Atheism
Offline In my opinion, of all the numerous faiths, from Christianity to Buddhism to animism to atheism, the most basic and unlikely is Atheism. Religion, unlike science, is the attempt to answer the question why (science attempts to answer how). Animism a slightly less ridiculous faith, answers the question why with the answer of "everything". Atheism denies the existence of the question, because it denies the existence of an answer. Without an answer there is no question. However, since I can ask the question it is obvious that it exists, so there must be an answer.
Besides lets be totally honest and say that its really unlikely that thinking beings such as humans just popped into existence out of nowhere.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
- Login to post comments
I never said I could prove the existence of god. I also never said that I knew god existed. I also never said that my belief in god was anything but the result of a logical analyzation of the world around me and my own life. You claim god doesn't exist. You claim that a belief in a god is irrational. Defend your position or sit down and shut up.
No it means that I don't blindly follow any religion or creed, but choose to go with what makes logical sense to me. I say I am a christian because I believe that the man Jesus was the physical representation of god on earth. This makes sense to me because everything Jesus taught seemed to make sense. Love your fellow man as you love yourself. Whats wrong with that?
My life doesn't frighten me. My death is only frightening because of the uncertainty of it. If there is nothing after life, I will be momentarily suprised and then it won't matter. However, it seems unlikely to me that thought would just end at any point in time, so I'm not too worried about that. What comes next, I can not know until I come to it, but don't assume that I am scared because I believe in God, fuck fear. I'm eager.
The Universe is absolutely unforgiving and indifferent and will never change anything to help me one tiny little bit. The fact that I am not indifferent and unforgiving, despite living in a Universe so different is all the convincing I need of the existence of a god.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
This is what I am talking about when mentioning us using our finite hours entertaining idiots, instead of moving forward. Jack, is by all accounts an idiot or ignorant. Probably a Freshman who has read Josh McDowell - or similar.
His argument should have been rebutted by saying:
AR133, AR349, AR001.
(Each number representing an Atheist rebuttal). Then, if some Theist actually comes up with a new argument, we can engage our brains instead of wallowing in their mediocrity.
No offense, Jack, but you really should read more. You are simply arguing for a God because you "can't simply believe" anything else. What gave you the idea there was a God in the first place? Your Mommy?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Yeah deadalus, an atheist 101 hand book.
Maybe this will be helpful to angry religious Jack ,
SPIRITUALITY, GOD AND THE ATHEIST MIND
http://www.atheistbible.net/
((( I haven't read much in there but seems pretty cool so far ....
Atheism Books.
Firstly: Religion doesn't ask "why", religion asks nothing. It just makes assumptions. So what is the answer to "why"? Are you another of those who believe that an all powerful god created us just to worship him? That not only does not make sense, it is a pitiful existance.
Science never ceases asking questions, that is why we ARE progressing.
Why do you need there to be a motive for your existence? We make our own purpose. We don't say we have no purpose.
I do believe in right and wrong. Obviously, apart from the extremes, it is a bit relative and there are lots of grey areas.
Equality of man? As in different races and male/female? Yes.
Trust common sense and logic? Yes, though both are fallible as they are dependant on humans and the information available.
Are humans special? Yes. All species are special. We all have different qualities.
These beliefs have nothing to do with dieties. That is just your warped, religious logic (see, told you it is fallible).
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Bzzz, wrong answer. Open a dictionary, find "atheism."
So, Jesus said something that made ethical sense so therefore he's a representation of a deity? Nonsequitur. One can make ethical sense without being the representative of a deity.
The existence of morality does not indicate the existence of a deity. Morality arises in the evolution of social species because morality is beneficial to the populations surrounded by indifference.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Please re-read what I wrote. Either I was completely unable to express simple concepts, or your reading comprehension is insufficient.
Notice I said nothing about my "opinion." I said that right and wrong are, in general, determined by society. Not by my opinion, or your opinion, but by the societal norms.
For instance, in some societies, when a hunter becomes old and incapable of hunting, it is right that they go out onto an ice floe to die. They commit suicide, because otherwise, they will be a drain on resources. In other societies, suicide is considered wrong.
In some societies, sex is considered just another thing we do naturally. In other societies, sex is considered a taboo subject, and women who have sex out of wedlock are shunned, or stoned to death.
Again, it's about societal norms.
What? How do you mean they have no meaning if there is no soul? What does a soul have to do with fairness or justice?
Do you know why games have rules? So they are fair, and have a metric by which fairness can be judged. The same goes for society. The morals of a society exist as a metric to judge what is "fair" and what is not "fair."
