Does a god exist?

1. Everything in our universe must be caused
2. The universe is moving cause it was moved
3. Something outside our universe must have set it in motion.
4. That unmoved mover is named God.

>Everything in our universe must be caused
What causes a particular radioactive nucleus to decay at a particular moment, as opposed to its otherwise identical neighbor that decays millions of years later? Be specific.

>Everything in our universe must be caused

[CITATION NEEDED]

>more terrible logic from Christians

they never get bored of it apparently

the repeating digits god has spoken

Christians btfo

The way reason, or our sense causality, a seemingly function of the mind being so ingrained within the physical laws, it's hard not to think all of this takes place within the "mind" of God.

I like to think of God as the idea of causality itself which by definition must contain everything that exists.(obviously it would take place in an eternalist perspective that does not have to worry about: well what caused causality?)

Now these are the kind of platitudes any good religion thrives on. Top post, user.

1. & 3. False premisses
2. & 4. Non sequturs

Also, you've now put God outside of the universe.

>hurr if we don't know the answer yet, there is no answer
Guess there wasn't any such thing as gravity before Newton figured it out.

>Christian logic
you massive fucking plebien. That is Aristotle (the inventor of logic)'s unmoved mover syllogism.

you should definitely kill yourself.

Of course God is outside the Universe. As the creator, he would have to be outside the universe. You can't cause the universe while being inside it.

I'm surrounded by enlightened retards.

>>hurr if we don't know the answer yet, there is no answer
If there was a hidden trigger, we would know about it because the math wouldn't work out as perfect randomness. Before Newton, we may not have understood Gravity as a force, but we could observe its effect in the motion of objects. We very directly do not see any variation in decay rates that would be expected for some external trigger, and the physics themselves predict there being no trigger.

I'm confidant whenever a radioactive nucleus decays, there is some causal mechanism that causes it, even if we don't know how or what.

If there is no cause then it doesn't happen in our universe.

>there is some causal mechanism that causes it, even if we don't know how or what.
Math and physics both disagree with you.

>If there is no cause then it doesn't happen in our universe.
Sure it does. We have evidence of it happening. Turns out, our brains are designed to understand an everyday macroscopic world, but that understanding breaks down very quickly once you begin to look at things that are much larger than us or much smaller than us.

meh. you may be right. It's one of Aristotle's foundation premises, that I've thought about and just accepted. I'm not gonna argue higher math and physics with you, because it's outside my realm of understanding/study, but as you say, I just can't wrap my head around something happening without a cause. Seems like a paradox to me.

On that scale, particles can do strange things like be in two places at once, go directly through each other, etc. It's difficult for anyone to wrap their minds around because our brains are ill-equipped to deal with those concepts. But we can work with it predictably, and use it to get consistent results. The Unmoved Mover and Five Ways work really well all the way up to Newton, but we don't live in a Newtonian universe.

The question of God's existence is clearly deeply troubling for any individual who has fully comprehended its implications.

If there was a philosophically sound, a priori proof for EITHER the proposition or its opposition then whomever discovered such would receive a Nobel prize, no doubt.

The answer to the question is in doubt but its implications, in comparison, are not.

Suppose the negative were true. That is: God does NOT exist.

The Universe may exist materially. The laws that keep it held together are present and don't change. Beyond that there is nothing meaningful. You, as an individual, must be consigned to nihilism if you pursue the truth.
You can have a subjective purpose, moral system and a sense of human exceptionalism but there is nothing objective about any of these things.
The so-called 'evil' that exists is just one's own disapproval of an action. The unconscious assertion that humanity is more deserving than the bacteria on the bottom of your shoe is false. The idea that 'you' exists as a transcendent/sovereign body cannot be given validity. For if there is no God, 'you' cannot have control over yourself in any meaningful way. You're nothing but the product of your individual circumstance and biology blindly following the deterministic laws of the Universe like a clockwork man or electronic robot.

