Live For the moment

DinoBot

Hi,

I know this topic must have been discussed before but recently a friend of mine has been stuck on a one line answer for atheism:

"I challenge anyone who does not believe in God to live as if there is no god"

He is implying that the only reason people are good is because they believe in god, even if they say they dont :rolleyes: He says because I was born christian I still have god in me (.....I feel like I need an exorcism)

Its really pissing me off!! I have tried countless times to discuss this out with him but its a real mental blocker for him. So I need some fresh ideas on how to approach this.

So what makes you good ? why do good things ? Do you think you will be held accountable for your actions ?

Scofflaw

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this the other day, apropos of being asked on yet another Christianity thread why atheists get up in the morning. Unfortunately, my answer may not be useful, because it sounds either pretentious, sentimental, or just plain loopy...

Basically, I love life. My life so far has been one long affair with this marvellous planet - which I suppose is the main object of my affections.

Why on earth wouldn't I get up in the morning for that?

Now, what follows from that is kind of interesting. Like all relationships with someone you love, you want:

1.to do well by them
2. to make their lives better
3. to act honourably towards them
4. to have them love you in return, think well of you, etc
5. to feel that you are worthy of them

and so on. There's an option, obviously, for me to have an abusive relationship with the world, but the pleasures of an abusive relationship don't appeal to me as much.

So, I'm moral partly because my love of life in general applies in part to every living thing, so that:

1. I wish to do well by them
2. and make their lives better
3. and act honourably towards them
4. they think well of me in return

and most importantly

5. so that I can continue to think of myself as someone whom it is worth the world loving.

Does that make sense? It's almost cheeky, though, since you can summarise it as "I so love the world that I am giving it my only life"...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Does that make sense?

Very much so.

Zombrex

DinoBot wrote:

Hi,

I know this topic must have been discussed before but recently a friend of mine has been stuck on a one line answer for atheism:

"I challenge anyone who does not believe in God to live as if there is no god"

He is implying that the only reason people are good is because they believe in god, even if they say they dont :rolleyes: He says because I was born christian I still have god in me (.....I feel like I need an exorcism)

Its really pissing me off!! I have tried countless times to discuss this out with him but its a real mental blocker for him. So I need some fresh ideas on how to approach this.

So what makes you good ? why do good things ? Do you think you will be held accountable for your actions ?

Tell him you find it morally disgusting that the only reason he is a good person is because he fears what God will do to him in heaven, and that if there was no God he would be out murdering or raping people with no bad feelings or remorse. Tell him that this means he has no personal sense of morality based on his own sense of right and wrong, and that everything he does is motivated out of self interest to with avoid the wrath of God, or to reap the rewards from God of worship.

As Dawkins notes in the God Delusion that is what is known as a "conversation stopper".

If he says that this is true, he only does good things because he wants either reward or to be saved from punishment, then he admits to basically being an immoral person, motivated to do moral things simply out of self interest.

If on the other hand he says that that isn't true, that even if he didn't fear God, or was even aware of religion, he would still be a moral person then his sense of morality must come from somewhere different to the teaching of his religion. Without these teachings he would still have a sense of morality, which makes the claim that morality comes from a belief in God or the teachings of his religion to be nonsense.

Hopefully that will shut him up

Zillah

Yup, Wicknight hits the nail on the head.

Morality != terrified obedience. It is a grossly immoral position to behave "good" merely out of fear of punishment or promise of reward.

Importantly though you must propose the alternative. Luckily for you there is a very clear alternative. The beginings of human-like morality has been observed in several primate species, while they have nothing even resembling religion ([url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902cc81da9173&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss]Link[/url]). Hence, it would appear that we gained a sense of morality long before religion developed, which would mean that religion is essentially usurping a natural aspect of the human condition by claiming you need God to be moral.

And morality has a very clear evolutionary basis. "Good" behaviour causes you to survive better; You gain allies and a currency of favours and goodwill. "Evil" behaviour is the kind of behaviour that results in one becoming a social outcaste. Hence why humans all over the world share a very similar moral system regardless of cultural context.

