Deity Existence

[Jikanu]

^ 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.

[Vasu]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

^ 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 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.

[Jikanu]

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.

[Ivramire]

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.

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.

[Hraesvelg]

In humans, there's something different, where we can tell that having sex with someone you dont know or care about is wrong.

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.

[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.

[Ivramire]

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

[Jikanu]

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

[Hraesvelg]

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:

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?

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.

[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?