It’s sad that people NEED to believe god wants them to do good things to do them, instead of being motivated to treat other people kindly sans a “command” from a higher power. As an analogy, I think it’s sad that some people may only be held back from violent crime due to the threat of jail, as opposed to just not wanting to commit violent crimes to begin with. That doesn’t mean I think it’s okay to do away with punishment for violent crimes right now, or that I’m not glad the threat of punishment might prevent some violent crimes; it just means the threat of hellfire and brimstone should not be necessary — and usually are not necessary — to goad people into acting kindly towards others.

This string’s getting extremely repetitive and wasting time — I’m not sure how to keep arguing with someone who believes a belief in god is logical and rational; a lot of religious people I know will state they’re taking a leap of faith beyond logic, even if they like it on the other side — so I’m closing off the comments.

In relation to your last two sentences, firstly, what I meant to say in regards to applying motives to anything is that any motive can be twisted to be applied to anything. For example, people can say God wants them to kill someone and go and do it, or people can say I believe that human life/freedom is precious and that Suddam Hussein was killing people therefore we should invade Iraq to protect human life/freedom. Both of those are misapplications of a motive, but don’t make the underlying belief untrue – and both can be succesfully argued against. The point I was trying to make was in response to your use of religious people doing bad things using God as a motive. Just as using the “vast majority” argument and empathy can be perverted so can the God motive.

I hope what I am saying is clear, I’m having trouble being succinct. But in a nutshell: I’m just surprised why you think it is sad that people are inspired by God to do good. I find it encouraging when people are inspired by their God given empathy to help others and even more so when they are motivated directly by God to do good things. I’m also very interested in the reasons nonbelievers take the time to do good – I’m not trying to insult anyone or suggest that it is only believers who can do good, this is obviously not the case. Knowing my reasons for being involved, it’s fascinating learning everyone else’s too.

What I’m saying is that the vast majority of people know that human life is precious — due to empathy, etc. It doesn’t take “god” to believe that.

And certainly, religious people who say they believe in god have often been the very people who’ve used said belief as a direct reason for killing and hurting others. The god-motive as “the most rational concern” has been one of the most irrational concerns for exploitation of others.

If you believe, as you wrote, that any motive can be applied to anything, I really don’t see why you then argue the god motive to be superior.

However, in terms of the rationality of motives I would say the God-motive is perhaps one of the most rational for concern beyond the self. In the whole ‘ultimate standards’ kinda of way – that is God provides a ultimate standard from which good and evil derive meaning.

Whereas global warming is scientifically obvious and it is clear that genocide is occurring and economies are not just – deciding whether this is good or evil and what priority it therefore take, if God is excluded, comes down to personal decisions. It is obvious to me, that genocide is an evil thing and should be stopped (though even here obviously some people would disagree, ie. the people committing genocide). It is obvious to me that reckless exploitation of the environment is an evil thing (God gave it to us to take care of not just exploit), however if a nonbeliever was to decide that their environment was merely there for their exploitation/enjoyment it won’t matter how ‘scientifically obvious’ the damage is if they don’t care.

I’m trying to compress a lot of thoughts into a comment-sized comment so forgive me if the above is not very clear.

In regards to your last point, any motive any be applied to anything. eg. Invade Iraq – it’s obvious they need liberating. Relying on how any one person or group of people personally feels is an extremely illogical reason to do something that can be used to support any cause one chooses. To say that people use the God-motive to support bad causes doesn’t invalidate it as a good motive.

Let me know if I’m being a bit long winded or offensive in any of what I’ve typed. I honestly find it very interesting investigating motivations behind activism. Trying to convince people to switch to fairtrade I’ve found the Biblical arguments easier to make – even if they were a harder sell given the staunch conservatism of most Christian churches in Australia. :)

Sure, I suppose a belief can be “stable,” in the sense that any singleminded dogma can be stable. But that doesn’t make it desirable or necessary.

Besides, the “It’s what God wants” motive is something that can be applied to anything. Invade Iraq — it’s what god wants — sort of thing. It’s an extremely illogical “reason” that can be used to “support” any cause one chooses.