Religion speaks to the human condition in a way naturalism never could. Christ entered this world as God incarnate, His crucifixion forgiving humanity of its sins. There is nothing more inspiring and uplifting than this fact on which Christianity depends.
It’s worth noting that there are people who have a motive for not believing. They do so because it appeals to their baser instincts to do so. They believe it more convenient to shut the blinds to the light outside and choose to live in darkness, convincing themselves that there is nothing but the room they see in front of them, than confront reality for what it truly is.

Now you've taken the final pill, user.
The existence of God isn't really relevant. Society NEEDS God to maintain itself working. People need to feel that morality is a necessity, and religion forces them to accept it.

ITT people conveniently forgetting about the fallacy of composition

>it is less depressing to believe in Christianity
>therefore it is unbelievers who are willfully blind to reality
?

You're not going to find a yes or no answer bud, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism
You can't prove that he exists
You can't prove that he doesn't either

What God are you talking about? The God of the bible? Well it's your job to find out, because if you actually study Christian dogmatics it's clear that the one who seeks God finds God. There I said something every person who studies Christianity should know.

All people can't do "this" or "that" if the person on the receiving end is willfully stupid/ignorant and doesn't accept their sane explanation.

Of course God exists. He made the universe, including you in it.

Romans 1
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

You stand before God without excuse as to not knowing he exists.

Because you're starting to understand that the problem space of the world is far larger than the abilities of any one (human) mind to comprehend.

And you combine this with the notion of the vastness of a universe with the notion of man, and his life, being paltry playthings of the dukes of Entropy.

You see, not only the Earth, the universe as a vast altar of blood where drive and will constantly flare and spurt.

You also see the dullness of a modern civilization, where capital pimps out neurological entities so that it may grow.

Just realize that the smell of hay and flowers is worth more than the sum of man's moralities and his pedagogies and his dogmas.

Countless beings have run against the dark anvil, including your ancestors. Are you going to make yourself worthy of the sacrifices of thy progenitors?

Who was God's creator?

Who said God had a Creator?

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

>So what should I do?

Put down your wizardry and be humble and happy in your local problem space.

A snake will regurgitate an animal too large and your mind will regurgitate knowledge too large.

There is happiness in ignorance and in our case, ignorance is a necessary condition of perception and understanding. Focus on what you can and ignore the giant ad-media complex which ensnares humanity in stupid bullshit games.

The smell of dawn and fog is worth more than any movie in the world.

it doesn't matter if God doesn't exist, you obtain meaning in this life through the participation in the rituals of belief. The struggle of life gives purpose, and the rituals of religion and the struggle of obtaining faith can give you fulfillment even if the religion is false and the faith is never obtained. Do Marxists REALLY care if communism is unobtainable, will that stop them from pursuing it? Do ideologues really care if their theory is wrong, so long as it gives them meaning? Participating in a falsehood can still affirm truth.

Why do you believe it necessary that some being must have created the universe but no being was required to create God?

The issue there is that there's not actually any value distinction between "The universe simply exists, it has no external cause" and "God simply exists, he has no external cause."

Using existence as a justification for God just moves the question, it doesn't answer it.

Religion is a convenient shortcut for instilling morality in a large number of people, but it's perfectly possible to justify not being an amoral dick through reason as well.

Motivating with emotion is a lot easier than motivating through reason for like 99% of people though, and even the subset of people who are more rational than emotional still have biases and emotions to manipulate.

Because the universe had a beginning, and is subject to both entropy, loss of usable energy, and heat death.

An eternal spirit being is not.

Can you tell the difference between Picasso and Guernica?

I don't get how people can honestly believe some jewish carpenter 2k years ago got the whole universe figured out, when the best human minds even today can hardly figure out how the brain works.
This is why I can't be theist.
And considering all the major religions are several hundreds of years old, do they all just believe people in the past were wiser? Even a humble sheep herder knew more about the function of the universe than someone with a modern PHD in any of the natural sciences?

Picasso and his art are part of a much larger system, you can directly observe both.

And taking your analogy at face value, answering where Guernica came from does not answer where Picasso came from. Answering where Picasso came from doesn't answer where his parents came from, and so on ad infinitum.

