I use that term very loosely) is something that our species has come to realize is very important for survival. Because we are social beings, and being social is what helps ensure our survival, we've come to understand that promoting healthy societies with rules in place that keep us from killing each other is actually beneficial. It's simple logic, there's nothing mystical about it.

"2. Is it really desireable to be able to present no compelling reason for having the moral standards we do? If someone is good "just because," how is that not arbitrary? If "just because" is the only reason you have for being good, why isn't it just as compelling a reason for not being good? Don't you see that if you have no reason to be good, you also have no reason not to be the opposite?"

I just gave you a compelling reason: survival. Secondly, "good" is subjective. In Western culture, it's not considered a good thing to beat your wife. But in Muslim culture it's perfectly acceptable. This is only possible because of religion.

@dogmaticatheist

(BTW, you might want to have a talk with Ashitaka about that dogmatism. According to him, believing on nothing is the only logical belief. :D )

"In my experience, and I believe this can be supported by just observing people, good people will act like good people and bad people will act like bad people regardless of their faith or lack thereof. There is nothing to support the notion that religion makes better people."

You've say later that "good" is subjective, so I'm not sure how to take your notion of "good" and "bad" people here. I'd just say people will act like people. (In fact, that's what I did say.) I also wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing to support the notion that religion makes people better. (From your relativistic viewpoint, you'd need to define what "better" means in the first place, which will be difficult to do with only a subjective notion of "good" and "bad.") I believe that healthy relationships based on love make people better. Of course, I also believe that Christianity isn't a religion, but a relationship. That will likely blow some people's minds, but there you have it.

"Because we are social beings, and being social is what helps ensure our survival, we've come to understand that promoting healthy societies with rules in place that keep us from killing each other is actually beneficial. It's simple logic, there's nothing mystical about it."

It is a good argument, but our morality doesn't quite fit with your just-so story. For one thing, Darwin had some pretty interesting ideas about how to make societies healthy. From Descent of Man:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

From this kind of thinking we got social darwinism, Eugenics, and worse. Things that we *know* are morally wrong, yet which fit perfecty well with an evolutionary, materialistic perspective. It is difficult to deny that finding a local optimum in the gene pool would be best served by sterilizing or removing those who might pollute that pool. But surely, such an approach is wrong, wrong, wrong. Isn't it? Or was Darwin right?

"I just gave you a compelling reason: survival."

Is it really that compelling? Survival is a very selfish motivation. Self centered. Self absorbed. Self serving. Morality, on the other hand, seems totally contrary to this. It is about being selfless. Nature is concerned with ensuring that the strong survive, but morality is concerned with ensuring that the weak survive. Nature culls the herd to keep the gene pool strong, but morality claims that the weak have just as much right to survive as the strong.

Can a house divided against itself stand?

"Secondly, 'good' is subjective"

From a relativistic viewpoint, it must be, for there can be no higher standard by which to judge actions except one's own opinion. But that leaves us with a vaccuum when it comes to good reasons for doing good, doesn't it? Even if "good" is accepted as some sort of social conditioning we've evolved and inherited through our genes, isn't that pretty much the same as saying that any sense of "good" you feel in being selfless is a fabrication? It doesn't actually exist except as an inherited predisposition--one that you are free to ignore or not as you wish.

Is that really a compelling reason to do good?

Didn't Ashitaka have it right? The only reason an atheist has for doing good is just because. And they have exactly the same reason to not do good.

@dogmaticatheist

(BTW, you might want to have a talk with Ashitaka about that dogmatism. According to him, believing on nothing is the only logical belief. :D )

Actually, I chose the nick dogmaticatheist because it's an oxymoron. :D

"You've say later that "good" is subjective, so I'm not sure how to take your notion of "good" and "bad" people here. I'd just say people will act like people. (In fact, that's what I did say.) I also wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing to support the notion that religion makes people better. (From your relativistic viewpoint, you'd need to define what "better" means in the first place, which will be difficult to do with only a subjective notion of "good" and "bad.") I believe that healthy relationships based on love make people better. Of course, I also believe that Christianity isn't a religion, but a relationship. That will likely blow some people's minds, but there you have it."

For the record, my own personal notion of "good" and "bad" for the most part jives completely with what we as a society recognize as "good" and "bad", i.e. honesty, integrity, not stealing, raping, murdering, etc. I've heard the notion that Christianity isn't a religion, but a relationship, and it really doesn't matter to me either way, I still don't believe it.