Justice and fairness exist outside the soul, and no naked assertion can alter that fact.
Now, if you are looking for a set of objective rules by which fairness can be judged, you have to turn to societal models, like game theory. From that, you can derive a set of basic rules that can govern fair behavior -- that is, behavior that benefits all equally, by which any member of society can be judged without prejudice.
I don't know about other people, but for me, it's all about low-lighting and copious amounts of alcohol.
What's "genetically equal?" Do you mean, some of us are smarter, some are stronger, and some are barely recognizable as human? If that's what you mean, I'd agree, we're not all equal at all.
Do I believe that everyone has equal value? That depends on the circumstances. In a world without want, where there are enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter everyone, then yes, everyone is equal. If, however, we're facing a tough winter cut off from the local villages and there's not enough seal meat to last until spring, then no, not everyone is equal. It's time for the worn-out old hunters to do their duty and go on the long hunt, so their village can live. That is, assuming that's the standard of your society.
As far as eugenics, in a world without want, there's no reason to restrict "genetic disease." Most of these sorts of things are self-regulating, via the process of natural selection.
But even without that, why do you suppose we need a soul to make life important? For instance, I don't believe souls exist, yet I respect my fellow people. It's not simply because of my desire for a comfortable life, either. It's a thing I like to call, "empathy." It allows me to imagine what another person's life might be like, and what emotions they are experiencing. It allows me to determine that life is subjectively worthwhile, not just for me, but for other people around me.
If the only thing keeping you from supporting eugenics and general death and mayhem is the concept of the soul, you live a very desolate life.
The same way that logic dictates that you don't have an invisible unicorn with a big fuck-off computer living in your rectum. It's the same logic that dictates that invisible squirrels aren't stealing your silverware at night, and replacing them with items that look identical to, but are not, silverware.
Basically, it comes down to this: if the universe is improbable, any being capable of making the universe is orders of magnitude more improbable. Every time God is invoked to explain away mystery and complexity, it begs the question of the complexity and mystery of God. This is illogical.
*sigh*
Again, you missed the point. As I said, I wish to work towards a society that is fair to all. This is partly because I wish to be treated fairly, but also because I have empathy, and I don't like to see other people being treated unfairly. My goals are both rational, and irrational (in that they are also based on emotion). It's nice with the rational and irrational sides fit together so nicely.
There's also the whole "good of society" argument, but I think that's unnecessary.
The difference between a duck and a person is entirely one of context. In the context of humanity, we're more important because we're, well, us. In the context of life, and evolution, we're no more important than a species of duck.
But see, I can separate those two. Just because I am Godless doesn't mean I am bound to judge everything by evolution. I can value humanity for its singular ability to think intelligently, even though our species will not exist in a few million years. (Not that we're the only species that can think more-or-less intelligently, but we're by far the best at it.) I can value society because it helps make our lives comfortable and enjoyable, even though our society will not last more than a few more centuries. I can value individuals because they make my life happy, and because they are unique (inasmuch as my life goes), even though they will be dead in a hundred years.
Get this: everything you do will not make one whit of difference after some time. Isn't that a hoot? It might be ten years, it might be a hundred, it might be ten thousand. But after some time, the universe won't even have registered your existence.
Isn't that a hoot?
Does that make your life any less important?
Ah. So this is one of our communications problem. I see.
I do not accept that definition. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Theism is the belief in God(s).
I am a gnostic atheist. I believe God does not exist. Other atheists here, though, are agnostic atheists, who have no belief in God, but also believe there is no way to prove the existence of God one way or the other.
Read this. It should help clear up the matter.
I don't mean a cop-out in that way. I mean a cop-out in morality.
The way you've defined morality, it's all about your choice of God. So the morality of radical Muslims is just as valid as your morality -- after all, they are following the Will of God when they stone an adulterer to death.
I imagine you might claim that they are following a false morality, a false God; but then I'd have to ask, how do you know you have chosen the correct God? The God of the Christian Bible was certainly not averse to stoning people to death, or selling daughters into slavery.
Without an objective metric by which to judge morality, how can you know which morality is correct?
It does have to do with the discussion. It's all about fairness. If you were really concerned about fairness, you'd take at least a passing interest in creating a society that was fair to all. But your attitude is perfectly rational, and perfectly acceptible. I was kinda hoping you'd go the typical Christian way with it, so I could slam you and feel all superior and stuff. I'm glad you avoided that lame little trap.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
So, we have to defend our position, but you don't? Now, that's really fair of you.