Personally the key to my atheism, rather than agnosticism or simply shrugging and going along with a religion, is that there are many religions.

No, I cannot give conclusive proof that the biblical God doesn't exist, but I have equal lack of conclusive proof many other gods don't exist. As none of those religions predominate in rational value, it follows that I should assume they're all wrong until proven otherwise.

I -am- open to proof, but so far even the most convincing arguments, justifications or rationales can't be twisted to equally justify some other religion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Seems suspicious that the infinite aged being you believe in and were most likely indoctrinated with as a child just revealed himself a few thousand years ago, split himself into three parts and the thousands of other gods that came earlier were all false.

I am a deist for reasons similar to your atheism. Ever since complex protien chains started coagulating into the first single celled life form in some primordial ooze billions of years ago, it has been on a steady path towards ever increasing complexity.

at the relatively very short period of time in our planet's history that humans began to cohabitate within a system of legal jurisprudence that is above primal animal nature, we have always strove to be something more than ourselves, and serve a creative purpose. Be it primitive animism in the Amazon forests or the most complex of religious beliefs, science, which is the most complex system of belief as of yet so far, though most would gawk at calling it a religion, it serves the same purpose today that religion has always served - creativity, clarity, and a guide forwards toward further complexity in the universe, which we are a by-product of.

there is a conflict here with the idea of a creative force emanating through the cosmos: entropy. the second law of thermodynamics, pushing things to ever greater forms of chaos.

we humans same as all life must consume and destroy in order to create greater and greater levels of complexity.

I don't really think there is an anthropomorphic being releasing creative energy into the universe, I am more of the assumption that the universe itself, including us, is set up in the way it is and not some other set of physical laws because it is some type of being in and of itself. just like you can't shove food up your ass and vomit feces, the universe very well may be a functional organism with complex workings that we can't even begin to imagine the scope and scale of.

the big bang, or God saying "let there be light!", could have been the birthday of a being so vast and complex that we have yet to even begin to understand our necessity in its life cycle. as above, so below. we, in comparison to the space we live in, seem to have little understanding of our purpose

>Ever since complex protien chains started coagulating into the first single celled life form in some primordial ooze billions of years ago, it has been on a steady path towards ever increasing complexity.
Most life on earth are either insects and bacteria.
Which have also existed for a fuck long time, far longer than mammals, fish, reptiles, bird/dinosaurs ( wtf are they even called nowadays?)

>there is a conflict here with the idea of a creative force emanating through the cosmos: entropy. the second law of thermodynamics, pushing things to ever greater forms of chaos.
New rule: nobody who hasn't taken an introductory course on chemistry, biology, physics or any other subject that would require them to actually understand the specific implications of entropy and how it works is allowed to use the second law of thermodynamics as an argument. As the shitpost king, my word is law.

>wtf are they even called nowadays?
Birds are descendants of one very specific type of dinosaur.

Feel free to provide an example of something that violates causality user.

> it serves the same purpose today that religion has always served - creativity, clarity, and a guide forwards toward further complexity in the universe, which we are a by-product of.

I don't disagree, but serving the same purpose as something else doesn't mean they're the same thing. Chopsticks aren't a fork.

>Personally the key to my atheism, rather than agnosticism or simply shrugging and going along with a religion, is that there are many religions.

and yet you've chosen to abide by the system of morality derived from one religious branch in particular rather than say for example that of the Maori who thought it moral to rape and cannibalize those they conquered and enslaved. The same "there are many religions" argument you use to justify your atheism would also justify a stance of amorality.

Clearly you already unconsciously prefer a particular system of religion but choose to live in denial.

A system of morality is completely separate from the supernatural trappings. There is no reason to not use something that works. You would have us throw out chemistry because we don't believe in alchemy anymore, and the former is derived from the latter.

Which God?

I don't subscribe to traditional Christian morality, it has a bunch of details I find unnecessary at best, abhorrent at worst.

