Deity Existence

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Jikanu]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.