The fact that the universe lacks empirical evidence for God is enough for a rational defence of the atheist position. Then there's the failure of three thousand years of philosophy to come up with a decent defence of God's existence. Finally, there's the whole complexity issue. A being with infinite knowledge (omniscience) and infinite power (omnipotence) requires infinite complexity. That is, he exceeds to bounds of the universe, the complexity of which he is supposed to explain.
The ball's in your court, Jackie-boy.
Wait. Your logic is that since Jesus made sense, he's obviously the physical representation of God?
"Love your fellow man as you love yourself" is an excellent credo, a good way to live. But it's hardly proof that Jesus was in any way a manifestation of God. Hell, I've read a lot of fiction that made sense, that had good things to say. That neither makes them true, nor proof of a divine influence, nor a representation of God on earth.
That's true if either God doesn't exist, or if He does exist, and you chose correctly.
What if it turns out that it's Allah's face you see when you die? I mean, just before he sends you to Hell for not believing in Him.
Otherwise, that's a good attitude. Well, maybe not the "eager," part. That echoes the self-made Islamic martyrs a little too much for my taste.
Again, you demand we defend our position, and all you have to offer up is a feeling? C'mon. Defend your position, or sit down and shut up.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
So basically, all this gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist is all a bunch of bullshit, because when you get right down to it, you all deny or doubt the existence of a god. Why are we even arguing about this anyways? Who cares. You know what your right. Jesus christ, call yourselves whatever you want.
Since I believe in a god, and I believe that that god made this Universe with a few rules, some mathematical and some moral. All the self-evident truths I see out there were explained quite eloquently by Jesus. Therefore, I like to believe that maybe he had a much better understanding of the world and god than I do, and perhaps it is because he was a physical manifestation of god. Its all based on nothing but belief, but it makes sense with what I believe, so I buy it.
I'm not saying your morality has no validity, I'm saying that the word morality should not be used by you since it is a concept that requires a deity. I have already proven to you that any concept of morality based entirely on what is societally acceptable is flawed to the point of uselessness. In certain African Tribes it is societally acceptable to kill and eat other tribes. In certain cultures it is societally acceptable to murder your daughter because she was raped. None of you are going to say these things are alright, but by your philosophy these things are not wrong for any reason but they are. What makes them wrong? You ask me what if you or I disagree with god on what's right and wrong, I think god, if he cared enough to answer, would ask you what's wrong with his standards.
By the way, how do you quote posts?
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
There's a lot wrong with God's standards in the Buybull:
It is morally wrong to stone someone to death for adultery, sassing their parents, working on the sabbath, and many other trivial offenses.
It is morally wrong to force a woman to marry her rapist
Homosexuality is not morally wrong and neither is premarital sex.
Thoughts are not immoral
Just a sampling
Best way to define morality - if it harms others needlessly it is morally wrong. If not it isn't.
By the way - read the Old Testament. Jehovah is extremely immoral in that book by any sane standard.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
ummm there's that little button on the bottom left right next to the reply one - it says "quote."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Social norms are basically public opinion. I understood what you said. My argument to your base of morality on social norms is that you are basing morality on public opinion, which can change quite easily, and is not always very nice. The mob is right because their bigger mentality is old thought. Without something above public opinion morality doesn't mean shit.
What is fair and just to you may not be what I consider fair and just. Look at it logically you say? What is logic then? What if my logic is different than yours? Is it warped? Why isn't yours warped? Behavior that benefits all? Why not just behavior that benefits me? What's wrong with that?
The soul is necessary for empathy wether you choose to accept it or not. A wolf has no empathy for another wolf or the prey it hunts. Because in a world without souls, none of that shit matters. It's all about me and fuck anybody else. A world without want? Sorry, I don't believe in heaven, if you really want to argue about it we can, but...
In a world filled with want, and nothing separating you and me from a dog or a tree, what's wrong with me killing you because I want your food? How is that wrong at all? I need food. You have some. I'm hungry to.
The Universe is improbable so there is no god? Come on, did you honestly just say that? The Universe is unlikely to exist, so there is no god? What are you smoking dude, I need some of that
Oh I see, because YOU work for a society that treats everybody fairly means that I have to. Well fuck that. I'm looking out for number one. So far your only argument for it was that you found it to be unacceptable behavior.