Does my concept of "Good is benefiting others at cost to yourself, evil is harming others at benefit to yourself" derive partially from growing up in a western civilisation? Sure, I'll admit that. Still doesn't give me any reliance on belief in the supernatural though.

In fact if I drop out of day to day behaviour into philosophical discussion: My motives to act some brand of "moral" is that it keeps society running and advancing, there are consequences to illegal behaviour or being an asshole in a way that pisses someone of, and that I'm not a sociopath so most asshole behaviours make me feel bad if I engage in them.

Humans are a social species, and cooperation benefits everyone in the long run. Unless you're good at getting away with it, screwing people over will make them screw you back. It's only logical to perform antisocial/immoral actions if there's no consequences, and personally I consider "It'd make me feel bad" a consequence.

>A system of morality is completely separate from the supernatural trappings.
Wrong.
Those "supernatural trappings" are the premise from which a system of morality is logically derived, and don't give me that "it just works" bullshit either. Your whole conception of what works is derived from the system of morality you already adhere to, appealing to the functionality of your morality to justify it is circular reasoning as there is no reason for someone who operates under a different value system to consider the things you value to be of importance. If I value rape, cannibalism, and slavery, your moral system doesn't actually work for me does it? As it doesn't produce anything that I value.

chopsticks and forks both serve the same purpose just as they are both utensiles implemented in order to eat more easily.

your argument actually works in favor of science being one form of belief that promotes creativity and entropy just like religion.

Just as the Aztecs couldn't see beyond their primitive astrology and technology, we cannot see past what the scientific method has given us so far without a large amount of conjecture. that didn't stop the Aztecs from experimenting with various methods to try to create more complexity and success as a religious culture.

so, here we are, believing in the scientific method when it has yet to answer every question we posit to it. yet our belief remains steadfast, urging us to ask even more questions and develop new creative technologies. you can believe in science, you can believe in Abrahamic gods, you can believe both at once.

doesnt change the fact that just like forks and chopsticks are different utensils used for the same purpose, science and religion are both belief systems used for the same purpose.

I would go so far as to decree that all religion since the beginning of man has been their rudimentary form of science.

you, the shitpost king, have obviously not passed chem/phys 101 with anything higher than a D grade if you can't understand the subtle inferences people make in a post restricted to 2000 characters

>Those "supernatural trappings" are the premise from which a system of morality is logically derived, and don't give me that "it just works" bullshit either.
Success is its own justification. I don't need to believe the specific national deity of some specific tribe halfway around the world incarnated into a carpenter and was really the creator of the universe to see the benefits of the Golden rule. Just like how we don't need to believe that Zeus, Father of Gods and Men is running the universe to see the benefits of logic, and just how we don't need to believe that gold is the eternal substance that holds the key to immortality to see the benefits of chemistry.

Society determines what set of values are permissible while being a member of it. In the end, it is all pragmatism. Sorry to break it to you, but yeah, it really is as simple as "it just works."

Entropy is in no way, at all, opposed to "creativity" the way it was described in that post. They have nothing to do with each other. It was on the level of saying "evolution isn't real because the second law of thermodynamics."

are you saying that the destruction and decomposition of highly complex formations of matter (or chemical energy if you want to be a bit more literal) in order to create and sustain even more complex energetic systems is not an oxymoron? entropy moving to a state of equilibrium in the context of humans trying to create ever more complex, creative, peaceful, and sustainable civilization should seem paradoxical.

>goes right back to circular reasoning to justify his claims
>because society values X therefore it is valuable
>as if society itself isn't derived from those exact same "supernatural trappings" you deride as irrelevant

Imagine a set A which contains information about possible Gods, without revealing which ones are incarnate in an unknown dimensional system J

How do you whittle down all the possible Gods in J into a single entity?

Before you men act brave, realize that this also includes an infinity N of possible alignments and intentions. What would you do if God was capricious but had a diefic impulse control? A God that waits until the end of time to mock everything that exists in the sandbox. What would you do then?

Now realize you have to rob infinity to prove your God.

