I don't believe in things that seem unlikely and have no proofs.
The theory that my feelings are more valuable than that of other people seems unlikely (why my out of all people) and I have no evidence supporting it. Therefore I assume it's false and act accordingly.
Why would you need some external law for that train of thought? All you need is logic and probability theory.
Because of this necessity, they can't understand how other people can have morals without a set of rules, even self-contradictory, ambiguous rules passed down from a supernatural being via the mysterious hallucinations of desert people thousands of years ago.
I'm quite certain that's not true. At least it wasn't true for me when I was religious, and it's not true for most of the religious people I know (and I live in 95% Catholic country, at least in theory).
For one example - I've spoken with many Catolics who thought it's "not fair" that a serial murderer can escape eternal punishment with last minute atonement, but a women that was in a marriage with abusive husband and then met her "other half" - has to sacrifice her love till death because of 1 unintentional mistake in the past.
If people actually believed morality comes from God only - they wouldn't think twice about this. God says so and that's it.
On the other hand it's hard to distinguish external and internal motivation when you have it constantly mixed by the religion, rituals, etc. And people like to find explanations fo why they (and you) need religion - external morality seems to be a popular excuse.
I find it very difficult to discuss these things without saying things that religious people might find offensive (questioning too much seems to be frowned upon for some reason), but I'll try:
So they think it's "not fair", yet they still identify with a religion where this is announced to be the case.
So are you saying they think it's not fair but still believe unfortunately that's the way it is, or are you saying that they think that it's actually not true and won't happen?
Or are you saying that they have an internal moral compass that says that such eternal damnation is immoral, but set it aside because of the rules of the religion?
I guess the difference is that they think it's "not fair", and I think it's not true, and clearly nothing but a fairy tale manufactured to pressure people to keep going to church out of fear.
If someone is already doomed with eternal damnation, then why not keep doing bad stuff?
I'm being flippant, but actually with the massive loophole of last minute atonement, why not just do bad stuff all the time, until the last minute? Hopefully you will get time to spit out a quick "sorry" at the end. Is this what all the pedophile priests and their co-conspirators are planning to do?
> it's hard to distinguish external and internal motivation when you have it constantly mixed by the religion, rituals, etc.
True. I think the peer pressure when your community identifies with a particular religion is a large factor as well. If there wasn't so much peer pressure and the threat of shunning and excommunication, there would probably be many less outwardly religious people around.
I cringe when I hear sports stars thanking god, as if with all the misery and suffering in the world, god still puts it as a priority to be personally interested in whether a millionaire manages to win a sports event or not.
Neither do I.
So I guess my parting comment is that we all need to do a better job of discussing opposing belief systems with mutual respect. There are good arguments on both sides - and I would suggest that if that statement sounds ridiculous, you've not been sincerely listening to the other side, or you've only heard straw man arguments. It's not black and white - and being closed minded is not something unique to one side or the other.
Let's try to hear both sides out - and develop an understanding of each other's beliefs and non-beliefs rather than dropping into an "us" vs "them" stance. Truth does not need to be defended with anger or violence. There's no need to convince or convert - we just need to be true to our search. Truth is often hard to find, but it's not fragile.
I've resisted providing specific evidence for my beliefs because I can reasonably expect for it to not be well received in this forum. But if anyone is interested in a good example of a balanced and civil debate of Christianity vs. Atheism, based on evidence and reason, this is a pretty good one -- https://youtu.be/fEw8VzzXcjE
I am not posting that in an attempt to convert or convince - I'm certain it will do neither. I'm posting it in attempt to encourage civil discussion, and exchange of ideas and beliefs. Notice in the debate the mutual respect the speakers give to each other.
Close-mindedness and hatred exists in every belief system. Let's try to encourage one another on our respective paths. Let's encourage one another to relentlessly seek truth.
In my experience intelectual argument may make it easier to switch position eventually, but what makes people convert is life experiences and ideology influencing their lives adversely. So, the discussions are mostly for entertainment.
> Let's encourage one another to relentlessly seek truth.
Let's.
