One Less God (Video)

How do you respond to an atheist who says "I just believe in one less god than you do."?

Comments

[Kurt]

They just believe in a different god than I do. They make either themselves a god or Richard Dawkins a god. Because somebody has to make the rules. I had an atheist friend get married recently and I told him I thought it was interesting that he chose to get married. I told him if I was an atheist the last thing I would do is get married. Marriage is a religious institution but I also would not want to be tied down to one girl. I mean with no set of morals to get in the way (as an atheist) I would eat, drink and sleep around. Thankfully I am a Christian and have the discipline of Christ and self control and also realize the consequences of the atheist's lifestyle.

[Neil]

I've used the bachelor analogy as well. I heard another good one recently, which is that people on death row are just like those on the outside. They have just murdered one more person.

[Marc Barnhill]

@Kurt,

And yet the world is full of married atheists in committed relationships, dedicated to strong ethical principles, striving to learn and improve themselves and make the world better for everyone. If that's making oneself a god -- if "god" is being defined as whoever makes "the rules" -- then I'd say you've watered down the concept of gods to the point where it's practically meaningless. And as long as you cling to the "atheists have no morals, have no reason to be ethical, and have nothing to stop them from pure hedonism" position, despite all evidence to the contrary, you'll never be any closer to actually understanding what you're discussing.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Marc

"And yet the world is full of married atheists in committed relationships, dedicated to strong ethical principles, striving to learn and improve themselves and make the world better for everyone."

As long as they also benefit from their contribution. What if doing the right thing entailed no personal reward? Would an atheist as readily engage in doing the right thing without any expectation of a reward?

[Dan]

These videos are still too quiet. Please make them louder.

[SteveK]

This slogan is deserving of another. Try this as a response:

I just believe in one more God than you do.... When you understand why I don't dismiss my God, you will understand why I do dismiss all the others.

[lumbergh]

Trying using the volume knob on your speakers.

[RonH]

Louis,

Doing the right thing is its own reward.

Don't you think?

RonH

[Ppr]

RonH,

What do you mean by "the right thing"?

I'm not being pedantic... the whole question hinges on this term.

Ppr

[Randy]

There's an underlying assumption that believing in the ancient gods of the Greeks and Romans is, at the end of the day, an embarrassment. No rational person would or should believe in them. The problem, however, is not the category of the thing but the substance of the evidence which often times gets confused.

Like you said, there's no real substance for belief in the Greek gods, no real "reason" for believing in them. Yet, we often confuse the lack of "reason' to believe in them with the actual object itself.

In other words, it may be irrational to give assent to something which has no backing evidence to it. We might describe that as the ancient gods of Greek and Roman culture. But Christianity might be distinguished from all other religions in that it has a reason or reasons to believe in this God. If that is the case, then we're playing in two different ball camps.

[RonH]

Ppr,

I'll say it another way.

Taking into account the desires of others is its own reward.

A little more specific: Valuing the desires of others as equal to your own desires is it's own reward.

A little more specific: Taking action as if the desires of others were equal to your own desires is its own reward.

If you've acted as if the desires of others were equal to your own desires then you've done 'the right thing'.

That's what I mean by the 'the right thing'. Notice that I describe 'the right thing' in terms of things we all agree are real: you and your desires plus others and their desires.

Acting according to this criterion is its own reward in two ways.

You don't (always) get any other reward.

And, there no other way to get this particular reward.

And, by the way, it seems to me that there is a fact of the matter: We may have difficulty getting access to and weighing the facts we'd need to decide, but either you 'act as if the desires of others were equal to your own' or you don't.

RonH

[KWM]

Ron,H

>>”Taking into account the desires of others is its own reward.”

But what if the desires of those “others” are wrong? For example, I might desire for you to give me a $100 dollar bill if I hold the door open for you at the mall. Shall you give it? One might desire for you to provide them with a loaded gun so they can commit suicide….shall you provide it?

>>”A little more specific: Valuing the desires of others as equal to your own desires is it's own reward.”

But what if your desires conflict with mine? Automatic equality of desires? That’s an odd thing. I can’t even imagine such a horrible thing.

>>”A little more specific: Taking action as if the desires of others were equal to your own desires is its own reward.”

See above.

>>”If you've acted as if the desires of others were equal to your own desires then you've done 'the right thing'.”

See above.

>>”That's what I mean by the 'the right thing'. Notice that I describe 'the right thing' in terms of things we all agree are real: you and your desires plus others and their desires.”

That’s a lot of desires that you assume align. They do not. Who votes on these generally accepted desires?

>>”….but either you 'act as if the desires of others were equal
to your own' or you don't.”

I don’t.

[RonH]

KWM,

I'm not going to bother responding to all of that. This will do.

Where did I say that one desire is equal to another - let alone that each desire is equal to every other?

It doesn't seem you want to understand.

RonH

[KWM]

RonH,

Is this the same RonH?

I suggest you reread your own post. Count how many times you use the word “equal” in describing desires. I shudder to think that you propose merely valuing desires as equal, even if they are not (according to which standard who knows). As I said, I cannot imagine anything more horrible.

[Brad B]

Proverbs 27:6 "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy."

Which is doing the right thing?

[John Hannaford]

@ Kurt

"Thankfully I am a Christian and have the discipline of Christ and self control and also realize the consequences of the atheist's lifestyle. "

"Thank God I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers ... or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a week and give tithes of all that I get .... "

Just sayin' brother.

[ryan]

Nice video blog. Explained in the true Koukl way!

[Trent]

I always think "That's nice, but it really doesn't prove your position" any more than the arguments that they don't like God is a proof of their position.

I dislike many things that still exist. I didn't believe a lot of things that came around and bit me. It doesn't mean they didn't exist.

[Jesse]

How does this statement work in an evolutionary framework? "Doing the right thing is its own reward."

If our sense of morality is not a reflection of actual right versus wrong, rather an inherited trait that rewards socially cohesive behavior (as RonH previously stated), then why not just phrase it in a manner consistent with evolution?

Instead of "doing the right thing is its own reward," Why not the following? Doing something which your evolutionary biology has tricked you into thinking is rewarding actually feels rewarding.