The entropy of the universe increases. The entropy of a particular system can, and does, decrease if that results in a gain of entropy in the universe. For example, when you have boiling water and let it cool, you decrease the entropy of the water, but you increase the entropy of the surrounding air. By your logic, we could never have water cool down, because the entropy decrease would be "paradoxical."

>because society values X therefore it is valuable
Yes? That is the definition of valuable: that it is valued. And if society were to be still built on those supernatural trappings rather than the morality we probably wouldn't see such a huge increase of "nones", now would we?

No, I'm stating that the very energetic process that allows for the formation of complex chemicals systems (let's say a human maintaining homeostasis) requires the destruction of other equally complex chemical systems (man eats flesh of a cow and then sucks the water out of a tuber he digs up) to maintain itself. I am speaking in the context of humanity, and the philosophy of science vs civilization. entropy attempting to reach equilibrium is the enemy of humanity and civilization. Entropy directly relates to humanity in a religious context because we need to maintain homeostasis as the very complex structures of chemical energy that we are at a resting state.

the northernmost peoples will easily die due to hypothermia without the slaughter of other creatures that are actually evolved to maintain homeostasis in such a frigid place. this man needs to gather many thick hides for clothing and lodging. naturally, a group of primitive people in a very cold place might come to believe that the caribou or bear he has slain, eaten, and fashioned the remaining parts into tools and clothing for further hunting, well he may start to believe that these animals are sacred, that he needs to respect their spirits and perhaps give offerings in the hope that the herds are fat and plentiful before the perilous winter falls again. eventually, through observations this tribe will learn new tricks and tactics to better serve themselves. they may form better hunting strategies, and learn which plant will help cure a fever or infection and which he should coat his arrows with to better ward off the predator

Entropy is his enemy. you lay on a strip of asphalt in the California desert at the hight of summer, you get burned.

Yes, entropy is the very movement of energy that creates, that allows time to pass, and entropy will always destroy what it has created in place of something that better suits the equilibrium of entropy in any given system.

now, where did you fail to see the logic in my post? by thinking that entropy is merely a system where negatively charged molecules move toward positive, and hot moves to cold. what does that mean to a sentient, intelligent man sitting on a rock and wondering why he exists.

NOT HOW HE EXISTS, but why? why do two trees in a meadow make a beautiful sight in comparison to a pecan orchard? why in desperation must he kill fellow intelligent men in order to survive? Or grow up to find himself working on the new factory that is now polluting the cool, calm, beautiful river he remembers sitting by with his first love?

human consciousness is something we don't fully understand yet, but we know that thinking requires chemical energy. believing requires that you sustain yourself so you can marry your actions to your beliefs.

this is why we seek something heavenly on a primal earth. it's the point of art, language, song, law, morals, and technology. humans are mortal. eventually the extremely complex systems of our body fizzle out for lack of chemical energy. entropy sends the remainder high up in the air above the funeral pyre, but nobody knows why they ever ended up alive or dead in the first place, just a flicker of intelligence being blown out like a candle. is consciousness god? nothing unconscious has ever dreampt of such high ideals. is it a force of nature we have not yet figured into science? is the eternal cosmic ebb and flow of energy responsible for it just like gravity?

>I almost want to believe, and I don't know why.
That's how they get ya.

>I am speaking in the context of humanity, and the philosophy of science vs civilization
Okay, so somehow you managed to jump from an exchange of molecules to the change of civilization. Great. What is the enthalpy change of a civilization undergoing this entropic change? We can apply scientific concepts with extremely specific meanings to vague generalities or just about anything, if it sounds poetic, right? So regale me with the song of the enthalpy change too.

>Entropy is his enemy
No. You just finished acknowledging that entropy changes are associated with all of the anabolic and catabolic processes associated with the functioning of the organisms. If you're going to make shit up, at least keep it straight.

>Yes, entropy is the very movement of energy that creates, that allows time to pass, and entropy will always destroy what it has created in place of something that better suits the equilibrium of entropy in any given system.
> by thinking that entropy is merely a system where negatively charged molecules move toward positive
Do me a favor and read literally any encyclopedia article on what entropy is before you keep running your mouth. Hell, a high school textbook. Even Wikipedia, for Christ's sake. The rest of your post isn't anywhere near related to the topic.