5uspect

Sure, but take Scofflaws post and insert love of God instead of love of life the universe and everything. Most religious types I think share in that idea, they just call it god. Of course then you get the fan club that is organised religion and its no fun anymore.

Dave!

Yeah use Wicknight's argument, it works a treat.

Also point out to your mate that evolutionarily it has been in our interest to be moral and kind to other people. Reciprocal kindness ensures our survival so that we can go on and procreate. An example: there is gold stuck under a big rock. You aren't strong enough on your own to lift the rock. If you can't move the rock then you get no gold; but if you enlist the help of another person, then you'll get half the gold and he'll get half the gold. It's better than nothing, isn't it!
A good way of putting it (that I just lifted from the God Delusion), is: The hunter needs a spear and the smith wants meat.

Also point out that natural selection favours those who have a good reputation. If you have a reputation as someone who is kind, gives money to the poor, doesn't renege on deals, etc., then it's more likely that someone will loan you money, than if you are mean, never give out a penny, and always try to rob people. It's in our long-term interest to act kind.

Also point out to your friend that there has been studies carried out by for example Marc Hauser, which demonstrate that atheists and theists show no significant difference when presented with moral dilemmas. This experiment was carried out on the internet and then to corroborate their findings, they presented the Kuna, a central american tribe with no formal religion, with the same conundrum (only adjusted to suit them since they don't drive cars, etc). The findings were the same. It's been described as a 'moral grammar', like language, that we are born with the capacity for.

So religion has no bearing on our morality (as has been shown), and those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves. And the morality we possess can be explained (like most things) by evolutionary means.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Tell him you find it morally disgusting that the only reason he is a good person is because he fears what God will do to him in heaven, and that if there was no God he would be out murdering or raping people with no bad feelings or remorse. Tell him that this means he has no personal sense of morality based on his own sense of right and wrong, and that everything he does is motivated out of self interest to with avoid the wrath of God, or to reap the rewards from God of worship.

As Dawkins notes in the God Delusion that is what is known as a "conversation stopper".

If he says that this is true, he only does good things because he wants either reward or to be saved from punishment, then he admits to basically being an immoral person, motivated to do moral things simply out of self interest.

If on the other hand he says that that isn't true, that even if he didn't fear God, or was even aware of religion, he would still be a moral person then his sense of morality must come from somewhere different to the teaching of his religion. Without these teachings he would still have a sense of morality, which makes the claim that morality comes from a belief in God or the teachings of his religion to be nonsense.

Hopefully that will shut him up

The best way to put that one is "are you saying that if it wasn't for God, you'd just spend your time killing and raping?". Make it personal, make it immediate, and best of all, do it in company.

If you start with the 'morally disgusting' bit, you've already warned him with a general statement, and by the time you're applying it to him personally, he's already geared up...

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

and best of all, do it in company.

What happened to caring sharing atheists?
Are altarists really just nasty atheists?:)

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

What happened to caring sharing atheists?
Are altarists really just nasty atheists?:)

But I'm improving people's lives here! Also, of course, if you're going to be nasty, I'd hate to see it being ineffective...

lovingly,
Scofflaw

pH

DinoBot wrote:

"I challenge anyone who does not believe in God to live as if there is no god"

He is implying that the only reason people are good is because they believe in god, even if they say they dont :rolleyes: He says because I was born christian I still have god in me (.....I feel like I need an exorcism)

Presuming that your friend is Christian ... how about responding with:
"I challenge anyone who believes in God to live as if there is a God"

Offer him this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

and then get him to read the bible

"Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God"

"If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

"Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

I don't believe in God, but if I did, and really believed that this piddling 70ish years on this planet was a test for *eternity* I'd own nothing, spend many hours a day worshipping this "God".

