Atheists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

---

You really should try a wanton orgy sometime. Tell me your well-being is detrimented afterwards if you can. ;)

even if people are atheist they can lead a good life, because they want to be curtiouse to others in a hope that other will be curtiouse to them...

I think if everyone just respected the others beliefs this world would be a happier place. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DigitalCrash

.... You have to remember though that peer pressure and stuff like that plays an important role in your beliefs, there may be no God, but because so many people frown upon prejudice, they teach their kids to frown upon it to, does it make it right? no, does it make it wrong? no, does it make it liked? no. Also, people fear problems and will try to avoid them as much as they can, thus most learn to respect others, making prejudice be more frowned upon. So basically, what happens is that, in this way, morals are created without there being a God.

---

I see that there is a God there in your system of thought when you are thinking about moral. It's the "peer", the "so many people", the social. And, one characteristic of this God is that it creates moral out of fear. (Facism?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DigitalCrash

.... Another thing I would like to add about morals, according to your term of morals, God created them, like laws that we should follow. What's more important though, the fact that he exists, or the fact that we believe in him? As long as we believe in him, the morals are still there, and even if we don't, there will still be the "preferred" morals.

---

There is a Godless moral. Such a moral can indeed be the "preferred" moral (and, I think it is most "preferred" today). But, it leads to nowhere but the depreciation of its subjects. There is something of the persons of those who profess this moral that has to be died down ( is this sentence correct? please forgive my english). Such moral corrupts something, making the persons professing it repress something of their natural endowment. But, of course, this repression will not be admitted because what becomes most important is the Godless aspect. In other words, for these persons any kinds of morals will do as long as there is no God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

You really should try a wanton orgy sometime. Tell me your well-being is detrimented afterwards if you can. ;)

---

There you go, Robin. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

---

Wanton orgies are great I highly recommend, especially when they bring the dim sum carts around at regular intervals PHOAR! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Wanton orgies are great I highly recommend, especially when they bring the dim sum carts around at regular intervals PHOAR! :lol:

---

Did I hear someone mention wanton orgies? And no one invited me! :mad:

:D

Well, since everyone's set on having a wanton orgy :rolleyes:, what say we all travel over to Stan's ship? Plenty of rum and room below-decks...

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Aye, there is value in it. I may not believe in a God, but I believe in goodness to others. My creed in life, since it obviously is not to serve God, is
Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

---

"Goodness to others", "Well-being" are principles, or elements of a principle. What is the origin of these principle? It is God. So, God is the embodiment of principles without which human life is impossible, both in physical and moral realms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Did you just tell me that my beliefs are ludicrous, worthless, and empty, then ask me not to take offense?

---

Ludicrous? No. Worthless and empty? consequently. (please don't take offence. forgive my language. I factually don't know how to put it into more polite phrase)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

To me, it equates to you sacrificing my contentment for your personal self-satisfaction at having struck a blow against us heathens. Your actions thus go against my beliefs as my existence apparently goes against yours.

---

No, i don't mean that way. I'm really sorry Robin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

I see that there is a God there in your system of thought when you are thinking about moral. It's the "peer", the "so many people", the social. And, one characteristic of this God is that it creates moral out of fear. (Facism?)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhekti

There is a Godless moral. Such a moral can indeed be the "preferred" moral (and, I think it is most "preferred" today). But, it leads to nowhere but the depreciation of its subjects. There is something of the persons of those who profess this moral that has to be died down ( is this sentence correct? please forgive my english). Such moral corrupts something, making the persons professing it repress something of their natural endowment. But, of course, this repression will not be admitted because what becomes most important is the Godless aspect. In other words, for these persons any kinds of morals will do as long as there is no God.

---

Or in other words, the morals aren't the same anymore because something in them dies (faith in a god is a lot different than faith in no god), and thus one of the reasons why I am not completely aetheistic, I really don't want to give up such a thing. Imagine a world where everybody was aetheistic, I know that that's not necessarily a bad thing, but everytime I see my grandmother talk about God... her eyes shine with knowledge and certainty of his existence. It's faith, a really strong faith, and I don't really want to give that up (besides, with faith comes hope, and with hope may come fortitude and optimism). Deep down I know that God doesn't exist, and this I am certain of, nevertheless, I believe in him as if he existed. Seems odd? I guess it's just something you have to experience. Perhaps there is a God though, but if there is, he's not what we would expect him to be, he's not going be a ruler, and would just simply be to life, what the Grim Reaper is to death, and it's good enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

---

As I said earlier before, God isn't the one creating the morals, it's the belief in him that does it, as long as we believe in him, the morals will remain, regardless of whether he exists or not. Also the wanting to be kind to others will stop us from commiting murder, raping and stuff. Friends are an amazing thing and I don't want to lose that, and thus I know that that will prevent me from commiting such things whether god is or isn't. Remember that love for others will still exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

---

Well, the "you can't be serious" implies that you think my principles laughable--i.e., ludicrous.