I don't base my morality on the fact that there is a god and thats what he wants. I base it on the fact that I and you and everyone else have souls, and because there are souls, there's property and choice. Because there's property and choice, there are certain behaviors and rules that should apply. Without a soul, there is no property, and no choice, so what's the need for rules. If god came to me and told me to kill someone, I would say fuck you to him because it's not ever right to take someone else's property. God may be evil, he may be good, he may be indifferent. I don't pretend to know. I do know for a fact that I have a soul. It makes sense that if I have one, then people like me have one. If they have one, it makes sense that all people have one. If we al have one and we act one way and animals and trees and rocks and storms and everything else acts differently then it makes sense that they don't have what we have. Morality is a concept that REQUIRES a soul.
I wouldn't want homosexuals to be killed or hurt for being homosexual, but I don't see the importance of them being allowed to marry when there is a lot of more important things in the world right now. I have no problem with it, I just don't care.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
Jack: What's the name of the god in your head ? You said your religion was "all your own"....
What did Jesus say that was so surprising, other than the fact that them words were written in extremely superstitious non' scientific times ???
You sound like an idol worshiper. Is that okay in your religion? Do you think your icon Jesus would approve of your ideas?
Atheism Books.
The Universe itself is evidence for a god. The infinite complexity, and like you said earlier, the improbability of its existence. These things do not point to its existence by pure chance. A decent definition of god would be, a consciousness not human, that created the Universe and humanity. His complexity would have to be on such a greater level than I, with a mere 18 years of experience on this earth could comprehend. The complexity of a thing is not proof against its existence.
My logic is that Jesus made so much sense, and basically said, "Listen to me, I'm god." that maybe I should believe him.
If Allah sends me to hell, then I will go smiling at his stupidity in the wasted effort of making such a broken product as me. But I believe that if Allah were the true creator, we would know it by now.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
Explaining the definitions of words as "all a bunch of bullshit" does not do very much to make you sound like anything but a petulant, paraeducated child. You're throwing a fit because what you thought a word meant was not accurate. For your own sake, please grow up.
At least now you're saying what you believe as opposed to what is. That's a step in the right direction. It seems like you don't care as much as we do to ensure your beliefs line up with what we can observe.
So to sum up, it's not that our morality is invalid, it's that it's not morality? Hmm.
Try again; you proved no such thing. Again, you are arguing from a definition that no one but you is using, like you did with agnostic and atheist.
Let me ask you a question: do you still think you would object to cannibalism if you were a member of one of those tribes? Why or why not?
What makes them wrong to us is that our society does not include murder, cannibalism or honour killings on the "OK" list. There are tons of things that North American society condones that other societies do not. Are they wrong, or are we?
Hmm...probably something like being held responsible for failings we did not commit, and being designed that we had no hope but to fail in the first place.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
The name of my god is god. It seems to fit, nice an old sounding, short but powerful. Names aren't really that important anyways, just a label to describe the idea.
The whole turn the other cheek, judge not was pretty fascinating. I also liked the "Forgive those who do this to me, they know not what they do.", that was a pretty epic thing to say. I don't worship jesus though, or even really worship god. I have a deep respect for them, but my life is my own.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
Was I right though? Is it true that gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist they both deny or doubt the existence of a god? No seriously though, you're right, I shouldn't care what you call yourselves. Moving on now.
In what way do YOUR beliefs, not your atheist buddies and you, reflect what we can observe? And what is valid about observation? Just because you observed the sun rise doesn't mean that it's coming up the next day.
Morality is basically, what is right and what is wrong. You have given no definition of right and wrong other than opinion. But opinion is flawed. What now?
I might reject it I might not. It would still be wrong.
"What makes them wrong to us is that our society does not include murder, cannibalism and honour killings on the "OK" list."
Well at least you have the courage to cede that you have no morality.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
Jack: The wisdom of Jesus could be written in a few sentences, and a child would understand them. The grander understanding of the awesome cosmos so many now take for granite, science has taught us, and would require much more than a few pages to express.
Famous Richard Dawkins wears a t-shirt that reads, "Atheists for Jesus" ..... I like that Jesus too .... his message was not the Christian Pauline one.
I am glad you are examining and sharing your ideas Jack. Stay the course ..... "ask and you will receive" ....
This thread has alot of good imfo for you .... I hope you will review it and use the love sent to you here .... and keep in mind that even Jesus in his caring called Peter "Satan" ! ? !
Atheism Books.
But you're saying the universe is so complex it needed something to create it, which must necessarily be more complex. That just restates the problem: what, then, created the thing that was complex enough to create the thing that created the universe?
If the answer is, "nothing did; it's always existed" then you have to explain why the universe cannot always have existed, but your god could have.