It's total hypocrisy and bull**** of the highest order that someone in a rich country today says they believe in God. It's a projection of their selfishness beyond the grave ... they want everything down here on earth and truly believe that they're entitled to a hereafter as well. Look around modern Ireland and if you can find a handful of people truly acting as if this stay on earth is a test for eternity then I'd be amazed.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Presuming that your friend is Christian ... how about responding with:
"I challenge anyone who believes in God to live as if there is a God"

Offer him this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

and then get him to read the bible

"Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God"

"If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

"Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

I don't believe in God, but if I did, and really believed that this piddling 70ish years on this planet was a test for *eternity* I'd own nothing, spend many hours a day worshipping this "God".

See now, that's really harsh. Asking people to live up to what they say they believe in...

shocked,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

lovingly,
Scofflaw

First time I have seen that one:)

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Does that make sense? It's almost cheeky, though, since you can summarise it as "I so love the world that I am giving it my only life"...

That nicely catches the idea that religion projects our own aspirations onto the 'God' figure.

I don't have much to add to the useful posts above. I'd just add that thought that your friend probably takes it that God is good. Does that mean that whatever God wants is automatically good? If God says, 'go out there and kill Hittites to your heart's content' is killing Hittites therefore a good thing? Its just a worthwhile consideration when you consider what can be justified on grounds that its God's will - the Spanish Inquisition, for the sake of argument.

Fallen Seraph

If I look around I see people acting like myself, feeling emotions like myself and generally being of the same species as myself. From this I make the inference that they are human just like me. I find myself unable to formulate a reasonable and rigorous arguement as to why I'm fundamentally better or worse than any of them, and using the assumption that they're all humans like myself I infer that this holds (or should hold) for the rest of them. And so I conclude that I have no right to do to them anything I would not have done to myself.

Thus an axiomatic, god-free, line of thinking to "do unto others". You need no god, just an empathy organ.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

That nicely catches the idea that religion projects our own aspirations onto the 'God' figure.

It's part of what I was thinking. No single explanation of religion is going to cover all theists, but, yes, I think some may project their love through God (perhaps because they feel personally unworthy), some may project their love on God (because they want something personified to express their love for), and others yet want the guarantee of being loved that Christianity 'provides'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DinoBot

Thanks guys that gave me some good ideas to work with.

When I asked him the question:

"are you saying that if it wasn't for God, you'd just spend your time killing and raping?".

His answer was yes :eek:

see what Im dealing with, he is so determined to have his worldview reinforced he will say anything.

Scofflaw

DinoBot wrote:

Thanks guys that gave me some good ideas to work with.

When I asked him the question:

"are you saying that if it wasn't for God, you'd just spend your time killing and raping?".

His answer was yes :eek:

see what Im dealing with, he is so determined to have his worldview reinforced he will say anything.

We've regularly got the same result from wolfsbane - that's why I tend to go for a positive approach rather than this one.

To be fair, your friend may well actually believe what he is saying. As far as I can see, wolfsbane is also entirely sincere about it.

How does he account for the fact that the non-Christian rest of the planet don't do any more killing and raping than the Christian bits? Unless of course he simply believes they do...which would mean you'll be subjected to "blah Stalin blah Pol Pot blah"...

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

DinoBot wrote:

When I asked him the question:

"are you saying that if it wasn't for God, you'd just spend your time killing and raping?".

His answer was yes :eek:

Hah! I love it. Hence the near-futility of arguing with such people. Head, wall and banging against.

magicbastarder

Wicknight wrote:

Tell him you find it morally disgusting that the only reason he is a good person is because he fears what God will do to him

even if he was right about his motives, the 'morally disgusting' judgement is hysterical.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

even if he was right about his motives, the 'morally disgusting' judgement is hysterical.

You don't think that wanting to rape and murder people is morally disgusting?

magicbastarder

i do think that wanting to rape and murder is morally disgusting. however, that's got nothing to do with the point i made.

Crucifix

magicbastarder wrote:

i do think that wanting to rape and murder is morally disgusting. however, that's got nothing to do with the point i made.

Could you elucidate your point; I can't see what you were trying to say.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

i do think that wanting to rape and murder is morally disgusting. however, that's got nothing to do with the point i made.

I'm not following. As Crucifix asked, can you expand on your point?