And I disagree that principles inherently originate with God. The principle of pain = bad, pleasure = good is instinctive and coincides with either science or religion (whichever you prefer). This, combined with the empathy derived from sentience and status as a social creature (that's a mouthful), establishes the beginnings of my mission statement (as stated previously).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

No, I haven't--poetry isn't my preferred category for reading, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'll look into it.

Don't laugh, but I think Michael Crichton's The Lost World makes an interesting point regarding the nature of evolution. What happens it that the Velociraptors that have been cloned exhibit behaviors that are nothing like the hunters of today, and probably nothing like the hunters of prehistory.

For example, when they make a kill, all ages of raptor leap into the fray to feed, without any form of hierarchy based on rank or sex. If one raptor is contesting the meal against another, it is liable to be disemboweled and then added to the menu.

The reason for this is because, when the Velociraptors were cloned, only their GENETIC blueprint was copied. Any form of social hierarchy that existed in raptor "culture" was lost when they went extinct, and with it any rituals or practices (such as feeding patterns) that kept them orderly. Other group predators by comparison, like lions, undergo no such chaos after hunting.

So, the question is, when humans replaced the family/group structure that exists in other branches of the primate tree with a counter-evolutionary thought pattern, how did they manage to survive? For example, I was thinking about poisonous mushrooms earlier in the day (I haven't the faintest idea why). How is it that humans have to be formally educated in which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous, yet wild animals manage just fine without posters or the New York Public Library Desk Reference? Or take all of those abominable commercials for Viagra and comparable drugs--if the condition being treated is so serious and epidemic that it merits medical research to fix, how is it that we managed for the past 40,000 years as a species?

---

I would absolutely love to experiment with the aspects of humanity. See if humans could be manipulated into certain thinking, or if they could be completely co-existent without the traditions passed on by humanity.

The only problem with this, is that it would be considered by many as, a person playing God, because he is subjecting his fellow humans to different tests, and therefor manipulating the social, religious, mental hierachy that has existed since human creation.

Thus such subjecting becomes a human rights issue, because under the microscope it would be considered immoral to try and raise humans to think differently, or act differently of society.

From a clearly interesting point of view, it would be interesting to see if a human removed from all obligations of religion/social teachings would indeed be able to adequitely exist in a pure state of atheism, or would indeed try to find some form of spiritual connection.

I also think it would be interesting to study, subversive, or repressed genological memories, and the modest role they play in the shaping of the human mind.
Since I think that those genetical memories, (something caused by great trauma/joy or shock) that so affected Adam and his descendants could very well be laying in the more dormant part of the human brain, and thus affect the reason that the human race has a singular set of moral values which seems to be bastardized by several forms of belief or religion.

This is not an unfounded realization, since we share our parents genetic makeup, and there parents before them, we could also inherit through our genetics, memories of past family members.

Still this is all for time and science, and it would seem that as we answer another question of the mind, another ten suddenly crop up to take its place.

"Do you come here often?"

Esquire Hanza

Getting to God is like climbing to the top of a mountain. Each religion is like a stream running down the mountain. So follow the stream up. You could leave the stream, but you might get lost. You could find a different stream, but it might be hard. But, if you try hard enough, you come to a place on the mountain that is higher than all the streams, and then you have to go on without one.

Of course, many people by the stream think only of its refreshing qualities, so they picnic in a pretty spot, and there they stop. :yawnb:

Atheists, perhaps, are those who do not care for streams. There is nothing to stop them from going up the mountain, but maybe no reason why they should, especially as it is cold :cold: and clouded. They look down on the picniccers, and say, "no thanks - keep your cool refreshing water, we've got our own bottles of brandy." :cool: They look at those climbing beside the streams and say that there is no point in going up to a land of cloud and ice, and they laugh "look at all those climbers, they can't even agree on which stream is best." Not surprising, since many of the climbers are wasting their efforts :smash: on trying to call to climbers in different streams, to tell them they are going the wrong way.

Agnostics wander near the streams, not daring to walk far away, but not daring to get their feet wet either. :bawling:

:lol:

That was certainly interesting.

Whifflingpin: Well put, but you forgot to mention that those of us who choose to stay down on the plains have had hot and cold running water and indoor plumbing for the last 150 years or so... plus, we took a helicopter ride to the top once and didn't find anything there! :brow:

Wifflingpin> What happens if you reach the top and realise that the journey has not been worth it?

Beer_Good>That was my first reaction as well when I read Whiffling's post! :D

What if someone prefers the valleys or the plains?