And that god's name?

Jesus motherfucking Christ.

>You can't cause the universe while being inside it.
The God of Israel can do anything, you fucking goy.

...

>1. Everything in our universe must be caused

Prove it.

There are causeless quantum events, even attempts to account for an unknown cause have come up with nothing.

>b-but how do you know they're causeless

Remember: it's on you to prove everything has a cause, if you can demonstrate a cause for them, feel free.

>he uses logic to try and prove god

Terrible approach. Logic is only good for understanding things through logic, but it doesn't give you an actual understanding of the thing much as a painting doesn't give you an actual depiction of a thing. There's no reason to assume that the universe is logical and the fact that every attempt to ground something that wasn't logic (or constructed specifically for logic, such as with computers) in logic has failed miserably would indicate that it isn't logical.

>You can't cause the universe while being inside it.

Is that so?

that cat... the one who was put in a box with like radiation and stuff...

I've heard this question before but just now, I've come to realize the very obvious problem of the question posed. I'm bit slow here so bear with me.

What does existence mean in this context? In our everyday life, and everything we know of, existence is defined primary as something that's subject to change and in motion. The very fundamental properties of our universe is a very moving wave like "stuff". Our dreams, thoughts, concepts are all in a scope inside what we know as the universe.

So in this context, what does god's existence mean? Does this god exist as a physical thing? Or would this god be a mere existence inside a scope within a scope of our imaginations/concepts/ideals?

Its pretty easy to say the later as there's not much else to it. The former is bit hard to swallow both to the theist and to anyone with bit of trust in modern physics. For the former, a physical god existing in our current universe would mean that god would be composed of elementary particles(quarks/leptons/bosons) similar to everything else in the universe. In this regard, the sacredness/uniqueness of god seems to be nullified. However there maybe possibility of god operating "outside of the universe", even then, this would require us to assume its own sets of elementary particles making up that scope. This has all sorts of issues in making.

God isn't argued for, He is experienced.
One cannot argue about God without committing idolatry.
Delete this thread please.

>Religion is a convenient shortcut for instilling morality in a large number of people,
Wrong
>but it's perfectly possible to justify not being an amoral dick through reason as well.
Reason is a false god, there exists no morality with false gods.
>lawwwjik
Idolatry

How would you define "god," OP?

Kek exists, but he didn't create the world and isn't omnipotent. Same with Moloch. One can assume that a great number of other such gods exist as well, in varying states of activity.

Talk to your doctor about whether thorazine is right for you!

Lmfao this

Hold the fuck up is this still seriously a thing?

>You can't cause the universe while being inside it.
So God isn't omnipotent?

Yes

non-falsifiable
prove that wrong first

You want to believe because an absolute truth is easy to follow. There is an overwhelming certainty in religion. You understand what you must do and how you must do it. It gives purpose.

>You can't cause the universe while being inside of it.

Interesting, when did the scientific community grow to such a degree that we can create universes and distinguish that you must be outside of it while you create it? You make it sound so axiomatic. Very impressive.

I felt this way for a while. However, I then realized that this vague desire for belief that religion preys upon. Religion catches you at your weakest moments. From there it starts commanding your life, thoughts, and critical faculties. It's is illegitimate and subversive.

>want to
It's ok, it's your chioce - truth or happiness.

All I'm reading here is
>I'm special therefore god exists

It's one thing to debate the existence of an all powerful creator deity it's another to argue with people's ego's

Yes, Zeus is real.

ITT: self-assured atheists

Your conclusion will depend on who you believe has the burden of proof.

>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

How do you know what constitutes an extraordinary claim if you don't know what the truth is to measure the claim against?

The sensible option is the stick with the status-quo until you have enough evidence to change your mind, yet the status-quo is subjective.