As far as I can tell your point was that it was a hysterical over reaction to state that it is morally disgusting that a person would want to rape and murder people if God was not there to punish them for doing so.

But you agree that a person who wants to rape and murder people is morally disgusting.

So the question is what is the difference?

magicbastarder

i never said it wasn't morally disgusting to want to commit rape; i said it wasn't morally disgusting to be a good person through fear. please stop putting words in my mouth.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

Tell them it's morally disgusting that the only reason they're being good is that they fear god....

You know whats so good about this argument? It's outlines very simply the inability of christians to think for themselves. Everything that we think we religon does for us for just vanishes when you realise that religon is just a cult, a delusion of belonging to something which protects you. The weaker the mind, or indeed greater the minds capacity to compartmentalize, then the more of a stronghold that religon has upon you. In this sense 'religon truly is the opium of the people'. And just like a drug, people who take it know they have a problem, but they prefer the ignorance and blindness of being strung out than the cold bleak reality of having to achieve something meaniful while they're alive without relying on invisible forces to bring that meaning to them. As dawkins says so often: waiting for death, to see meaning or beauty in life, is pathetic and cowardly, it is the position of those afriad to live, afraid of abandoning superstitions because their hearts are so weak and plauged with insecurities that their minds are filled with fears, the same fears that the very first people who looked at the sky and imagined a god felt.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

i said it wasn't morally disgusting to be a good person through fear.

What does that mean?

Say you have a woman walking home at night. She notices that she is being followed by a man. She doesn't know at this stage but the man is thinking about raping her. Concerned that she thinks she is being followed she turns into a crowded area full of other people. The man realises this and gives up on her since he is fearful that if he raped her he would end up getting caught.

Are you saying that this man is a good person because he didn't rape the woman because of fear that he would be caught and sent to prison?

magicbastarder

no, i'm not saying that. not commiting rape is not my definition of a good person.
what i'm saying that being good through fear is a morally neutral position; and this 'not being a good person' being equated with crimes like rape is a tad alarmist.

magicbastarder

actually, what may be confusing the issue here is what you mean by good or bad - whether good is an absence of bad, bad is an absence of good, or whether they can exist independently.

stevejazzx

magicbastarder wrote:

i said it wasn't morally disgusting to be a good person through fear.

People can be moralisitic without religon and fear. It has been proven. There are hundreds and thoudands of godless peolpe going about their dailty lives morally as we speak whose reason for being good is very very simple, it's makes their lives easier. It prolongs life and is more logical in a society which is able to cater to our needs. Religon as a control is long past it's sell by date.

magicbastarder

stevejazzx wrote:

There are hundreds and thoudands of godless peolpe going about their dailty lives morally as we speak whose reason for being good is very very simple, it's makes their lives easier.

so they're only good through pure self-interest? isn't that as bad as being good through fear?

stevejazzx

magicbastarder wrote:

so they're only good through pure self-interest? isn't that as bad as being good through fear?

You miss the point, being good through fear implies that you have a wish on some level not to be 'good'. Being good because it's more socially advantageuos does not imply any repressed notion of wanting to be 'bad'. In fact being good out of some sort evolutionary mindset infers that humans have become use to being good and are therfore less likley to change that midset quickly.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

what i'm saying that being good through fear is a morally neutral position; and this 'not being a good person' being equated with crimes like rape is a tad alarmist.

That is actually my point, albeit in a bit of a round about way.

I assume when you say "good" you are talking about things like giving to charity, helping little old ladies across the road, volunteering at a shelter.

But these are only defined as "good" because we have already established standards of good and bad.

- Raping someone is bad.
- Not raping someone is the default neutral position.
- Helping rape victims or giving to a rape assistance charity is good.

Most people fall into the 2nd group. They might not go out of their way to help rape victims, but at the same time they don't want to be running around raping people.

But the fact that these standards are already define is kinda the whole point.

They aren't defined by a religion.

We don't all want to rape people, even those that are atheists or have no experience of Christian religion. In the absence of religion morality is still pretty much the same. We have our own internal standards of morality. Religious morality reflects this, not the other way around.