"It is a good argument, but our morality doesn't quite fit with your just-so story. For one thing, Darwin had some pretty interesting ideas about how to make societies healthy. From Descent of Man:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.""

From this kind of thinking we got social darwinism, Eugenics, and worse. Things that we *know* are morally wrong, yet which fit perfecty well with an evolutionary, materialistic perspective. It is difficult to deny that finding a local optimum in the gene pool would be best served by sterilizing or removing those who might pollute that pool. But surely, such an approach is wrong, wrong, wrong. Isn't it? Or was Darwin right?"

Way to quote mine. Here's the whole thing:

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

You really need to step away from creationist quote mining websites. Darwin was merely explaining the gaps in the fossil record and wasn't even remotely advocating genocide.

"I just gave you a compelling reason: survival."

"Is it really that compelling? Survival is a very selfish motivation. Self centered. Self absorbed. Self serving. Morality, on the other hand, seems totally contrary to this. It is about being selfless. Nature is concerned with ensuring that the strong survive, but morality is concerned with ensuring that the weak survive. Nature culls the herd to keep the gene pool strong, but morality claims that the weak have just as much right to survive as the strong."

Individual survival and group survival are both *factors* for morality. We also have our reason and our empathy. There may be selfish reasons for it, but that doesn't have any effect on if it's true or not. You have to look at how the world is, not how you think it should be. A child, not knowing anything about morality, most certainly shows empathy towards other people and animals. They get sad when creatures or people are hurt. They want to help. They didn't need someone to tell them they should care about other people or animals, but they do anyway. That shows that there is an innate ability for humans to be empathetic. No god required.

Our standards of morality have evolved over thousands of years. What was once acceptable, we now find reprehensible. The more intertwined our societies become, and the more we learn that we all really want the same things in life, our reason tells us that if we all treat each other with dignity and respect, we will all be much happier and will have a better chance of survival. We don't need a deity for that.

"Secondly, 'good' is subjective"

"From a relativistic viewpoint, it must be, for there can be no higher standard by which to judge actions except one's own opinion. But that leaves us with a vaccuum when it comes to good reasons for doing good, doesn't it? Even if "good" is accepted as some sort of social conditioning we've evolved and inherited through our genes, isn't that pretty much the same as saying that any sense of "good" you feel in being selfless is a fabrication? It doesn't actually exist except as an inherited predisposition--one that you are free to ignore or not as you wish."

"Is that really a compelling reason to do good?"

I just gave you plenty. I'm not going to repeat it all over again. You're making a lot of arguments from emotion, but little else. Standards of morality have existed before Yahweh, and they will exist long after Yahweh joins all the other gods in the dead god graveyard.

"Didn't Ashitaka have it right? The only reason an atheist has for doing good is just because. And they have exactly the same reason to not do good."

Already addressed above. Apologists really need to come up with some new stuff.

Our numbers aren't quite there yet. We'll get to it.

"All the Atheists on this post are defensive and aggressive. Maybe its becuase you dont really believe there is no god, but are simply calling yourself Atheist to "fight the power/man"?"

Sounds like you're the ignorant one.

Your first question involves man being a social animal. As such he strives to fit into a society and not be cast out of it. Certain laws that have been in place since the beginning of civilization are based on these concepts of what is needed to fit into a society. I don't think we really need to delve that deep into Sociology and Philosophy on here. I'm certain you understand these concepts and are well aware of them. You're just trying to mesh different philosophies onto ones already stated here. Are Socialism and Marxism the same thing? No, yet they tend to get confused and used interchangeably.

And seeing as how you just go to referring to Atheists in you second question I'll remind you I'm Agnostic. An interesting split you'll see between the two groups is that most Atheists went to Catholic school and/or hated their Catholic upbringing. I, on the other hand, never went to church or had religion in my household. So while the religious and Atheists KNOW the answer. We do not. Nor do we bother to even ask it. It can never be proven one way or the other so why spend the time on the question when there are more important matters in life?

But to get to the question of why be good it all comes down to beliefs. You believe that there is a place in Heaven for you if you are good. And so you are in your way. I believe that everyone has a right to follow their own bliss and find happiness in their life -- as long as it doesn't encroach on another's happiness. And so I am in my own way. Neither is right and neither is wrong. And the belief I have won't be the same for another Agnostic. We are all different. So when you complain that the nonbelievers always cram all of the sects and offshoots into the same thing you do as well.

