Deity Existence

[Jikanu]

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.

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 :/

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.

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.

[Manzcar]

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.

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


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?

[Vasu]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Manzcar]

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.

[Hraesvelg]

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.

[Manzcar]

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.

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.

[Hraesvelg]

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?

[Manzcar]

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.

[Hraesvelg]

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.

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.

[Vasu]

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.

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.

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 :/

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.

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

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.

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.

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.