Deity Existence

[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.