Once again the atheist (who may or may not be wrong) lives his life as an atheist because he chooses the path of least resistance. Free to live a sinful and unrepentant life with enough self-justification to dismiss the disapproving thoughts at the back of his head.

Responsibly experiment with psychedelics like psilocybin and mescaline. Read religious and spiritual texts afterwards. (Gita, Rumi poetry, Gospels, Gnosticism, Buddhist stuff).

You'll find what you were looking for.

>literally admits it cannot be proven to you in the second sentence

hurr durr that's not proof. xD

Mate, that would have been such a good post, honestly, if you'd just left off that last sentence. I do applaud you for and agree with the rest, but if you've been spouting that argument all over the place you must have been exposed to the idea of enlightened self-interest, right?
Essentially, I, as an atheist, am compelled to act in the best interests of others most of the time because it is in my best interest that others feel obliged, or even just positive, towards me, and because when it comes to crime against people I dislike, the risk outweighs the reward by far. Plus, if I, an average citizen, decide to be a cunt, why wouldn't the next guy? With proper parental/societal training this logical reason for being nice is added to a sort of instinct to be polite and a sense of things being wrong when you try to do bad things. It is in my best interests that society continues to function, and the continued functioning of society requires the average citizen to "be good," so to speak, and I'm not enough of a dickhead to imagine that I'm special.

It really boils down to "do unto others," which while obviously popularised by religion, still applies even in a hypothetical utterly godless society.

So literally anything is justified from theft to paedophillia so long as it doesn't come back to bite you in the arse.

Note that if a population believes this then the law HAS to take religion's place to create civil order.

Sustainable liberty can best be achieved with a pious society.

Even if you're right about the rationality of pursuing nothing but self-interest, it would still be right -in my opinion - to wish for a Christian country.

Although I suppose with your logic you could equally wish for a tyrannical dictatorship so long as you're the party chairman or absolute ruler. No skin off your back I guess.

>So literally anything is justified from theft to paedophillia so long as it doesn't come back to bite you in the arse.

Essentially, yes. But the rationale is that you, the average citizen, recognise the fact that if you, an average citizen, cannot prevent yourself from committing acts that harm others, then there is no reason why the next guy would be magically more capable of deciding not to rob your home.

The idea is that you know that you represent a sample of the behaviour of the average citizen, and that you can thus personally decide what sort of attitude the average citizen has towards society, knowing that every other citizen will probably have thought much the same thoughts that you are thinking, right now.

Although I do fully agree that a pious society can be a convenient shortcut and that as a whole, Judeo-Christian morals have had a positive impact on humanity. I don't advocate one way or the other with regards to the role of religion in society, but I do consider Judeo-Christian morals to be a good and sensible baseline, whether they be attained through faith or through logic or just through your parents ingraining in you that doing bad things is wrong.

Oh and in terms of the dictatorship, yes, it's in your self interest to be at the top. Kinda - if history has anything to say about it, you'll probably be murdered or assassinated. But it's also in everyone else's best interest that such a system does not arise, and so a large portion of people will work against it, particularly in this day and age. And even if you manage to orchestrate it, it's still in your best interest to make the people happy because it will drastically improve your long term chances of not being murdered.

Besides, a pious society does not prevent tyrannical dictatorships. For most of history, religion has propped up absolute rulers, and religious law can be interpreted very harshly.

I can only speak for the experience of Britain as I am English myself but we did have a stable Christian society which granted liberty. People genuinely cared about each other (and in many rural villages still do).

It was thrown away because degenerates wished to be liberated from, not the oppression of the state, but the oppression of the surrounding culture.

When the culture dies the country does and along with it goes its political stability.

So now the public opinion is with the New Atheists, the materialists and the technocrats. The new generations tend to shout for democracy until it doesn't go their way. Then they are happy to entertain the possibility of top-down governance. They long for a radical vanguard party in one shape or another.

It's now in my self-interest to not trust a single person around me. never give the benefit of the doubt because you will be taken advantage of. I don't believe atheism will necessarilty lead to murder etc but the smaller things in life such as good manners and common decency has been lost in the pursuit of the radical's agenda.