And how does the saying 'You can take the girl/boy out of valley but you cannot take the valley out of her/him.' saying fit into all this? ;)

Stanislaw Lem once said something that I feel is perfect for this ocasion:
"Once you have reached the top, you realize that every road leads down"



Maybe people are just irational? :D

There's nothing at the top but a view of what you're missing being up there!

So come on all you stream followers, follow them down the hill. It's an easier trek, and I can promise you a beach at the end of the trip! With Ice-cream! :lol:

God is like an ocean. Each religion is like a stream running down to the sea. So follow the stream down. You could leave the stream, but you might get lost. You could find a different stream, but it might be hard. But, eventually, whatever stream you follow, you reach the ocean.

Of course, many people by the stream think only of its refreshing qualities, so they picnic in a pretty spot, and there they stop.

Atheists, perhaps, are those who do not care for streams. There is nothing to stop them from going down to the sea, but maybe no reason why they should, especially as it is deep and maybe full of monsters. They look down on the picniccers, and say, "no thanks - keep your cool refreshing water, we've got our own bottles of brandy." They look at those going down the streams and say that there is no point in going down to a place of mud and seaweed, and they laugh "look at all those bumblers, they can't even agree on which stream is best." Not surprising, since many of the travellers are wasting their efforts on trying to call to travellers in different streams, to tell them they are going the wrong way.

Agnostics wander near the streams, not daring to walk far away, but not daring to get their feet wet either.

Some streams reach lakes and go no further, some turn into foetid swampland, some get culverted and end up behind dams getting pumped into reservoirs - which religions are they? Care to expand? ;)

But a nice switcheroo, nevertheless - respect!

Whiffling, as much as I have enjoyed your allegorical representations of the almighty, they are becoming magnificently redundant.

However, worry ye not, for I bestow unto thee a dancing banana.

:banana:

(In fact, god is like a dancing banana. Indeed! He is, indeed! Ever mocking his own human creations, he is himself a silly reminder of our origin; of our being as apes on enormous ego trips.)

Behold! I give ye! ..........

the dancing banana: :banana:

ThatIndividual,

I think you may be on to something there. It is obvious to me now that my banana allergy only began when I became an atheist!

Perhaps if I were to embrace religion again, I would be able to enjoy bananas once more!

On second thoughts, I never liked bananas that much. ;)

You know that's funny... now that you mention it, I am also mildly allergic to bananas. they give me a dreadful stomach ache (like no other food.)

I am, however, not an atheist. (Takes far too much faith to be an atheist!)

I think there's anough for a thesis here. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

---

yeah, that's a good point.
I've been a filthy heathen all my life and weathered 13 years of Religious Education completeyl unscathed.
But on the other hand, i've always tried to be a good person. even in primary school my teacher said how helpful and considerate I was towards the other kids... lots of times I just feel I want to help people and there's no real motivation behind it.. I'm not some kind of goody-goody preacher who tells everybody that being altruistic is a good thing.. it's just something I do and I don't even care if people will help me in return or will be grateful or whatever...
well, hehe, i voted dunno, because I certainly don't believe in the kind of god most Christian denominations would have us believe in. but on the other hand I also believe there's more to human life than just material things or the laws of natural sciences...
--> so, what does that make me (apart from a rambling bore? ;) )

Agnostic or something... not sure... lol anyhow, here's the reason I don't like believing in a God. Even though I loved seeing my Grandma believe in him and everything... it was just marvelous, the reason I don't really like believing in a God is pretty much the same reason. Now this is just one reason, and it's not too major, and as a matter a fact its not even something you have to do. Basically it's putting faith in him, that everything will turn out fine, that everything will turn out spectacular, but the reason I don't want to do that, is simply because it feels sort of like "as long as there is a God and you believe in him nothing bad will happen" or somewhere along those lines, which isn't necessarily true. Well... basically what I don't really like is the fact that it's not you... it's not coming from you... it's not "I know it will happen", it's "I know it will happen because God is with me"... ok... having God with you is good but... I'd rather take the "I know it will happen" because it's just a stronger certainty... it's coming from me, and it's a true feeling... it's not just because God exists, it's just because it simply is and shall be, it's trusting myself, and not God, to make sure that everything will be alright, to know that everything will be alright and with the belief in God, that sort of loses it's quality and uniqueness or something... it kind of feels as if we're in despair and the only reason there's hope is because of God or something... or perhaps... I'm just rambling or something... O.o I don't know.

I absolutely love the first, or maybe its the third Gymnopedies.
I quite enjoy classical music.
have you ever listen to Faure's Pavane.

