Does God Really Make You Good?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)

 

Some people would argue, and I agree, that atheists can have stronger morals than theists, because our(atheists) morality is based on human decency and we treat people with kindness because we want to and because it's the right thing to do, whereas many theists' "morality"(I put that in quotations because it doesn't really qualify as morality) is based on rules from their religious texts and the fact that they want to be rewarded in the afterlife or, at the very least, because they don't want to be punished in the afterlife.

That's not to say that many theists aren't good people, but the faith in an imaginary being definitely doesn't make people "good". I don't even believe in good people and bad people. I believe in brain chemistry, which is what decides whether or not someone commits good deeds and bad deeds.

 

So if a person happens to affiliate with a religion his or her morals can't be based on human decency nor can they treat people with kindness?

 

Notice, in my previous post, I said "MANY THEISTS"; not ALL theists. Of course they can treat people with kindness and act on human decency, but not all of them do that.

Also, notice the edit to my previous post, if you haven't already.

 

Ok but talking about those many theists then, and not all: is that a personal trait or is there a personal reason for that, or is that always to be blamed on the fact they are theists? After all, there are some immoral atheists too that treat other people like shit. Can people conclude in the same way that it's due to their atheistic mindset/affiliation? If you did not mean it like that (that it is not connected to their religion or faith) why did you post what you did then?

About the edit: I disagree. Such faith or the belief in God DOES make some people good. But it doesn't happen automatically or by default so it doesn't count for all people who belief in (a) God or gods. We agree about that I guess.

 

Of course there are many moral AND amoral/immoral atheists, just like their are many moral AND amoral/immoral theists, which just proves "god" doesn't make a person good. Many people have rocksolid faith in their god, whether they be Islamic, Christian, Jewish, etc.. As I said before, and based on simple logic, brain chemistry is what dictates whether a person is moral or amoral/immoral. Another way to look at is.........a person has no control over whether or not he or she is a violent schizophrenic, a violent, psychopath, or a violent sociopath. It all comes back to brain chemistry. That should be obvious to someone as intelligent as yourself.

I hope I'm explaining this properly. I'm not very good with words. haha

 

You make sense enough We just disagree. No, god doesn't make any person good. Some don't let It. The question of this thread was: Does God really make you good? Which I would answer myself with yes, god really makes me good. Now, you could react to this by saying yeah well, any theist would say that about themselves. With which you may have a point but I promise I was as objective as possible. God makes me good because I let It. I think God even made you, TNS, good, wether you have faith in god(s) or not.

 

lol We'll just have to agree to disagree, and I respect your opinion.

 

In a war; it is God that makes you good at it. If it is senseless violence then that's different; something self-centred makes you bad, something negative of Zarathustrs.

 

Whether or not a person is self-centered depends on brain chemistry. A person has no control over the thoughts and urges they have. For example, people have no control over whether they're homosexual or heterosexual, just like I have no control over the fact that I like so-called "ghetto booties". lol The same goes for psychopathy, sociopathy, etc.. Brain chemistry is the root of both individuality AND conformity. This is all very basic logic.

 

I've heard that discussion before. It seems that God was for a problem against problem against being Free. I have now the problem of freedom for God.

 

LOL @ god. Based on the bible, if the christian god was real, he'd deserve to burn in hell, because that would make him a mass-murder, he would condone rape, he would be a sexist in his assertion that men are more important than women and that women wouldn't even be allowed to speak in church, christians would have to murder atheists or anyone else who didn't believe in their god(the bible specifically includes killing your own family members for not believing in the christian god), and the list goes on.

In the bible, god even says it's okay to murder your children if they disobey/dishonor their parents, and that it's okay to sell your children into slavery. It says homosexuals should be murdered to, and the bible even forbits tattoos and wearing mixed fabrics. It even says that, if on his wedding night, if a man discovers that his wife isn't a virgin, then he has the right to murder her. According to the bible, god even sent two bears to slaughter 42 children.

If I believed in the christian god, I wouldn't lower myself to worship that piece of shit. He would be nothing more than a tyrannical, sexist, genocidal, vain, jealous piece of shit.

 

God doesn't make you anything.
Its what you make god.

God by definition is the irrefutable truth, assuming god is good would be to assume speculation as fact.

 

^
I respect you and I wish I could return the favor about your opinion but I can't really respect that post. I'm not even a christian but the fact I've seen you post shit like that for years makes me think you are quite the dogmatic atheist If we both agree that the bible is written by people, and not one but many, as it contains several books, you can probably also see that those stories you base your angry outlook on are just symbolic representations of god coming from very human interpretations of your fellow people that lived many centuries ago trying to make sense of and give order to the world. The bible is not literally the word of God. I think you know that. So are you just provoking like an angry teenager? If you are serious about the misunderstood christian god (which appears to be very different in the NT by the way, which is the only part that was written after Jesus Christ) condoning rape and putting people in eternal fire after they die aren't you interpreting the bible a bit too literally? Why piss people off deliberately? Because there are some evil christians that deserve that kind of behaviour? If so, aren't you lowering yourself to their level?

 

It seems many people choose to attack religion and/or God because they noticed some bad people that affiliate themselves with that religion or God. Why not diss or criticize those people instead. Aren't you doing the other people (and the positive ideology that came from them) that affiliate themselves with it some wrong?

Does it make you a bit angry already that there are people believing stuff you consider nonsense? If not why convict them as well when you criticize (or better said piss on and insult) a god you don't believe in. Yes you made a distinction in your earlier post on this page between morally sound and immoral theists. I wish you did that more consistently to the extent you don't regard God as evil just because some people projected some human attributes on It 2 millenia ago

 

First of all, the parts about women being inferior to men and women not being allowed to speak in church is from the New Testement.

Example: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1Timothy 2:11-12)
Example: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

The list goes on and on. And as for the OT and how SOOOO many christians say "we don't have to obey the OT)........in Matthew 5:17-18(NT), Jesus said the laws of all of the prophets, including those in the OT, which means that christians are supposed to obey the laws of the OT.

And here is Matthew 5:17-18:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

As for your point about the bible not being the literal word of god. Of course it's not, because god doesn't exist. If god did exist though, wouldn't you think he/she/it/whatever would make it a point that his religious text would be 100% literal, instead of a bunch of riddles that can be easily interpreted in countless ways and that he would make sure all of his/her/it's/whatever's so-call "children" know for a FACT that he/she/it/whatever exists, instead of letting it be written in such a contradictive way that causes war, conflict, and division? Also, if you're a christian, which I don't think you are, wouldn't taking the bible literally be the ONLY way to interpret your religious text?

Don't get me wrong........the bible is some good reading. Well, entertaining and funny, at least. lol

 

First of all, god is not human, It's god. So who knows what It thinks, I don't. Second: It is not his religious text. God transcends christianity. That's why I would answer that question with NO, the fact that god has not intervened when this book was written and published does not say jack shit about God, unless maybe that It does not intervenes like a parent. If there would be a god throwing lightning on people that waged war on eachother I would probably be more open for literal interpretation of the bible

What would the gift of free will mean if God would come and correct our 'evil' ways.

 

If the bible's not god's religious text, then why does EVERY christian/catholic refer to it as "the word of god"? Don't you think an omnipotent, omnipresent, loving god would WANT all of his "children" to know for a fact that he exists, instead of letting us kill/hate eachother in his name? Then we could at least KNOW that he's real, and then we could make an informed decision instead of playing a guessing game as to what the riddles(contradictions) in the bible lead us to do. Free-will would still be there, but at least people would know what they need to do, instead of everyone fighting over who loves/worships him correctly.

And I'm not denying that religion has helped give people strength to get through their hardships, because it has, but religion has caused MUCH more destruction, devastation, death/genocide/war, etc. than it has helped people, and only a very ignorant person would disagree with that. Even Bob Marley died because he wouldn't allow his doctor to amputate his foot to keep the cancer from spreading, and that was for religious reasons.

Anyway, I'm gonna play some GTA5. Peace, brudda.

 

That was for religious reasons? Give a second thought to his self-destructive mentality. He had no right to recreate his livelihood upon his good wealth. I guess I'm wrong. For me to be with the devil is a good idea now. Ambiguity meant well for the love of God existing through time; Godot, you know.

 

Wow! You've really been prolific since I checked this out last. I pretty much agree with Asmo's take on this. i realize there are lots of Christians who pretty much take the Bible literally, haven't thought about it much, and take what Preacher Bob tells them as gospel. Not all of us fall into that category, so your sweeping generalizations fall short of the mark.

Let's take them off the top:
First the part about the New Testament portraying women as inferior to men and not being allowed to speak in church. The citation you give (Timothy) is to a letter many reputable bible scholars believe is a forgery--somebody trying to claim the authority of Paul for a patriarchal viewpoint that was not Paul's. The citation from 1 Corinthians is from a letter generally accepted as Paul's but to a passage also probably a forgery, since it seems to be stuck in out of context. In the same letter, three chapters earlier, Paul urges women to pray and prophesy in church. So how then are they to be silent? Pantomime, maybe? Women held a position of prominence in the first century church and were among Paul's most valued collegues. But as Christianity attracted more men and also attracted the attention of pagan critics who complained that Christians couldn't control their women, some church fathers thought women needed to be reined in.

The passage in Matthew, which seems to be at variance with Paul's philosophy concerning the Law and may reflect the views of his principal rivals, James, the Jerusalem church, and Peter, is found only in Matthew.

As for your last point about thinking that God would make sure the bible is 100% literally true, I second Asmo on that. If God exists, (S)he is not a micromanager. Whatever God is, (S)he's not the Dude in the Sky. For humans to be trying to figure our what God would or should do is comparable to my dog trying to figure out whether I'm a supernatural omniscient omnipotentate or just the poor schmuck who brings him his dinner. Joseph Campbell says: "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought." I personally experience God as a felt presence of a Higher Power--begging the question whether God has objective existence or is just my subjective feeling. I'm betting on the former.