Yes, it pretty much boils to this. If it can't be reasonably explained how God adds meaning, but merely that we should accept that he can, then the argument start to falter because you can't explain why other beings can't add such meaning. That's the problem with premises out of thin air. They might make your case look good, but only if you deny those who disagree with you the right to make a similar case to contradict you. At that point you aren't arguing in favor of religion, you are arguing in favor of monopolizing beliefs.

There is also an entire school of ethical and legal discourse devoted to an idea that contradicts the concept of nihilism. It is called natural law and it is one of the main building block for most variants of modern western law. It is not a subject that doesn't merit discussion, but to discard it on the basis of a single logic premise seems silly.

I don't know if you can see how much irony is woven into this and many of your other posts.

You talk of reliability of scientific studies, yet you believe in an invisible magic man based on absolutely nothing tangible.

Has Esspoker argued in favor of this and that religion being true? I'm asking honestly (as I have read the thread somewhat haphazardly), as my impression is that he was mostly arguing what would be the consequence of this and that religion not being true.

I've dipped in and out myself.. he has stated he believes in 'a' god, but hasn't really given any reasons..

This thread will be close if it degenerates into nothing more than a discussion of personal depression issues. That is not the purpose of RGT nor even of the OP. As reiterated numerous times elsewhere and now here: RGT (and 2+2) is not a professional clinic for people with depression or suicidal issues. Seek appropriate professional counseling and/or medical health professionals.

Posters violating the above will be infracted and also asked to stop posting in certain forums or to quit posting on 2+2 altogether. Thank You.

Your impression is spot on.

A better word than intuition would have been "experience." Oh well.

Evidence in these studies is always under-determined. I think that's the term they use in the philosophy of science but I'm not sure.

As for studies that seek to generalize a norm, they are effective in generalizing a norm. As I said, Gandhi is an exception that norm.

As opposed to some studies where the evidence is not under-determined?

Is it just the studies on ethical ideology? or religiosity? or all social science studies? or all scientific studies in general?

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about, and I don't know why you're continuing to try and sweepingly dismiss opposing evidence, based on nothing more than - but, but... we can never really know. Only my 'experience' knows.
What does Gandhi have to do with evidence showing that ethical ideology (whether believing in objective or subjective morality) makes little difference to ethical behaviour? Ethical behaviour is more emotionally-driven, and has far less to do with your ideology or beliefs about the objectivity of morality. Believe it or not, non-religious people experience emotion too, just the same.

I wasn't aware of the definiton of "ethical behavior" which you are referring to.

I'm not sure I buy the premise that people (atheist or not) are emotionally driven. I saw my friend once give his jacket to a homeless person. I don't think he would have done that it wasn't part of his belief system to do it. I think people act rationally a lot more than we give them credit for. We live in a society and an academic culture that seeks to find causes for why people do things; it's a deterministic mindset. We often forget that people are capable of making their own choices and are not products of their environment. It seems to me, in my non expert opinion (although I'm still allowed to have an opinion, right?) that there is a bit of a deterministic bias built in to many studies. That's all I'm going to say on this since it's getting really off topic. A new thread could be interesting.

Ethical behaviour broadly = treating others well.

There's no 'deterministic bias' in acknowledging that cause-and-effect exist, and that people's ethical behaviour is mainly driven by the emotional feelings of empathy (e.g., oxytocin and mirror neurons) - rather than intellectual reasons for treating others well.

If you treat others well solely because you believe in an objective or absolute morality, and you can't possibly imagine that some people (the majority) treat others well because it makes themselves feel happier, then I don't know what else to say.

P.S. This is completely relevant to this thread. The evidence is abundant, when it comes to disproving that 'without God, all is permitted'.

This brings up a point that has been on the back of my mind during this whole thread. Treating people well is all well and good, but it's not really what a religious person strives for. There's a much more positive effort towards a goal of going above and beyond. You're talking about just being a nice, decent person. I have agreed from the beginning that an atheist can be a decent person. But going from that, to, say, using nonviolence as a moral purpose and military strategy, relies on something bigger. OTHER THAN being a decent member of the community, there is no higher goal for an atheist. Can we agree on that?

On a related note, mirror neurons and empathy are similar to schools of fish. Fish follow the other fish. In a culture like Nazi Germany, something went wrong with the mirror neurons.

Its true no atheists go above and beyond.

no

not even close

And make not so subtle suicide references

Which is why I reported the post. I don't have any disagreement with the poster other than to say this is not the place and the poster has been advised of this before.

If anyone has issues then send a PM to the moderator. Further discussion/derail will be deleted. Thanks

I actually think the opposite is true. The phrasing might be something like 'with god, all things are potentially permissible.' There are no shortage of examples of what can be done when someone thinks they have a mandate from god to act. If someone has no god, they can at least (though obviously, they don't always) feel bound by the laws or society. A religious person can say 'well, the laws of my god are more important than anything in this earthly realm,' which can lead to horrifying things.