I don't think the OPs friend actually is morally disgusting. He probably doesn't want to rape or murder people, irrespective of punishment from God. But that is actually the whole point. His morality doesn't come from religion, it comes from his own sense of morality. The point of the morally disgusting comment was to try and make him realise that the it would actually be morally disgusting if he did want to rape people and didn't because of God.

If he doesn't want to help rape victims he won't help rape victims, and will probably find a justification in the Bible some where. If he does want to help rape victims he will help rape victims, and will probably delude himself that God is inspiring him to do this, despite the fact he would be doing it anyway.

pinksoir

magicbastarder wrote:

so they're only good through pure self-interest? isn't that as bad as being good through fear?

it's not quite that clear cut. certainly from an evolutionary piint of view that's the case, but humans are far too complex to meritsuch a black and white position. to paraphrase dawkins, we have evolved so that we have a lust to do good by people in teh same way that we have a lust for sex. we don't just have sex to procreate but also for pleasure. likewise with doing good.

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

no, i'm not saying that. not commiting rape is not my definition of a good person.
what i'm saying that being good through fear is a morally neutral position; and this 'not being a good person' being equated with crimes like rape is a tad alarmist.

Being good through fear only means something if you would otherwise be bad.

If you wouldn't otherwise commit rape/murder/theft etc even without the fear of God then you're not "good through fear".

So, to be good through fear means you want to rape/murder/thieve, but are restrained only by the fear of punishment.

If you're sitting opposite someone who would like to kill/rape/steal from you, and is only restrained by fear (say, of your gun), do you consider that "morally neutral"?

Are you not sitting opposite a bad person who is only being prevented from doing harm through fear of punishment?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [stevejazzx] There are hundreds of thousands of godless people going about their daily
> lives morally as we speak whose reason for being good is very very simple,
> it's makes their lives easier.

There are millions of us, not hundreds of thousands

And primates other than humans have observed to have a similar social code to our good selves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days. [...] Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape. These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality.

I'd be interested to hear a religious explanation for why this behavior happens?

magicbastarder

Scofflaw wrote:

If you're sitting opposite someone who would like to kill/rape/steal from you, and is only restrained by fear (say, of your gun), do you consider that "morally neutral"?

Are you not sitting opposite a bad person who is only being prevented from doing harm through fear of punishment?

again, it comes down to definitions.
i would regard someone who sincerely wants to kill me as being a bad person, regardless of their motives to carry or not carry out the wish. so they cannot be a good person, irrespective of what fear is telling them to do.
in a way, my definition is pre-empting the entire argument.

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

again, it comes down to definitions.
i would regard someone who sincerely wants to kill me as being a bad person, regardless of their motives to carry or not carry out the wish. so they cannot be a good person, irrespective of what fear is telling them to do.
in a way, my definition is pre-empting the entire argument.

Exactly. So someone who only doesn't kill you out of fear is not morally neutral.

If the OP's friend is telling the truth, then he is not morally neutral (he may not wish to kill you specifically, but that's just personal preference on his part). If, on the other hand, he doesn't really want to kill people, then he's lying for the sake of argument - I note in passing that fear of God doesn't prevent him doing so, either!


cordially,
Scofflaw

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote:

i would regard someone who sincerely wants to kill me as being a bad person

however, the ghost of richard pryor comes whispering to mind - that killing me would be a bad thing, but that doesn't mean i mightn't have deserved it...

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

so they're only good through pure self-interest? isn't that as bad as being good through fear?

Depends on what you mean by "self-interest"

Doing moral things makes us feel good. There is a biological, evolutionary, reason for this. But because our higher brain functions and emotions develop fast in evolutionary terms we have kinda risen above the original purpose of these systems.

For example there is a evolutionary reason why a mother or father will risk death for their children. We are instinctively set up that way. But this system is analog, not digital. It can "miss fire" and be applied to children in general. It makes little evolutionary sense for a person to risk death to save a child who is a stranger. But humans still do this because of the systems in our heads that were set up to make us do this for our own children.