I prefer the gnossiennes personally, they have a deliciously melancholy tinge to them. If you're ever in Normandy, go and visit Erik Satie's house in Honfleur. It's been converted into a bizarre, surrealist museum. There is quite honestly nowhere quite like it.

I believe that there is no god for the same reason that I do not believe in the existance of fairies. It is merely a matter of common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

---

The idea as you stated it does sound silly, but it's not incorrect. Correctly stated, the position is more like this: in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding? A law established by a Divine Being carries authority that overrides human dysfunction and "preferrence." Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.

No - the absence of faith does not mean that the Christian becomes a socio/psychopath; it simply means that the stable, unchanging nature of morality is gone, and I am now free to decide what kind of moral framework I wish to exist within. That's only a good thing if I am a "good" being - but what if I'm not?

Nothing wrong with "living the good life" as long as your idea of "good" doesn't deprive me of my rights and freedoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oceallaigh

I believe that there is no god for the same reason that I do not believe in the existance of fairies. It is merely a matter of common sense.

---

Only under your definition of "common sense." We who believe in God call our view "common sense" as well - so perhaps you've got an argument that differs from mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding?

---

That's very simple: because we need it to be that way. Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.

Quote:

---

Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.

---

But it already is that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

I disagree with the contention that "humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work."

Animal populations have known this intuitively for years, at least insofar as primate social structures are concerned. The only thing that really happened along the line was that humans started to question why this was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

That's very simple: because we need it to be that one.

---

That doesn't make it binding beyond mutual agreement. Once another party decides to not agree, to what do we appeal to bring them back into line beyond sheer force? And how can we even "bring them back into line" if law was merely what we agreed it was? I'm not arguing that human-constructed laws have no power; I'm well aware of their necessity and that - in general - human law does a decent job of governing things. However: for much of history human law was constructed under the umbrella of Divine Law - and as such, human law held more authority - and authority is the real issue I'm talking about. Human law works, yes - but its authority is questionable because it is open to revision and rejection in ways that Divine Law is not - hence making Divine Law ultimately more stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.

---

"Somewhere along the line"? That's kind of vague. And why should they figure out that these particular things - murder, rape, etc - are bad? To what standard were they appealing when they "quickly figured out" that these things were bad? Why should (not why are) these things be considered immoral at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

But it already is that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

---

No. Your response does not work because it is only radical Islam extremists who believe killing in the name of God is OK. Christianity and Islam do not radically differ in how they believe followers ought to behave to each other. The real problem is not between religions, but cultures. Once there is no larger framework that transcends human law that we can appeal to, we now have to allow genocide, slavery, female genital mutilation, child sex workers - you name it, because who are we to question the laws of another culture? You can't see that trap?

You're only making one religious comparision; it's not just Christians and Muslims. There is Judaism, Buddhist, Hindu, Janism, Taosim, etc. and while there are basic values across the board; don't murder, don't steal, etc., there is no shortage on issues of morality that are disagreed upon.
And why did they figure out that those things are bad? Because it meant chaos. If you allow others to murder at will, then you could be murdered, so peopled agreed that anyone who murders will be punished, therefore protecting each other. It's in my best interest to say murder is bad because if I say murder isn't bad, then I could be murdered. I have studied ethics in college and believe me, there are many theories on the origins of morality that work every bit as well as religion. Egotism, utilitarianism, relativism, etc. I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

I am an atheist. I used to be a southern Baptist. I defy anyone to demonstrate that that is not an improvement. :lol:

Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg. I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.

I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit.
I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

---

I don't believe my posts indicated anything of the kind. Morality can exist without religion - I've never argued otherwise. My point is simply about authority. The only point I keep sticking on is the authority behind the law. That $20 bill in your pocket is - by itself - worthless; it is only the guarantee of the US mint that makes it worth something - the authority behind the piece of paper gives it value. If you knew that the local judge would dismiss your case in your favor for that $20 bill, how seriously would you take the police? A bad, simplified example, but I think you get the point: it is not the police who are so powerful but the authority behind them. Sure: you can flee a cop, argue with one, assault and even kill one - but the authority behind that badge means that you have now brought a force to bear against yourself that will bring you to justice. My contention is that morality without a Divine Figure behind it (note that I did not say "religion") who establishes the "rules of conduct" is simply a man-made construction; as such, it cannot claim any authority over other men than what it can - by force - enforce. But if I create a bigger force, then I'm right - right? Why should the decisions of other men restrict my ideas as to what is "right" or "wrong"? Divine Law means that humanity cannot override what is "right" or "wrong" in favor of personal bias or just plain cultural wierdness because a Being beyond humanity (and, therefore, we assume, smarter than humanity) created that law.

I don't buy that for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

I don't buy that for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.

---

Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) we have invested it with that power (which means we can also divest it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules.

"Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?