So can you tell me why that's a valid argument but "if the Christian god sends me to hell then I will go smiling at his stupidity in the wasted effor of making such a broken product as me. But I believe that if the Christian god were the true creator, we would know it by now" isn't?
Why are you right, and everyone that disagrees with you wrong? What do you know that no one else has ever known?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Jesus didn't exactly make a whole lot of sense :
See?
And if you went out in public and started telling people "Listen to me, I am God!" Regardless of how much sense anything else you happened to say made, what do you think would be the likely result? Do you think the normal response would be to listen to you or to consider you insane and laugh at you. If you also started threatening them with eternal torture and saying things like you should abandon your families and cut off your hands and gouge out your eyes you would almost certainly be referred for psychiatric treatment.
To put it simply:
Once someone starts accosting strangers in public people will see them as "strange"
Once they claim to be God people will consider them "batshit crazy"
And once they start talking about eternal torture, and cutting out eyes and off limbs people start thinking "danger to self and others."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
No, you are not right.
Atheism is simply the answer "no" to the question "do you believe in a god?" Not believing something is true is not the same as denying that it is true. To illustrate, there's a difference between these two positions:
- I believe that there is no god.
- I do not believe that there is a god.
Do you see the difference?
That's a bit backward: my beliefs don't reflect what we can observe about the universe; observation informs my beliefs about the universe.
As for tomorrow's sunrise, I believe I can very reliably predict one of two scenarios: it will happen, or we will all be dead. The amount of force required to stop the world spinning in the next 14 hours would probably destroy it, so if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow it's because the earth has been torn apart.
That doesn't mean the sun won't be there; just that we won't be there.
Wrong. I have morality, because I believe there is a right and wrong way for people to act towards each other, and to a lesser extent, towards themselves. What I don't have is the need for some external supernatural enforcer.
So what's truly more moral: not killing, stealing, etc, because you don't want to go to hell, or not killing stealing, etc., because you think it's a bad way for people to treat each other?
I follow this morality because it reflects the kind of world in which I want to live. If someone disagrees, they can try to change my mind.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Yes, the bible Jesus is like two opposites. One is simple obvious logic. The other is absurdity ....
Teaching I am God ??? - Well, depends on your presentation, and definition. Many in the east would laugh and say da , we already know that teacher !!!
Atheism Books.
Did you miss the message on 9-11 that men were willing to die for Allah to be rewarded with virgins? Grow a pair and martyr yourself if you're so sure. Why waste time on Earth when heaven awaits you?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I'm laughing at the absurdity of the statement that Allah would be stupid for sending you to hell for not being a moslem. So doesn't that just make Jesus/ God stupid for sending people to Hell for not being Christian? Dude, you just called Jesus stupid. You are SO going to hell!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You know what Shikko, I really don't see the difference between the two. And neither can anyone I ask, in fact they all said "No those are the same". But really, I DON'T CARE.
So what besides observation do you base your beliefs on? Women's intuition?
Either you have no morality, or you need to define right and wrong much better than: It reflects the world I want to live in. Do you honestly not see the flaws in that statement? Oh and by the way, so you can stop looking like an idiot, I'm not a typical christian, I don't buy into heaven and hell, angels or demons, or any of that shit. I already told you that I'm not afraid of god either, and that my morality is NOT based on what god says. I've made my argument and you seem to have no real rebuttal.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
What I'm saying is that a universe that is improbable is also improbable to ever come into being. The infinite complexity also adds on the improbability, and with the addition of thought to the mix, I say that it's pretty unlikely for that universe to come into being by pure chance.
Your right, anything capable of creating such a thing as the universe would have to be unfathomably complex. I believe that perhaps it is so complex that maybe it defies any laws that we as humans can determine. Maybe it defies creation. The universe could have just popped into existence or have been there forever, I suppose, but it seems unlikely. If it was simply always here, then why the evolution of thought?
I truly don't think that any being so complex would give a fuck if these primitive little newborns he just created a couple million years ago recognize his existence or not. Besides, the evidence is in nature my friend. Look at drugs, that completely points to a god with a sense of humor.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
When did I say I was a Muslim? Why would I go blow myself up for a rediculous idea of god? I don't claim heaven awaits me, when did I say heaven awaits me? Why do you pick the smallest and most insignificant parts of my argument and nitpick on those instead of simply destroying my argument? Is it because you can't? C'mon, I'm challenging you here, atheists are just nihilists who don't have the balls to actually accept the consequences of a disbelief in god.