So I guess why there's so much tension between the groups is because it tends to come across that the religious see only in black and white and don't see the shades of gray inbetween. And it is most definitely their versions of black and white. And, of course, you encroach on other people's happiness. Because your beliefs must be everyone's beliefs. I mean, if you people could just stop trying to ram what you believe down our throats and just live your lives your way and allow us to live our lives our way then we wouldn't have these 200+ comments threads on a gaming site.

Do what you want. Just leave everyone else alone. And I'm glad you believe in love and hold that concept through your life. I will just never believe your religion, or any Old Testament religion for that matter, actually follows through very well with that message. All of those religions have blood on their hands. And continue to shed new blood.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi

How did you get back onto what this article is actually about all of the sudden? I was pretty sure we all left it behind and were talking about religion in its various forms and you were challenging the idea of good and bad in people who do not believe in God. The cramming down the throat part is about what religious Americans tend to do in general. Though I do greatly appreciate it when one doesn't. Though in my experience they're rarities. Its nice when I don't constantly get nasty looks for taking the Lord's name in vain or eating meat on Fridays.

"Not quite. Rather, the question, "Where did God get His nature?" assumes exactly what is at issue. It rejects the whole concept of I AM in its very implication that God must have gotten His nature somewhere outside of Himself."

"God is not a paradox, but He is, perhaps, a logical tautology in the sense that He is not contingent. This is a difficult concept to grasp, especially if you have an a priori insistance that eveything must be contingent, which is exactly what your question reveals."

I AM explains nothing, and is exactly the problem with your argument. You can't attempt to provide an explanation and than declare by fiat that your answer is not subject to the same rules of logic as everyone else's arguments. You can't just declare that GOD IS and leave it at that. You say it's in god's nature to be good. Fine. Define god's nature. Where did it come from? You're just tiptoeing around the issue by declaring that god's nature isn't contingent. That's a cop out.

"No, that's not my argument at all. God is not good *because* of anything. He is not contingent. However, the epistological question is an interesting one. Given that your mind is admitedly imperfect, and given that evolutionary processes are targeted for survival and not necessarily truth, ("Cogito, ergo sum" notwithstanding) how do you know anything at all? When you start with imperfect humans whose very reasoning processes arise out of ooze plus various other random factors, any sort of knowledge must be incredibly suspect. On the other hand, if you start with an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God, then He already Knows everything and already has the power to reveal Truth in a way that can be trusted."

You really are shooting yourself in the foot here with this statement:

"When you start with imperfect humans whose very reasoning processes arise out of ooze plus various other random factors, any sort of knowledge must be incredibly suspect."

If our reasoning capabilities are so unreliable, and you assumably use the same reasoning to assume that there is a God who must have created everything, than your conclusion is suspect as well. You can't slander reason and than call on it to justify your claim.

"At first blush, God's nature may seem like circular logic, but it is actually foundational to logic. If everything were contingent, then we'd be left with an infinite regress, which isn't logical. Logic cannot create for itself its own foundation, so whatever logic is founded on must be non-contingent."

God presents an infinite regress as well. You can't just assert god! Where did god come from? You are attempting to address the infinite regress with more infinite regress! Christian arguments are weak because they are simply declarations by fiat with no supporting evidence or logical reasoning behind them. And when a logical error is pointed out, more declarations by fiat are made to cover it up. You can't make the claim that your argument is immune from contingency. There is no reason for it.

"The notion that things existing beyond my ability to comprehend inherently make no sense is as anthropocentric as it is typical."

I said no such thing. I said, I've examined the god claim thoroughly and it makes no sense. All of the arguments fall flat on their face. That's a far cry from claiming that if I can't understand something than it doesn't exist.

I don't know with absolute certainty whether there is or is not a god (as most atheists will admit), however I believe the probability of Yahweh's existence is pretty close to zero. The truth is we don't have the faintest clue as to what (if anything) caused the universe, and to invoke a complex deity as the answer only introduces more questions and solves nothing.

I guess in the end we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us are going to make any concessions here, so to keep going would be a waste of time for both of us. In any case, I do appreciate the pleasant debate.