Deity Existence

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Jikanu]

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

[Ivramire]

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

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