Bring everything you've got. Every reason, everything. Convince me. I swear that if you beat me in an argument, you'll convert me, so do it. If you can.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
Are you willfully dense, or are you really that dumb?
Jack, you're not using enough numbers for your calculation of "everything". Think vastly more, no, much much much more. NO NO , WAY WAY MORE ..... guess what .... you won't run of numbers. What's that tell ya friend ?!!!!!
Welcome to the "AWE" !
Let's live for healthy fun ! Hey my religion, "FUN".
Math!..... to say in other words, it makes as much sense to say earth and life etc statistically had to be ....
That is why, when the religious asked a wise Buddha, "what about god" , he laughed and said why worry about a god !
Atheism Books.
We can't, but no-one's saying not to ask questions, merely that to ask a question that is intrinsically unanswerable, while a worthwhile and useful philosophical exercise, is in the end never going to yield an answer.
Can you demonstrate that there is a purpose to 'understand', beyond existence itself?
The purpose of life is life. There's no need for any greater, overarching, ultimate purpose. Why do *I* live? Because I live, and I don't want to die. I want to do things. I want to publish a book. I want to go skydiving. I want to marry the woman I love. I may achieve these things, I may not. I want to achieve them because I feel it will make me happy, and I would rather be happy than not happy. If I do achieve them, awesome. If I don't, I doubt the universe will notice. And once I'm dead, I'll either be beyond caring, or I'll have moved on to another state of existence where my personal goals for this life don't really seem relevant. So why worry?
Absolute, objective Right and Wrong? Kinda? Sorta? I believe in them, conceptually, in the abstract, as constructs of my perceptions... but nailing down exactly what they are in all situations? Really not possible... better to accept that often, we have to be willing to make the best of bad choices, rather than always insist there is a 'Good' available.
Equality before the law, yes. Are we all of equal ability? No, obviously not. I can't dunk like Shaq. Are we all natively equally of value and worth? In the abstract, of course. A life is a life. In practice, I'm willing to bet that if it came down to kill or be killed, with no other factors... I'd choose 'kill'. I'm ok with admitting that. I also tend to not go looking to get into that situation.
Only that in some form, I exist.
Common sense? No. A)It's not common at all, and B)it's often wrong. I mean, come on. We live on a giant ball floating around another giant ball? That's hardly a 'common sense' interpretation of what we see around us. It also happens to be true.
Logic? Usually. That doesn't mean that it's flawless, though. After all, we often act illogically, and at that point, logic can't help us in anticipating the actions of others.
Yep. I'm one. Otherwise... not really. We're a complex cascading sequence of electrochemical reactions, just like the rest of life on this ball of mud. We've managed to achieve more, but then, as Doug Adams put it: Humans believe they're smarter than dolphins because we've invented fire, war, the motor car, and the atom bomb, while all dolphins have done is play about in the water. Dolphins, conversely, believe themselves to be smarter than humans for precisely the same reasons.
Why? Why does trusting logic require belief in a deity?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
CHANT - Jack and Matt doing the smack
Nonsense. In fact, that behavior is directly and patently antithetical to society, because of one very, VERY simple realization:
"If I support killing those weaker than myself, then I support someone stronger than myself killing me."
Society itself functions based entirely because it prevents the strong from killing the weak out of hand. The very basis of our social interaction is that I cede my natural right to do anything I want, specifically killing you, in exchange for you ceding your natural right to do anything you want, specifically, killing me. That's it. That's the foundation for all the rest. What you suggest is exactly the opposite. It's not even anarchy, it's solitary predation.
It's easy to point to specific acts and say 'that is wrong' when you approach the extremes of human behavior. But absolute right and wrong would extend to all of human behavior. A man points a gun at your child and tells you 'I will kill this child unless you pick someone else for me to kill. If you do, I will kill that person. You cannot name me, you cannot name yourself.' If there are absolutes of right and wrong beyond the abstract, then you tell me what 'Right' is there.
Logic is anything but common sense. Common sense is what is apparent. Logic is following threads and understanding causes.
Ducks taste better.
Agnostic atheist. Already covered that.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
CHANT - BMcD, that is love
A)If your logic is different from someone else's, then either one of you includes factors the other's does not, or one of you is using flawed logic. Which one it is, is impossible to say without looking into the specific situation. In THIS case...
B)Why not just behavior that benefits you? Because ultimately, 'everyone else' outnumbers you. If you wish to be safe from being preyed upon by them, then you must be willing to not prey upon them in turn. In other words: If you behave in ways that benefit you, you will either quickly end up losing the protections of society, or adhering to the majority of society's tenets because you have realized that doing so benefits you.
