How god would agree with all a person's prejudices.

and sects of religions? Isn't that so people can find the god that fits most closely with their internal morality?

I also think that people get their morality from their family first, so they tend to feel as if their family's religion fits with their own beliefs...because they were raised that way. Later on, friends can also influence them, but they will still have that religious belief that they were raised with unless they really spend time thinking about it.

Don't kick yourself for taking so long to see through it all. Instead, rejoice that you did at all. Many don't ever question.

Shopping for a religion is just more example of matching your god-story to your own morality. If you wanted "the truth", you wouldn't look for "the truth that sounds just about right to me". Would you?

Well, you probably wouldn't.

People are amusing creatures.

to becoming an atheist. Some people do get there quicker, but if you are not ready to confront the discrepancies in religion, you will not be receptive to the arguments (check out the Religion group for example). I have found that the best I can do is be openly atheistic, and let people who know me see that atheists are not horrible people. But even though many people are interested in "why" I am an atheist, they are not ready to leave their faith. But you never know who starts to think about it...and that is the first step.

I had three people in my life who I really admired who were open about their atheism, and it really made a difference.

A huge ego driven scam.

Where do these morals come from in the first place? If you and your god have the same morals, that means, you two can implement the same morals independently. And that means that you got the morals from a source and the god got the morals from a source: It was independent processes.

Now, let's say you get one kind of morals and the god gets another kind of morals. Which ones are the correct ones?
A god is clearly superior to you in every aspect. Accordingly, his morals are also superior to yours. Accordingly, his morals are correct and your's are incorrect.

1) the existence of god or gods
2) the existences of that god or gods' moralities
3) that god or gods' "superiority".

what I am talking about is not god, but the story about god that people tell themselves in their heads (which may or may not be shaped by other peoples' stories). Those stories definitely exist for a lot of people.

So, if you agree with the morality of the stories you tell yourself, then you really don't need a god. If you disagree with them, then you are taught to _assume_ your own morality is inferior - but on what basis? If your stories feature a morality that is greater than your own, then isn't that a morality that you can conceive of - and therefore, is your own morality? In other words, the greatest morality that you can conceive of or imagine is actually the truest version of your own morality.

1. For a believer, the existence of a god is a fact. No need for evidence.
2. The god communicates with believers and therefore directly or indirectly lays out his morals.
3. "Superiority" is the very definition of a god.



If you start your reasoning with the premise that the god exists only in the head of the believer then it's no wonder that you come to the conclusion that this god is not real. (Asserting that the god is not in the head of the believer but inside the story inside the head of the believer won't help you.)

"God's ways are past finding out." You don't have to understand or share God's morality to obey it. Just believe and do as you are told.

For example: The Bible outlaws eating pork, yet gives no explanation why. Apparently, God just hates pigs. You don't have to understand that. Just don't eat pork.

For example: Your desire to have sex is actually a doctrine of your genetic code to copy and mutate itself and spread itself far and wide for survival. You don't have to understand and you might even not be aware of it. You just do it.




"Not knowing" is one of the pillars of belief. If you know that this book is red, you can no longer belief that this book is red.

I once had an interesting discussion how proving the existence of God would wipe out organized religion: There would be no more need for convincing people. Everybody would come to the same conclusion on his own anyways.

There is zero evidence for any other premise

You start with the premise that God doesn't exist and arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Come on.

Really?

Really really?

You think this is how proofs work?



How about you start your proof with the premise that God maybe exists or maybe not. And let's see to which conclusion your argument leads you this time. I eagerly await your reasoning.

my little bit of thought was not presented as a formal proof, but rather a couple of thoughts as to the the need for the idea of a god in order to have morals.

If you think your morals are the same as some imagined god, then you don't need that imagined god to supply you with morals.

If you don't think your morals are the same as some imagined god, then the only measure you have to see which is the more correct set of moral is, again, your own moral sense. You can accept some dictate from authority that demands that the imagined god as better morals than you, but that isn't the same as judging the two sets of morals.

As to the actual existence of an actual god or gods, I'm making no claim.

I'm just saying that one doesn't need one of our thought-construct human religious "gods" to provide one's morals. They are, in fact, superfluous.

It was created within the scope of your knowledge and fantasy. You create it, outfit it with morals, and then decide to follow these morals. Of course this doesn't make sense, you are correct in that respect.

But the question is whether believers are aware that they created the very god they believe in. If they are unaware of the connection, it is understandable to believe that believer and god are two separate entities.

And as I said: Being superior to you is the very definition of "god". He always has better morals than you.

It doesn't matter whose stories are used to exemplify the god's morality.

"Being superior to you is the very definition of "god". He always has better morals than you."

I defy you to prove either of those statements.

while I don't. He also thinks genocide and child sacrifice are ok, while I don't.

while you might say that this "god" actually exists outside of people's imaginations, and therefore has a priori better morals than I do. But I don't think so. I think that preferring that no one is enslaved is more moral than slavery. And I don't need a the idea of a god, or an imagined set of godly morals, to tell me that.

I could offer examples where the Abrahamic god falls very short in the morality department. If real, I have *no* doubt that I am deeply more moral than he.

without that assumption his gotcha falls apart.

that whole Euthyphro dialogue just went over my head in college, and still does. I can read and read about it, but still end up with a general "huh?"

I don't think we need to get into deep philosophical discussions about whether god exists or not. To me, it's pretty easy to see that there is no god when one reviews the whole of science.

One of the simplest things to me is the basic argument that not all religions can be right, so it's a short step to assume that they are all wrong.

I guess I'm just a simple-minded guy.

All religions can't be right, so that means that most of them are wrong. So......which one is the right one???? It does become obvious when you get to that point.

I'm always suspicious when religious believers try to drag me into "deep philosophical discussions about whether god exists or not."

When they do that, they usually want us to ignore the plain evidence - no Pillars Of Fire or resurrections or half-god babies born in the last few thousand years, and no real evidence for their god. But if they can drag us from the "real" to the "philosophical," they can play a never-ending What-If game where anything is possible.

And no wonder Plato is their favorite philosopher. Much of his fantastical bullshit is equal to Xianity's fantastical bullshit.

I like this review of Plato's "Republic." Simon Blackburn wrote it for The Guardian in 2006: