I honestly dont know. perhaps there's some things that he just wants us to learn for ourselves. if he just handed us world peace, there wouldnt be much of a lesson involved; we would abuse it just like we have with the planet so far. human beings need to learn how to live in harmony, really.

And to Hrae, perhaps there's a reason people lose their limbs; it's a horrible thing, but sometimes it can lead to good things in the end. Perhaps they meet the love of their life, or a good friend, or learn a good lesson because of it all, and their lives are better for it.

Lots of perhapses in there. Perhaps...God only speaks Klingon.

I only say perhaps because im not sure. no one is. You arent sure on certain things with science, such as dark energy, and the other mysteries of space. the same concept applies, really.

In this instance, with lack of the ability to confirm, your perhapses and my perhapses have equal weight. We could perhaps ourselves all over the place about the nature of something we can't know exists and we'd be discussing how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. It's equally absurd because our statements are untestable and unverifiable.

This is a fundamental difference between faith and science. Science tests the ideas it comes up with. Some ideas are currently not able to be tested due to lack of technology, but technology progresses and eventually tests these ideas.

This might help illustrate the principle:
http://www.vincentchow.net/images/science-vs-faith.jpg

But there's not always contradicting evidence with faith. Some of it's just untestable *AT THIS POINT* just as some science is untestable *AT THIS POINT*.

There's still very many mysteries out there, for both Faith and Science. I still dont see why the two cant co-mingle. Even Stephen Hawkings has belief that a God is possible.

I've never said the existence of some sort of creator-being isn't possible, but you're getting into little details about the motivation of said being, which aren't testable or falsifiable.

Perhaps God is just a sadistic asshole that likes causing pain to his creations, much like a petulant four year old. Do you see why this sort of speculation is useless, now?

And before you rely on the "I'm not a theologian" angle again, the theologians don't have good answers to these questions, either.

No one does, really. There's no way to know until we die. i've stated that several times :/

So...why make up stuff that we can't know until we die? It seems like a pointless exercise in mental masturbation. And then to base your entire life around? To convince others that your way is correct? To make life and political decisions off what you think some being might want that you can't know?

It's like you're living your entire life in fear actually. "This may be right, but we don't know until we die, so we better be good and limit ourselves our entire life just so that we don't go to this unprovable hell when we die."

Really? from what i've seen the 10 Commandments and such are just guildelines to a respectable life. Treat your elders well. Dont cheat on your spouse. Dont cheat with someone else's spouse. dont be promiscuous and get STD's. Dont kill. Dont steal. Dont hate.

And hrae, i believe in it because it all just... makes sense. It all just feels right. Most of the Church's teachings make full sense to me. i disagree with a few of the social things, but most of them make full sense to me.

Just because there might be a few good ideas doesn't mean any of the supernatural hokum is valid.

I've always been amused that Christians even refer to those commandments. The new covenant established in the New Testament freed the Christians from following the old laws. Otherwise, you'd be avoiding shellfish and polyester.

The Ten Commandments are SLIGHTLY different than the rest of the laws... i see what you mean though.

You're kinda contradicting yourself, though. you just said it's possible that a deity exists, and yet you criticize christians for believing in one :/

there IS some evidence that points to the possibility to a deity, just nothing that fully proves it.

As for the lack of full testability, it kinda goes along with one of your previous posts :/

Anyway, back to the hellhole that is school with me :/

I'm not criticizing anyone for saying that a deity might exist in some form. I'm criticizing anyone that says "There IS a deity and this is how he/she/it wants me/you/us to live/worship." Trust me, if any other sort of gnostic theist popped their head in, I'd wade into their particular belief system. It's absolutely preposterous.

I've already told you that you can by all means use the Bible as a moral compass if you really want to. But you don't have to believe in a deity for that.


BUMP/EDIT: My bro told me something interesting about how no true free will exists, because humans and their reactions are just the sum of whatever influences them. Interesting, but I'm not sure how far I agree with it.


BUMP/EDIT 2:


Exactly. So you don't know he wants you to go to Church every Sunday, and wants to bless you. There is no indication that he wants us to do anything, and the Bible is completely baseless for assuming most of the things in there, since humans can't possibly understand what god wants from us

Yes, so then he has actively chosen the option that will lead to bloodshed. Malevolence?

Perhaps it doesn't?

No, actually I don't. There's a fallacy in the middle of that since stance 2 and stance 4 are interdependent.

i DO believe that it's a possibility that he's communicated with us and tried to give us peices to the puzzle in the past; perhaps he tried to reveal bits and peices of himself to each civilization, and he wants us to unite and put the peices together. i think we can know what he's told us through the Prophets, but... idk, i havent read the Bible too deeply yet, so it's hard for me to take a stance to debate with you on.

As for the bloodshed, if you consider him sacrificing himself so that all of us might be saved as "Malevolence" then you have a bit of a distorted take on it :/

and please, elaborate on the "Perhaps it doesnt?" Remark..

And i said it was a crappy model, but it gets the basic point across... we'll stumble across multiple stances which lead into each other which lead into past stances. i.e. the big bang, evolution, etc. Regardless, however, i'll come back to this thread.

His take is distorted? Jesus, who is also God (thus his own father), "sacrificed" himself to appease...himself (in the form of God, who Jesus also is). That isn't distorted?

I put sacrifice in quotes because it wasn't much of a sacrifice. If a human dies in order to save someone else, that's a sacrifice. He has no knowledge of what comes after death, thus giving up whatever time he might have had to be sentient. Jesus would have known what was going to happen, being a former celestial being himself. He knew his existence would continue. It wasn't a sacrifice. It was a minor inconvenience to an omnipotent being.

Have you seen in the movie or read in the bible what they did to him? it wasnt a simple death as it would be in these times. he didnt have the convenience of the electric chair or the lethal injection. He was beaten, whipped till his back was bleeding, he had a crown of thorns shoved deep into his skull, he was kicked around, forced to carry a cross alone half the way, and with the help of another (still doing his best to help carry it, though) the rest of the way. He then had nails driven through his hands and feet, and was hung up on a cross where he remained for a while. He then died, was placed in a tomb, and remained in limbo for 3 days. Only then did he get his afterlife.

It wasnt to appease himself, but to appease the laws of nature. I'm sure we know very very little about how sin works, since it's not a material thing; perhaps it required a holy sacrifice to be forgivable.

I think I may be coming around.

I am going to leave my faith and belief that there is a God and start to believe like the intelligent atheistic scientists believe.

That everything we see was created from nothing, by nothing, our lives mean nothing, the lives of those around us mean nothing, others views mean nothing, we are all just mistakes and have no meaning in our lives and therefor should do what ever we want no matter how foul those things may be.

In that the well being of others should mean nothing to me because in the end we are all going to die and turn to dust and will never be thought of again for the rest of eternity so why not just do those things or urges that are in our heart, mind, and soul.

Without a god or an afterlife all rape, robbery, murder, and evil thought is okay because the lives around us mean nothing, wait there is no such thing as evil because evil is just one persons view of an event. We are all just mistakes that happened and are our own pleasure ,no matter what that pleasure may be (rape murder molestation of your kids). So in essence Hitler wasn't evil he was just trying to live out his life the way the atheists say we should. Do what you want when you want because truth is relative to the individual and there is no good nor evil. And you can't judge him for that for who are you to judge someone else because life has no meaning anyway and we all have to die.

WOW my eyes are opened and now I'm depressed.

wow that is wicked depressing.:cries:

My view is staying the same even after reading this whole thread and i'll stay a Christian. :laugh:

^ That's more an argument against existentialism, an atheist philosophy than atheism itself, to be fair. However, Manz makes quite a good point in that.

I cant believe that there's no point to our existance. And besides, your atheist argument makes no sense. basically you're saying everyone in the bible just wanted to limit their pleasure and did so by claiming that there's a deity. That makes no evolutionary sense, as many species live to reproduce. There had to be something that drew them to that. A knowing of wrong and right. but without God, there IS no real wrong or right, is there? so therein lies the massive flaw in the atheistic theory.

So are you telling me that the only reason you aren't raping and killing is the fear of some sort of punishment in the afterlife? Wow. I don't do those things because I care about my fellow man. I had no idea you were so weak, ethically speaking, Manz.

The basic problem is assuming that he gives a shit about us, bothers to communicate with us, and actually involves himself with the needs of petty individuals.


My point is that no sacrifice was necessary to save us all. He could have saved us all without bloodshed, and yet he chose to have his son gruesomely murdered.

You are basically grasping on straws here. It's like driving around a big city, finding one license plate that reads "BA345", another which reads "BT942" and saying, "Hmm, they both start with 'B', there must be a connection!" And they also have '4' at the second last position, we're getting warm here!" Never mind that fact that the rest of the numbers/letters don't match.

We shouldn't really have to go back to previous stances, because, as I said, once it is disproved, the other stances dependent on it become useless. So unless we've trailed off on an argument, and just abandoned it midway, I don't think we've really lifted any issue that was done and dusted.

No I don't recall saying that I was going to do that at all. Let me reread my post.

nope never said I was going to do any of that stuff. Think you aren't reading my post correctly. Try again.

That was certainly the implication. That without some sort of fear of being spanked by a deity, anything should go. Thus, if there was no fear, you would follow those impulses. One can be ethical without the need of fear of an afterlife of punishment. What was your point, exactly?

He wasnt saying that. He was saying that from an atheists veiwpoint, we're nothing more than advanced animals. Therefore, if we were as atheists make us out to be, we would rape and kill without end. The sense of wrong and right comes from somewhere else, as it would make no sense in terms of plain, cold logic. Of course Manz doesnt do that stuff, as he too loves his fellow man. He's just trying to point out the flaw in your argument, as a sense of right and wrong needs to come from somewhere. Not from a fear of a supernatural punishment, but instead an understanding of right and wrong, as told to us by some form of authority.

1. That's possible, however it's just as unlikely as him loving us dearly. Perhaps he doesnt view us as petty individuals, but instead as something that acctually has potential.

2. See my previous post in responce to hraesvelgs same claims. it might be the nature of Sin. We still know little about it.

3. But license plates are random; faith is something more. it's a relationship with something greater than what mankind's ever seen.

4. Meh. regardless, let's just move on with the thread.

That life is meaningless that once we die we will be forgotten and no one will care that we were here at all. Our lives mean nothing. Therefor our own personal happiness is what we should strive for in our lives. Since personal happiness is different from person to person who are we to judge what other people do to fulfill those desires. It should not matter what other people do even to us cause in the end we are all just gonna die an turn into dust.

And who is to say that your personal moral beliefs are correct. Where did you get your morals from anyway? Last I heard they don't teach morals in science class.

We are not mistakes. We are products of chance. I live to make myself happy. And because I have some common sense, I realise I cannot be happy, if others around me torment me. They won't be happy if I torment them either. So it is like a mutual deal to leave each other happy, and not do harm to them. It's not, "If I do this I will burn."


Whether the well-being of others means anything to you is your own personal decision. I respect others because I want to be respected. I care for others because I want to be cared for. Not because I live in fear of an angry bearded old man smiting me.

You can STFU right there. I resent the accusation that I am a moral-less maniac who doesn't care for life. I am simply able to realise that even though there is no inherent meaning or end point to life, I am here, and I may as well make the experience happy for myself, while not hurting the experience of others. That fact that you are blind to that and need fear driving you on is not my problem.


So being an atheist makes no sense because it is incompatible with morality? That's a ridiculous argument. And atheism is NOT incompatible with morality. Just because there is no absolute judge of right and wrong, doesn't mean that morality cannot exist. When two people agree that both their lives would be a lot better off if they didn't try to kill each other, they can do so without a deity threatening to burn them for eternity if they did try.


And this argument as a whole is not sound. Without God, there can be no morality, and no right and wrong. Therefore God exists, and I will not consider the possibility that there is no real meaning to life.

But without morality, we wouldnt object to half the things we do. You forget that without some kind of feeling of what's right and whats wrong, we wouldnt neccesarilly feel that certain things were wrong. for example, you dont hear about animals raping each other, as they dont really care. In humans, there's something different, where we can tell that having sex with someone you dont know or care about is wrong. This sense of morality must be given to us by something that recognizes us as different from animals, nor would it be evolutionary as it would go against everything in darwinism (i.e. a lack of reproductional chances rather than an increase). Would this be a logical conclusion?

And im not suggesting that atheists are evil moral-less freaks, as may have been implied in manz's post; im just saying that we as a species must've gotten these morals that seperate us from animals from some place.

I agree with your first paragraph up to a point. Life has whatever meaning we chose to give it. As long as the pursuit of happiness doesn't injure or infringe on the rights of others, have at it. We are just going to end up as dust. Enjoy the time we're given.

My basic ethical assumptions are:
a) Life is precious because of its relative rarity.
b) Individuals should have as much personal liberty as possible as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty of other sentients.
c) We, as part of the social contract, have an obligation to help other sentients.

The rest of my ethical conclusions follow from those. Keep in mind that this is very simplified for the sake of expedience. There is no fear of eternal punishment required to realize any of these.

Not necessarily.


Morals can be seen as a product of society and the way social-structures work. We know intuitively and are taught what will and won't fly. Non-conforming = ostracization from greater community + conditioned response of shame + penalties = death.


It actually fits in pretty well with ''darwinism'' and how people might have developed.

Again I never said that all atheists are immoral and don't care about their fellow man.

As for chance, I thought evolution was a genetic mutation (or mistake) of some type that causes a change in the original.

So if you didn't want to be cared for it is okay not to care for anyone.

I never said you were without morals. I never said anything like that. Only that the pursuit of personal happiness should be the only thing that guides us as humans, no matter what it is that makes you happy.

You say you want to live with other humans and be happy without hurting their existence. But what if your existence makes someone else unhappy or hurts them?

As for being fearful, I'm not now or have I ever been fearful of a god.

I think you both have missed my point. I was just saying that I am now going to live for myself.

Speak for yourself. Maybe you have a prudish sense of sex, but not all of us do. I've had sex with plenty of people I didn't care about and it wasn't "wrong". We were consenting adults engaging in a recreational activity.

Like I said, we don't need a sense of right and wrong. Common sense will tell you that people will not treat you the way you like to be treated, if you treat them in a way they don't like to be treated.




My point is that while you can try and make some claims and try to support the existence of a deity, you cannot prove that he loves us cares about us and is aware of our existence.


Being omnipotent, he can do anything, in any way he sees fit.

No, it isn't. You have to prove that it is.


Yes, the morality was ingrained into us by our parents. I sincerely have doubts as to whether the early humans had qualms as to who they raped, and who they pillaged. Morality is a convenience. Without morality, the human population would be very small today, because of the mindless, incessant killings, pillagings or whatever. So you can say that in the long term, morality has worked towards the success of the species as a whole.


I don't see how my mere existence can be harmful to another human except in terms of the resources I consume. That is just the basic competition that exists among all species, and is not something you blame someone for, and it is hardly immoral.

What is so bad about personal happiness being our sole goal? I think it's pretty obvious that personal happiness is better achieved when others are not hurt in the process, as they will try to do something to hamper your happiness when you hurt them.

i was referring to rape, not promiscuity.

and didnt you say you read "Brave New World"? I could've sworn you said something along the lines of liking it more than 1984... most of the morals expressed in that book discourage looking at it like that, unless you're on Mustapha Mond's side :/

You missed the whole point of my post. i was saying you wouldnt CARE if you were raped, as animals most certainly dont and see it only as reproductive or recreational activity. That's where it doesnt fit with darwinism.

And being benevolent, he follows the rules of the universe.

And you're asking me to prove the unprovable; i have neither the tools nor the knowlege to answer that. it's like giving someone a glass of water and asking them to use it to show what it's made of.

Liking a book doesn't necessarily mean you adopt or condone the viewpoints expressed in them...

But this was a book that discussed solely morality and stuff like that.

Thanks for posting so I didn’t have to double post :gasp:


But isn’t this all just personal and they are your ethical assumptions why should anyone else subscribe to them.

a. why is life precious? We are all just dust. Does that mean that abortion, capital punishment, and any form of killing is wrong no matter what? And if it is what do you do about it?

b. What if they do infringe on my liberty and disrupt my happiness? Am I allowed then to do what I want when I want to them?

c. Who says we have an obligation to help others? If it is the individuals life and I’m to live it to the fullest why should anyone feel obligated to help others?

You've never liked a book you may not have agreed with 100%? The members of the "society" in Brave New World were programmed since birth to behave like they do, which is an assault on their personal liberty. If they were free to make the choice to be casual about sex, that would have been fine.

To Manz:
You asked for my personal set of ethics. I never said everyone should ascribe to them. When two conflicting sets of ethics occurs, that's what we call society. We're doing a decent job of it at present. Not perfect, but we ARE only human.

Meh. i disagree, but regardless, let's not derail the thread.

eg- I liked Hitler's Mein Kampf (sp)


That doesn't mean I like killing Jews.


I personally, don't have to agree with everything in a book to enjoy it.


I'd respond to Manz' post but it's directed at Hrae :uhoh: