Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
An organisation claiming divine authority over everyone's soul for eternity, i.e. not only in this life. An organisation that issues a myriad of orders controlling every aspect of a person's life, right down to what they are allowed to eat, when they are allowed to eat, what they are allowed to wear...an organisation that even forbids people to have sex without its permission! An organisation that constantly seeks ever more power, with the goal of total rule of everything. An organisation that specifically targets children for indoctrination into obedience to it because their minds are more malleable.
It is ridiculous to say "as for controlling people I hardly think so" about any such organisation.
It is ridiculous to say "as for controlling people I hardly think so" about any such organisation.
You have just described Society.
Difference being one is based on a lie and one isn't. I'm the first to admit society, politics and democracy in general is far from perfect. However the lie's that are at the heart of religion are not the correct basis on which to control civilization.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
LOL.
Peter Hitchens used to be aligned philosophically and politically with his brother. It was only when Christopher started getting big, and Peter started getting annoyed by being introduced as "Christopher Hitchens' brother" that he suddenly had a change of heart and decided to become the antithesis of his sibling.
Peter Hitchens came to God because he was jealous of his brother outshining him.
I agree as I've said already that minimising harm done is a good thing.
Your definition seems to only be geared towards a 'rich developed society'. Would you expect something different in a 'poor undeveloped society'? In other words, do you think acting in self-interest to limit harm done is always good regardless of societal differences?
In fact, I'm not sure that minimising harm done based on self-interest makes sense. If self-interest is purely the main goal then that could well be at the expense of others. "Consideration of others" and "self interest" sound to me to be rather conflicting.
Self-interest may be good for society as you mention but I don't see anything that obligates me to conform?
Theists believe that the basis for objective morality is in a transcendent being. I think morality is understood by people but not created by them. We are talking here about a basis for morality, not how we come to understand them.
In some of the older Hitchens vs Hitchens debates you can really see Peters didain for his brother showing itself, awkward at times!
I definitely get the same impression of Peter as you.
Being able to stay in and therefore enjoy the fruits of said society should be more than enough reason to conform. Shunning and exclusion are some pretty powerful punishments to avoid. Therefore it is in your best interest to be considerate of others or you end up outside of the social group.
Yet the difference in execution is negligible if at all existent. God didn't leave a blueprint for objective morality so you have to guess what is and isn't wrong.
God seems to be pretty irrelevant in practice.
God is a word that has been used for so long that people use it without really having a set definition, for some it's the "unexplained energy" for others it's an old bearded wise old man.
Even though "official" God definition does exist it most certainly does not satisfy everyone's view of God.
To answer the question you'd have to look at what God means to each individual. For some Christians salvation can be only met with acceptance of faith, others may say that no need for belief is needed just be good person and go will judge you in the heavens, I even met people who believe men is not capable of redemption and is destined to hell no matter how good.
Non-material things don't have a set answer, it's always, you personal opinion and interpretation and you can't be wrong, oh people will say you're wrong and their faith is "right-er" but it all comes down to opinions.
Edit: As for "can you believe in God without religion" Sure you can but all we know about supposed "God" is through religion. You can believe in "God" but what is it? Who is he, what is it, how is it, why is it, is is it? Without religion God does not seem to have any context, unless of course you make up the context for yourself based on your views and opinions. So yes you can believe in God without religions and many do.
Last edited:
But that is only your opinion that they are lies...that doesn't make that truth. And societies are often founded on fallacies and false premises. Also not all societies are democratic, in fact very few are democratic and even those that are often find that their democracy is a screen to protect the ruling classes. If you knew anything about history at all you would know that religion has opposed such draconian societies more often than not, it has acted as a barrier against oppression and genocide, not always successfully and not always in the beginning, but often they form the support and ground roots of any resistance. Also what are outwardly democratic and secular states are often not a lot different to theocracies themselves, the United States for example, and also the United Kingdom, one is stated secular with a constitutional separation of church and state, the other has an established church with sitting bishops in the legislature...which would you regard as the country which is the more religious and where religion has more influence on the political and legislative not top mention the social aspects of their respective societies?
Things are not as clear cut as saying Religion is bad, we would be better off banning it, that would as bad as giving religion carte blanche to form governments.
The ability or desire to stay and enjoy in a society is in no way anywhere close to being a moral obligation.
There are many theists who believe God has left a blueprint for moral values and duties. I still haven't heard any plausible suggestions for what really can be a solid foundation for moral duties.
Do you really believe that you have to guess what is right and wrong?
Read "The Rage Against God" where he explains his own reasons for his return to Christianity rather than your reasons why he did. Ironically even it was in response to his brother, he still made a rational and evidenced conviction for his beliefs.
On a more light hearted note, the thing that always sticks with me about both brothers is that they seem to hate everyone and everything at one time or another.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
With this in mind, have a listen to the latest Atheist Experience show, episode 795.
Caller calls in claiming God had moral authority,
"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you'" “If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God. If I let someone rape a little girl people would think I was a monster”
Showing God up to be Evil, how does the Christian respond?
“First of all, you portray that little girl as someone who’s innocent, she’s just as evil as you,” the caller shot back.
It takes religion to twist a mind so much that he can justify the rape of a child to himself.
http://s.tt/1y7S2
With this in mind, have a listen to the latest Atheist Experience show, episode 795.
Caller calls in claiming God had moral authority,
"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you'" “If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God. If I let someone rape a little girl people would think I was a monster”
Showing God up to be Evil, how does the Christian respond?
“First of all, you portray that little girl as someone who’s innocent, she’s just as evil as you,” the caller shot back.
It takes religion to twist a mind so much that he can justify the rape of a child to himself.
http://s.tt/1y7S2
...Seriously? Fancy commenting on his argument, rather than set up a straw man?
What argument?, its simply a soundbite, one which I have answered a dozen times in this thread. Politics is what makes otherwise good people do evil things, be it in secular or religious social contexts. When you politicise something you make it vulnerable to those seeking personal power.
As for the actual strawman that isn't, I simply find it strange that a man who makes such a statement can on the other hand be so vehemently in support of an ideologically religious state, especially with regard to the part about "good men doing evil things", which applies to Zionism if it applies to anything. In my opinion Israel should have been a secular state from the beginning, I would have thought someone with Dr Weinstein's view would have been similar, I find it strange that it is not.
Crikey Naffa, I thought the point was blatantly obvious. I don't mean to be critical because I generally respect your views as being well thought out albeit generally not consistent with my own, but in some of the thread your objectivity seems askew.
Last edited:
No. Just no. A person who commits evil is not a good person to start with. And anyway, there are numerous rapes, murders ect committed by (using your logic) "good men". So please try harder with that one.
In regards to your second argument, again, that's stupid. If God intervened every time someone was about to commit an evil act, then free will would simply not exist. We would be mere robots that moved when God pulled the strings. The man on the radio also claims to have some kind of moral high ground. He says: "God sends child rapists" - whom is he to say such an act is truly wrong? What also gives him the idea that he is superior to this rapist, when I'm sure that if we weighed his heart too, he would just be as guilty?