Atheists....

[Xamonas Chegwe]

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.

[Stanislaw]

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.

[bhekti]

.... 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?)

.... 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.

[bhekti]

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

There you go, Robin.

[Logos]

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!

[Stanislaw]

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

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

[RobinHood3000]

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

[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.

[bhekti]

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.

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)

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.

[Anon22]

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?)

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.

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.

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

[RobinHood3000]

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).

[Theshizznigg]

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

[Whifflingpin]

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.

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 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." 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 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.

[ThatIndividual]

That was certainly interesting.

[beer good]

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!