What if there was no god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Further a+b = b+a is only valid in certain circumstances, and therefore not necessarily as self-evident as one might think. Let a = "putting on socks" and b = "putting on shoes." Clearly the commutative law does not work in this case.

---

Yes but this is a mathematical axiom too. Do you really consider this axiom not self-evident? If I say x=x, don't you find such statement not self-evident?

Quote:

---

If however we restrict ourselves to purely abstract mathematical operations of algebra the statement is true. But we now slip out of the empirical yet again.

---

But mathematics are translatable to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosa

Man need a superior beeing even the one that says he doesnt

---

The fact that you need one doesn't mean that everyone does, you know. Your post is merely about what you think religion is based on your own emotion and has no value as a universal statement. If religion was as strong as you said, it wouldn't have been used through history as a tool for power and violence.

Hi Etienne
I agree. indeed religion has been used as a tool for power and violence. Ignorance as well as poverty,misery and hope for a better life have made it even more powerful.I am aware of the historical background to which you are refferring.Still religion has exercised its power well before powerful men in the Church institution have used it for their advantage. Perhaps it did not introduce itself as religion but it did have impact on everyday life.
I would say that the institution has taken advantage at some stages of a natural reverence to some unknown powers that somehow was already there that is intrinsec in man life. Well before than powerful men have influenced others. Man had feared the thunther and similar as a part of an unknown misterious power.Without talking about mithology,Greek,Latin,Egiptian etc,etc, The mistery of the unknown! Isn't what we are talking today after all? The Church institution has merely spotted a vacuum realising that there was scope for using this fear and mistery mith for introducing order in a form or another.
May be as you say that I only express my own feelings and not a universal idea, but I would go steady in calling them feelings.Feeling in this case is negative.
There is nothing in the way I see religion that is dicteted by feelings.
It is a matter of order and common civil relationship.
I behave in a good manner,you do the same. The moment in which I behave badly you can do it too.Of corse you can do it anyway it is your choice.
There is no reason why because the institution has been using religion as a tool for power and violence we must penalise the idea and the good things about it.
I am not desperatly pro or against the idea of God, but the Bible is incredibly
alive today as when it was written ,like every really good book. It contains a lot of good messages ( and some ambiguous ones too) but I am optimistic
the ten commandaments are good in principal,some may be a bit stale but I can live with that ,They were not written yesterday I can always adapt them the best I can to every days life.
Ok it is nice to be unruly who isn't in a form or another, but religion has given us a set of principles we can work upon,they are sensible and good for society.We decide how we use them.
I have nothing against people who do not want to conform,I do not want to do that either if I can help it,on the other hand life in society means to follow some general principal that make everybodys life easier.
As for NOT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BELIEVE,I agree
As for what I am concerned some days I could not care less,but some days my God if I need to believe ! Coward ? I do not think so!
So I am humble on this one.
For the above reasons I would not modify the way I live if somebody turn up and can prove me that God does not exist.
I Hope I have not offended anybody as that is not my intention.

Quote:

---

It is a matter of order and common civil relationship.
I behave in a good manner,you do the same. The moment in which I behave badly you can do it too.

---

But this has nothing to do with religions... Beside this I was only disagreeing with the quoted statement, which you corrected in that new post. No more objections, your honor! :P

It has a lot to do with religion.In fact it depends what do you think religion is.
We can split the idea of religion in two phases: the original which refers to the intrinsic idea of fear and reverence for which you almost obey because you are afraid of the unknown and you do not want to bear the consequences of your disobedience simply you do not know what you are dealing with in its entirity. In this phase man had little idea of what he could do to please the unknown power and to avoid punishment, so he resorted to the usual offering beeing that a sacrifice of some sort.
The other phase is the intervention of the Church establishment in forcing hands to obey and materialising mans fear in hell or heaven,still unknown power but more tangible in the sense that now man can visualise his punishment or reward.
In whichever way you look at it religion has to do with one obeying the other.The other one power beeing the unknown,lets say his knowledge superior to yours.
the institutionalised Church has only set some civil rules down on paper.
These rules happens to be beneficial to order and to avoid chaos.
So May be I better leave my neighbours property alone. Etc,etc.
You are now going to tell me that Law regulates certain things and has nothing to do with religion.
The principal is the same. Sort of set rules, one set the rules the other obeys or punishment.
Actually religion fits better mans original intrinsic fear because you really do not know the extent of severity of punishment. In some ways religion can be more powerful than law.
So the whole idea of behaving well is based on rules which give us a model of how to behave.Religion actually is more complete than Law because has to do with self consciousness, it is not just matter of convincing another person which is more or less at your level but dealing directly with the unknown power.Can you get away with it?
If religion intended as institutionalised Church would have never been there would man everbeen able set limits to his behaviour?