Ok. This is now the second time you've gotten on wolves, and I admit it's a minor peeve of mine. First: social animals, wolves included, do demonstrate signs of empathy. These signs are most pronounced in primates, the great apes especially, and are well documented. On your earlier point of 'justice and fairness', given that the pack members receive the benefits of pack behavior, it is then only fair and just that they must accept the drawbacks of it. If you do not agree, consider this: Some of the benefits they receive from pack behavior come from other wolves suffering the drawbacks of it. There is your fairness.
Wrong? Well, you're denying someone something else for personal gain. That's 'wrong', and it doesn't take a deity to tell me that. What tells me that is that if you are allowed to prey on others, then you can conceivably prey upon me, and I don't want you to do so. What's more, you don't want you to do so, because if you can prey upon others, then someone else can prey upon you. This is the very basic social contract that we operate under. And here's *why* it's wrong, not just why *I* can tell it's wrong:
It's wrong because if such behavior is allowed to flourish, society itself breaks down. And then we all lose the protections it affords us.
No no... see, it's because YOU don't want to be a prey animal. If you don't want to be a prey animal, then you can't try to be a predator, because there's 1 of You, and 6.2+ BILLION of 'Not You', and if you're a threat, you'll be dealt it as one. As Ron White said, "There was one of me, and ten of them, and I didn't know how many of them it'd take to kick my ass... but I knew how many they were gonna use." Simple pragmatism and self-interest demands that you act generally benevolent, because if you don't, you quickly lose. Note: GENERALLY benevolent. Obviously, if you try to get away with things when you don't think you'll get caught, then that's the risk you take. Many get away with it. Many others don't. Just gotta roll the dice.
HOW do you know you have a soul?
Further, there's property because someone says 'This is mine, and you can't have it'. That's what property is: a thing you can exert control over. If you can't control it, it ain't really yours.
Now, here's the fun part: You say morality can only BE morality if it comes from a higher authority. But if that higher authority tells you to kill someone, then THAT IS MORAL, because it has come from the source you have established as the final arbiter of morality. Which means that morality isn't absolute, it's subject to opinion: the opinion of God.
Well, see, here's the thing:
There are a great many injustices and problems in the world far more dire than whether or not homosexuals are afforded the same rights of visitation, legal standing, and property as heterosexual couples. However, the vast majority of these injustices and problems are things that cannot be meaningfully resolved by small bodies of politicians or judges. So, if I have two problems, one I can do something about, and one I can't, should I ignore the first while I cry about the second?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Except that you say that the complexity of the universe means that it requires a creator. If this is so, then the creator, which is by necessity a more complex thing than that which it creates, also needs a creator.
Actually, he didn't. Reread the book. Jesus never claims to be divine. The closest the Gospels come to such a statement is *GOD* announcing 'This is my begotten son, in whom I am well-pleased' at the Jordan when he was baptized, and Satan's statement that angels would catch Jesus if he threw himself from a great height, rather than let him dash his feet upon the stones.
Neither case claims Jesus is divine. THAT interpretation doesn't come until Paul gets into the picture, and Paul's theology was entirely out of his own head. Paul, in fact, had no actual knowledge of Jesus's life, and many times directly contradicts what Jesus said in his ministry. Further, Paul, while on his mission to convert the gentiles (something Jesus admonished the Twelve to avoid, telling them not even to preach to Samaritans, who were, in fact, Jews, just not Judean Jews), was openly in conflict with the Twelve, going so far as to tell his congregations that people who brought Gospels other than his were bringing them false Gospels. One of the folks he named in those epistles is Cephas. Cephas, just FYI, is Peter, whom Paul openly mocked when Peter visited him.
So, wait, you follow Jesus as the messiah and part of the Trinity, of which one of the other parts is 'God, the Father', aka Jehovah, aka YHVH, God of Abraham, right?
That's Allah. Allah is the God of Abraham, or as the Muslims make it, Ibrahim. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Sarah, his wife, sent their household slave off into exile in the wilderness after Abraham got the slave pregnant with Ishmael.
Note please that this is not 'the Islamic version', it's straight out of Jewish tradition, and older than Christianity.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
One is a statement of certainty: "There is no Santa Claus"
The other is a statement of uncertainty: "I don't know what color socks I will wear on June 3rd, 2012."
Belief is an assertion of knowledge. Disbelief is simply belief expressed in negative terms, and still an assertion of knowledge. Admission of ignorance != assertion of knowledge.