We feel compelled to act even though this isn't actually what evolution had in mind for this system of compulsion.

It is a bit of a jump, but think of it in terms of masturbation. Evolution has spend a lot of time setting up our brains so that we want to have sex. But these systems are not specific. We can masturbate and produce the same biological response in our brains that is actually designed for us to have sex. There is no biological necessity to masturbate, it is a miss firing of the evolutionary systems designed to make us want to have sex.

Our morality works in a similar way. There are clear evolutionary reasons why we do certain things (protect our children, or the children of the tribe) for example, but these systems can be used in ways that aren't the primary purpose (protect a stranger's children).

The evolution of human morality is actually a fascinating subject. It explains far better how people actually act in reality than the nonsense idea that some sky God decided how we would be and what is or is not moral.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

i would regard someone who sincerely wants to kill me as being a bad person, regardless of their motives to carry or not carry out the wish. so they cannot be a good person, irrespective of what fear is telling them to do.

That is actually the whole point.

Religion teaches that we are all bad people and the only reason we don't do bad things is because of the morality given to us by God. This is why a surprising number of theists are sincere when they say that if you remove religious teaching we will all revert back to our immoral dangerous selves.

I hope you see that this isn't true. Moral people can exists without religion stopping us from being all bad.

magicbastarder

Scofflaw wrote:

Exactly. So someone who only doesn't kill you out of fear is not morally neutral.

you cannot be good simply through fear; you're either good or not, and what we're arguing is what is stopping you from carrying out your actions.
someone who claims they're good through fear, and that without that fear, they would head off on a pillaging expedition was obviously lying about being good.
as i said, somewhat pre-emptive of the original argument.

re my question about being good through self interest, the question was intended as rhetorical; i was just pointing out that there are a few different reasons people can use for being good. let's not argue over whose goodness is purer than everyone else's. it can be mean spirited; i've seen it used to belittle actions of people acting under a religious umbrella.

magicbastarder

Wicknight wrote:

Religion teaches that we are all bad people and the only reason we don't do bad things is because of the morality given to us by God.

oh, i find the "you're good because of the influence of god" argument to be facile and patronising (and ignorant of free will god supposedly gave us).
i just found the notion of using the phrase "morally repugnant" against someone who genuinely believes their good acts stem from god to be, well, morally repugnant.

stevejazzx

magicbastarder wrote:

.

re my question about being good through self interest, the question was intended as rhetorical; i was just pointing out that there are a few different reasons people can use for being good.

It's not necessarily just self interest. Being good as an evolutionary advantge has now become the instinct of being good for moral imperative.
You see even the idea of being good has evolved because the general situation of humans has eased. It is possible that if envoiromental conditions were to alter drastically people could become more clinical but I seriously doubt a complete refromation and they suddenly become evil. There is only room in the logical mind for slight transgressions either way, impossible to shrug off the memories of all those years taking the moral highground. The human condition is now irreconcilible as one that is (genetically) predisposed with goodness

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

oh, i find the "you're good because of the influence of god" argument to be facile and patronising (and ignorant of free will god supposedly gave us).
i just found the notion of using the phrase "morally repugnant" against someone who genuinely believes their good acts stem from god to be, well, morally repugnant.

well it was "morally disgusting" actually

But the purpose of saying that to them was that they deep down probably already agree that it is actually morally disgusting themselves. The point is to get them to seriously consider their original assertion. That is why it is called a "conversation stopper"

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

oh, i find the "you're good because of the influence of god" argument to be facile and patronising (and ignorant of free will god supposedly gave us).
i just found the notion of using the phrase "morally repugnant" against someone who genuinely believes their good acts stem from god to be, well, morally repugnant.

Well, yes, but no-one suggested that. It was specifically the argument that people are good through fear of God that was 'morally disgusting'.

If you wish to claim that people are good through 'love of God', or 'inspired by God', or due to a 'spark of divinity within', that's a different argument.

cordially,
Scofflaw