I am already certain that there is no Heaven or Hell, or an afterlife. I am certain that God is our own creation, and as such can be anything we want it to be. Satan (and Hell) is just the manifestation of human suffering. Jesus the manifestation of human compassion.

I do not consider myself to be nihilistic, or faithless... Above all I believe in LOVE... and in humanity... and the interconnectedness of the universe. I live for these things and I wouldn't want it any other way.

I feel peace knowing that "post mortem nihil est"... For then there is no fear in death. However, I envy those that believe in Heaven, to a degree, because if a loved one of mine dies, I know I shall never see that person again. I do not have the solace of Heaven...

You are lucky if the idea of nothing after life feels you with peace,instead the idea unsettles me because it opens a chain of questions first of all " What is the sense of my life? What am I here for etc.etc.
On top of that also I would feel that I have to accomplish something in my life before leaving in order to give a reason to my existence.The worst part of it would be to accept existence without soul. I know,probably somebody out there will come and explain me in chemistry term what my feelings and emotions are. Still to me soul is connected to a higher existence and is the one thing that,if there is a chance of afterlife,I really want to hold on to.

Soul is what makes me different from a leaf or an animal I suppose.
Are you by any chance saying that there is no God,no Heaven or Hell but there is a soul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

The fact that you need one doesn't mean that everyone does, you know. Your post is merely about what you think religion is based on your own emotion and has no value as a universal statement. If religion was as strong as you said, it wouldn't have been used through history as a tool for power and violence.

---

And what excuse shall we give the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the science which blew them to atoms and then killed many slowly through radiation that due to poor scientific research we did not realize was even there to kill with? In the name of what God was this horrible decision made and carried out? I submit it wasn't a religious decision but one of war itself, we knew we couldn't island hop to the mainland without extreme lost of our soldiers. They were too fortified and dug in. We had to hit them where they couldn't stop us, and rushed the new technology. That was a scientific decision, thought out logically, and killing tens of thousands. Don't always blame religion, my friend. As Sherman said: "War is hell."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

Above all I believe in LOVE...

---

I find this difficult for me to understand, because the way I see things, God and love are intertwined, with love not being able to exist without God. How would you describe the love you believe in with no God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

And what excuse shall we give the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the science which blew them to atoms and then killed many slowly through radiation that due to poor scientific research we did not realize was even there to kill with? In the name of what God was this horrible decision made and carried out? I submit it wasn't a religious decision but one of war itself, we knew we couldn't island hop to the mainland without extreme lost of our soldiers. They were too fortified and dug in. We had to hit them where they couldn't stop us, and rushed the new technology. That was a scientific decision, thought out logically, and killing tens of thousands. Don't always blame religion, my friend. As Sherman said: "War is hell."

---

Fair enough, but neither belief in God nor the hand of God itself deterred those who made and carried out the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

And what excuse shall we give the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the science which blew them to atoms and then killed many slowly through radiation that due to poor scientific research we did not realize was even there to kill with? In the name of what God was this horrible decision made and carried out? I submit it wasn't a religious decision but one of war itself, we knew we couldn't island hop to the mainland without extreme lost of our soldiers. They were too fortified and dug in. We had to hit them where they couldn't stop us, and rushed the new technology. That was a scientific decision, thought out logically, and killing tens of thousands. Don't always blame religion, my friend. As Sherman said: "War is hell."

---

You completely misunderstood my point. I never said that all violence came from religion, I was only saying that religion had been a tool for other means all the time and therefore, it is rather absurd, like the quoted post was saying to believe that religion is so strong and absolute and universal, etc, etc.

But, taking your argument, last time I checked, science in solely in the hands of humans, while religion is God on Earth... so if I want to see things from an atheist perspective, you are right, but if we want to assume certain things only for the sake of arguments (certain religious dogmas), then it becomes more problematic for you, and the comparison doesn't stand, as from that point of view, by their very nature, the two wouldn't be comparable at all.

In this way the only way I could have used such an argument as you thought I had used, wouldn't be to say that religion is "evil" but that, in fact is no more inspired by God and no better than any lay institution, movement, school of thought, sect,... it is solely humans playing the great comedy of life, in the end. No scenario, no author, only actors.

rosa: Well you started saying religion was the strongest thing, it is absolute and irreducible, and now you are, to prove your point, merely tracing a parallel between lay laws and religious laws, and assuming that everyone's conduct is only guided by these laws and the fear of punishment, which is completely wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosa

.

Soul is what makes me different from a leaf or an animal I suppose.
Are you by any chance saying that there is no God,no Heaven or Hell but there is a soul?

---

If mind and imagination are considered as some sort of "soul," then sure... Human emotions, imagination, and complexity of thought (language, etc) are what sets us apart from animals... The soul is just love, I believe. And perhaps that is something that is cyclical and eternal, thus gives us immortality.

As for some of the other comments by people (with regard to my first post): Love can be God. God might be inside us. It depends on your interpretation. I do not judge anyone else's beliefs or faith, I only respect it.
And I do not think my life is meaningless just because there is no afterlife. Without an afterlife, I find myself even more ambitious... I hope to help the world, to sacrifice many things for the greater good... the purpose is the advancement of humanity and love of mankind. I will not leave this earth without having left a trace... And hopefully when death comes I will be happy with the way things have gone and with my accomplishments.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

And I do not think my life is meaningless just because there is no afterlife. Without an afterlife, I find myself even more ambitious... I hope to help the world, to sacrifice many things for the greater good... the purpose is the advancement of humanity and love of mankind. I will not leave this earth without having left a trace... And hopefully when death comes I will be happy with the way things have gone and with my accomplishments.

---

I like that, constructive and optimistic, a step up the usually pessimistic and very negative Christian -and others- philosophy.

Hi
No Etienne, I think that there are parts you did not understand becuse you attribute an absolute approach to my posts that is not there and I am not sure where you get it from.
I was merely detaching myself and analysing the point in respect of order and civil relationship as you asked.
Once more Religion has through history directed mans behaviour for fears of different kind( as you said).
That is the part that is intrinsec in man because is the original natural mans perspective of somebody who deals with the unknown.This istinctive approach is still very much with us or ,if you prefer, with some of us in one form or another and that is why we are discussing behaviour in correlation with the existence of Hell and Heaven. I never said that fear is the only aspect to be considered.I could discuss for months if we want to analyse other aspects.What I am sayng is that even fear is not negative here.
You attribute to my words a much too strong perspective using superlative and absolute words which I did not use.Because I am moderate.
Religion has a strong hold on man may not on everybody,as you say,not the strongest hold ! Strong.
I said that I would not change my behaviour if God etc.etc were a fantasy.
Why?
Because I am grown up and I have to admit that Religion has given us a new perspective that was not natural to us.If it were natural to man to be good all the time and to give all the time,we would have no need of Hell and Heaven, we would not need to be regulated by religion or law . We are not, we need regulation.
In my opinion,You are doing the mistake of assuming that because I discuss reasons for existence of religion and some form of mans dependence from it I should throw in the air some " I believe I do not why! " forgetting practicality.
I very well know why!
society needs an order that takes into account the whole of a man,body and soul and religion does just that.And of course there is salt and pepper: Hell and Heaven
No, I am not assuming that we do things only for fear but there is an intrinsic element of that in humane nature.
That is why this debate about hell and heaven is popular.
After all we are discussing carrot and stick.
If it works jolly well have it.

God is so much more than just a deity...God crosses cultures and becomes the point, the line, and the plane on which we were built. God is a being so large, so small, so beautiful, that scientific phenomena like The Mandelbrot Set (They call it The Thumbprint of God) or the Golden Ratio (1.618) seems to point us to the truth of God. That the beauty of the structure of the Universe is God, and were we to paint God's eye view, we would find it love in infintesimal ways. I look to what we can do, and realize I can put one hand next to my other and kiss them, thanking God for walking beside me as an equal, as one who loves me, as one I love and care about, as I would any of my family. God is the one who loves by giving back, the one who reflects back to you the best that you are. Beyond Religions boundaries, and beyond scientific explanation, there is a being of sucn beauty and understanding....just listen to the heartbeat of the Universe one night, and his voice will come soft and whispering next to your shoulder, just to say "you are love...you are love...the universe is love...beautiy is love...show your love by noticing what love lays before you"...and a lift of a chin, a soft kiss, and God says "I am here, always, beside you. I am your best friend. And I love as you do." I cannot imagine a world or universe without love, and a universe without love is a universe without God. In your eyes, in your love, True God, True Beauty, True Love.

I am amased that you both from pretty different sides are so contempt! Lucky you both that have achieved that if that is what you like.
Sorry though I cannot quite share your ideas.not that that means they are not valid in their own rights.Everybody has their own opinion.
I quite prefere a middle ground where things are a bit more flexible.Where ideas are put in such way that do not exclude the opposite or leave space for it.You both do not leave room for doubts and that is what scares me out of your approach.Certainty?mmh.
I wish it were as easy as that?
By the way if what you say is right with the sorte of certainty you both have, one of you is wrong. The problem is which one or both who knows.