Here's one:
So: If morality requires a higher power with the authority to determine morality, then your morality IS based on what God says, because you, in fact, claim GOD is the only one with the authority to determine what is or is not moral.
If your morality "is NOT based on what god says", then why does morality require a god?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
This is something known as the Anthropic Principle. What is states is: 'The universe must be created, because if it wasn't what are the odds that it'd be just right for us?'.
Unfortunately, it is the same as 'what are the odds your parents would produce you?'
In other words, the answer is: "It doesn't matter how low the odds were, because if it hadn't been 'just right', we wouldn't be here asking the question. It's not that the universe is just right for us, it's that however we are is a result of however it is."
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Jack, that voice in you head is you, just as the guy in the mirror is you, and that is 100% god , > YOU < , as everything is TOO !
Religion, as it is dogmatic in design, is poison of our own making, which we must struggle to over come.
All is ONE ..... do the math , do the deep thinking thing alone .... look in the mirror and stay there a long while .... burn a candle or two !
________________________________________________
BMcD , that was powerful , I AM still chanting ! Could you recommend vitamins or something to we small minded folks ..... NO, I am not giving up my vises ....
Atheism Books.
Thank you BMcD, I think you have done a much better job at explaining the morality part than I have. I will learn how to better present my arguments from this.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Hey! That's is a great pithy statement:
"It's not that the universe is just right for us, it's that we are just for the universe."
Thanks, BMcD. You said what I was trying to say, only more clearly, and more directly.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
1. So you admit that you are a broken product? Why would you laugh at Allah, but praise Jesus (PBUH) for the same broken product?
2. Jesus said beware of false prophets.
You admit you are broken, you are in sheeps clothing, your fruit is poor. You are a false prophet, since you are claiming your own religion - i.e., that your religion is separate from the one Paul and Peter set up, the one Jesus taught to them, and that you know what God wants to say.
So, apparently, you only like the things that Jesus said that you agree with, and yet call him God? You dare to disagree with God?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
The problem with you arguments is that you are not thinking deeply enough about the issue. You talk of the protection of society, but ignore the situation in which one does not care about society's protection. What if I happen to believe I'm big and strong enough to take your things and fuck the consequences. Is that wrong? Why should there be a law against it if it's not wrong, and why is it wrong if it is? If it's wrong then you need to come up with something better than "Because that reflects the society I think we would all like."
Animals do not display empathy, a pack of wolves protects its members out of necessity, it would never go out of its way for a wolf of another pack, or a wolf in some far land it has never crossed paths with. Humans have this empathy. Why?
Society breaking down? And if that is my motive? Again, am I wrong? Why or why not?
I know I have a soul because I exist and I think and I feel. One thing we can all know is that we ourselves exist. I call that consciessness a soul. My argument is that I have one, and this is where my morality is based.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
I ay that the improbability of it points to a creator. Sure, god could have been created by something, who knows what. WHy worry about that? I worry about me, so I wonder about what created me.
As I already said, I don't buy into the normal accepted christian definition of god.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
Whatever, call yourself what you will. There is no real important difference anyways.
The morality is not determined by god's opinion, but by the simple fact that we have souls. The soul requires a creator, or at least points very obviously to one. The soul is where my morality lies, the proof that its probably alright with god is the evidence of the outcome. of right and wrong actions.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
double post
What about the universe points to thought simply evolving where there was no previous thought?
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
If Allah, a god that wants eternal devotion from us, and is all powerful, why then would he make me, knowing that I would eventually grow to say "Fuck Allah!" Why would he not send a lion to shut me up as I just dared him to? Why my god wouldn't is because my god don't give a flaming fuck.
I think that we should remember two things about the bible:
Written in primitive times
Written by primitive men.
Theres alot of shit in there, I take what works for me and ignore the bullshit.
We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR
double post
This might be interesting if you posted in your native language. What is it?
You have a feeling we have souls. This is not an established fact. Therefore, any conclusions reached by using the soul as an assumption is merely speculation.
Wolves and apes do indeed show empathy. With wolves, the empathy is for members of their own pack. Apes have shown empathy not only for members of their own group, but for others as well, even outside their own species (such as for humans). This has been established.
Finally, what is the "evidence of the outcome?" I'm not sure what that phrase means in relation to God's acceptance of your actions.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Ah. So you have essentially fabricated your beliefs as an amalgam of whatever feels right to you. Now, how is that distinct from what BMcD called a "social contract?" How is it that your morality is objectively true, when you seem to have created it for yourself?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers