You don't have to do either of those two things.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Atheism vs Theism |OT|
- Thread starter GTP_Daverytimes
- Start date
- Status
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Why? Do you embrace that line of reasoning for everything? This is a classic case of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.
I don't disagree with you at all that many of these theories make sense from a practical point of view. Of course it makes sense not to embrace murder or theft because those things would hurt society. However, that does nothing to tell us why those actions are wrong, which is the question we're really after. Why is it wrong to do something that will harm society? And of course, societies change with time, so should we simply allow our own moral views to change along with our society, always choosing to side with the majority?
"Murders are not exactly a good idea."
First of all the world "murder" carries a lot of baggage with it since it assumes that the killing is a morally wrong action. It implies injustice. However, one person might see the killing of someone as just while another sees it as unjust, meaning it is not necessarily murder. Furthermore, someone might be able to demonstrate to you how killing someone (or a group of people) would benefit the majority of society. Does that make such an action okay?
You spoke of how life works, but obviously life extends far beyond humans. Do you consider one animal killing another as a morally wrong action? If not then why should we since we are, as you say, "just like any other social animals out there"?
I guess I should have seen this coming, we're now right back to where I was a week or so ago when I had this discussion in another thread. I went into a great deal of detail on what you're talking about here and I honestly don't have the time or desire to do it again. Sorry for the cop-out but it really is a weighty topic and I can't talk about it without consuming far more time than I have.soul creator said:
It starts here if you're interested in going down that rabbit hole.
Thanks for the kind words but I think I've already passed through the stage that you're referring to. You might chalk my belief up to a desire to want to believe (which I will admit I do want for various reasons) but I think it is a logically sound belief to hold beyond simple desire. I guess that the atheistic arguments you're referring to just don't resonate as strongly with me, particularly pertaining to issues like morality.
The vast majority of atheists do not believe in objective moral values as far as I'm aware, and those that do don't really have any way to prove why they do.Buckethead said:
captainnapalm
Member
I don't think people need religion to have good moral values, and certainly not to have good intentions.
The problem with a purely reason-based morality is that it tends to fail when it comes up against strong and often uncontrollable human emotions and desires. That is when some will argue you need a spiritual foundation - as a matter of self-discipline and control. To possess an inner strength and spirit and peace of mind.
This doesn't come from merely believing in a book like the bible or a church, however, which is why so many religious types are so incredibly hypocritical. Many religious people aren't spiritual at all, and their emotions and desires get the better of them just as it does secular people.
Personally, I think having purely a rational foundation to your existence will lead to problems. Too much about the world is essentially irrational. And it's often our irrational thoughts and feelings that lead us around, not our rationalisations.
I think people who try and rationalise their way through everything eventually become like a juggler trying to keep too many balls in the air. Eventually one is going to fall. And that can lead to the whole thing coming down.
The problem with a purely reason-based morality is that it tends to fail when it comes up against strong and often uncontrollable human emotions and desires. That is when some will argue you need a spiritual foundation - as a matter of self-discipline and control. To possess an inner strength and spirit and peace of mind.
This doesn't come from merely believing in a book like the bible or a church, however, which is why so many religious types are so incredibly hypocritical. Many religious people aren't spiritual at all, and their emotions and desires get the better of them just as it does secular people.
Personally, I think having purely a rational foundation to your existence will lead to problems. Too much about the world is essentially irrational. And it's often our irrational thoughts and feelings that lead us around, not our rationalisations.
I think people who try and rationalise their way through everything eventually become like a juggler trying to keep too many balls in the air. Eventually one is going to fall. And that can lead to the whole thing coming down.
BruiserBear
Banned
My loss of faith had absolutely nothing to do with morality. It was purely about science, and what it can tell us about the physical world we live in.
First off, we now know evolution is a fact, and it tells us how life on earth came to be. For a long time I was in the "oh, it's just a theory" crowd. Well, once I truly learned about evolution, and exactly what we know, it became obvious to me it was no longer a theory. Evolution has become a fact, just like the earth is round is now a fact, when it once might have been considered a theory.
Second, all the things we now know about the universe. We're not the center of the universe. In fact, we're just sitting here on a random planet, in a random solar system, in a random galaxy, in this MASSIVE universe. We don't hold some special place in this universe, we're just in some random part of a random galaxy. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Eventually I realized just how much evidence there is that goes completely against the god story, it almost became laughable to me. When a human brain is damaged we now know that people's memories and thought processes are affected based on where the brain was damaged. Memories can be lost forever, etc. How logical does it seem that when we die, and our entire brain is dead, we live on, with our memories intact? Are our memories and personalities stored in the cloud, to be later accessed when we die? What about people that have died, literally, heart stopped beating for 30 minutes, etc, but were later revived, only to say they felt like they just woke up? Did they go to heaven while their body was literally dead? No, they were just gone, no memories, no thoughts, just like before you were born, and just like it will be when your're dead.
For me religion was purely about education. The more I learned about the world, the more religion seemed absurd. It was that simple. There is a reason that the smartest people among us seem to be the least religious, and I don't say that in some sort of a egotistic way. It's just a fact.
Buckethead
Banned
This is all pretty nebulous and non-sensical. Could you elaborate, please?
It's not reasonable to fly off the handle, sure it happens, but then it's reasonable to apologize.
Also if we're illogical and prone to "strong and often uncontrollable human emotions and desires" how can:
1. You (or anyone) argue for a logical, orderly universe that was created by God?
2. God not expect us to be prone to our strong, uncontrollable emotions?
I'm not saying go around being emotional all the time but it is bound to happen given our nature.
Self-restraint is logical and reasonable. It forces one to think about your fellow humans.
So in short, God "created us sick and commanded us to be well" as Hitchens put it and then supposedly condemns us to hell for following our nature?
It doesn't make any sense.
I have seen his as an argument but have never seen it as a religious argument outside of the Dark Ages.
Anyway, I was watching some YouTube video explaining why God's existence was unlikely but it made a good point that the Earth was still pretty unique in a very harsh universe (A sign of an unloving God to make things so harsh rhetoric)
Do you believe that extraterrestial intelligent life is abundant in the universe?
captainnapalm
Member
I don't personally believe in an external God, a being out there who made us and is watching us and expecting things from us. As you point out, such a concept becomes problematic pretty quickly. Nor do I believe in heaven and hell, other than as states of mind. I don't believe in judgement or anything like that.
It's all down to us, each one of us is a microcosm of the universe, because for whatever reason the universe is experiencing itself subjectively through us. Whether we create joy or happiness or misery and suffering is entirely up to us. There's no one out there watching our progress, unless some alien race used the earth as a giant petri dish to create self-aware monkeys, just to see what they'd do.
BruiserBear
Banned
Well, I don't really consider it a religious argument either, but the facts we've discovered are opposite of what the bible tells people. We're special, God created the earth for us, etc, etc. When in reality we find the earth is not special, and scientists are already identifying planets circling other stars, and soon they're going to begin identifying planets that are extremely similar to ours, from an atmosphere perspective, which will almost confirm life exists on those planets. This avenue of science is going to explode in the coming decade.
Yes, I believe extraterrestrial intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. It's nearly a mathematical certainty.
It was Tyson and honestly he was rambling a bit. From what I gather, he was stating the harshness of the universe, would make a snide comment about God, then he would talk about how tough the earth was, make a snide comment.
I think the stance was considering how big the universe is and how volatile the earth is, there's little chance a loving god could have created it.
Listening to him, though, made me think that any life in the universe is pretty special- even moreso than the size of the universe.
SirChained
Banned
Go atheism! Woohoo! Go get 'em!
Buckethead
Banned
soul creator
Member
so let's pull back a bit: What is your definition of objective morality/evil/good. Not individual examples of it, but what does that core concept actually mean?
I think that would help clarify the discussion.
wait a minute, looking at that other thread
The_Darkest_Red said:
Well yes, I will dismiss it as an appeal to emotions, since that's exactly what it is
The_Darkest_Red said:
Replace the word "God" here with any other made up being, and we're in exactly the same spot. So...
Ahh, something we can work with!
Ok then, "Murder is considered bad, because it causes suffering, and human brains, with few exceptions, consider suffering as something to be avoided, all else being equal"
I just defined an "objective" moral, with no Gods needed.
But wait, I think I can predict what's next!
Why is suffering bad?
To which I say, because that's what the concept has historically meant, and that's the word we collectively decided to use for it, so that's as close to "objective" as we're gonna get. Murder will cause large amounts of suffering, regardless of one person's individual feelings (say, the murderer's), because that's how the vast majority of human brains work. A person without cancer is considered healthier than someone with cancer, all else being equal. Someone asking "But why is having cancer considered unhealthy? What if I like cancer!" seems like a bit of an odd question to ask at that point. We can ask why forever with pretty much every single thing in human existence, (as anyone with kids probably knows about)
You seem to want to appeal to some sort of "unchanging god" that avoids the messiness and complexity that is the human brain, but that's just an extra assertion without evidence. If everyone can just make up assertions without evidence to "back up" their points, then pretty much anything goes, and nothing will ever actually get resolved.
I said consensus, not majority. They're two very different notions.
I gave you the answer already. It is wrong to do something harmful for society because we're a social species. We evolved as such. Remove society and we're not doing very well.
When is killing a good thing for society? As opposed to other means? And, of course, if you understand that by society I mean the entirety of our species. Not just us vs them.
If you were a lion, killing a rival's offspring would never seem immoral to you. Oh and don't tell me that lions are not our equals etc. What I mean is, you've got the same cognitive faculties, but your different human species functions and has evolved as a lion e.g not a social one. Or at least not in the sense that ours is.
Morality is just an elaborate name and concept we just put on top of something common to every living being: the behaviour towards other members of the society and others. If you accept god's command "thou shalt not kill" as absolute, then you can't eat anything. Obviously, that wouldn't quite work, so this supposedly objective and absolute moral standard has sub-clauses making killing A-OK. Such as a cow or egypt's newborns.
He never argued that earth was special or unique. Just that "fined-tuned universe" and "intelligent design" don't make any fucking sense if you think about it for 5 minutes.
You either didn't understand or twisting his point to try and make one.
1. Big Bang Theory speaks of a point of singularity and a rapid expansion afterward - it's entirely possible there was something around before that, not nothingness - who knows. But the idea that the Universe must have a beginning isn't necessary - nobody knows what was around before the big bang - who says it has to be nothing? This also doesn't take into consideration that time is kind of a relative thing.
2. That doesn't make any sense - you say "nothing can be eternal because we don't know of anything that is eternal" - and normally the idea alone is fine, but then you get to the last part
3. God is infinite because we define it to be? But we don't see anything in the world that is infinite, so by your own rationale - we have no evidence of infinite beings~!
If we are the only life forms, well naturally there is a god, because we are special. BUT, if we somehow find out life is everywhere, then clearly there is a god and the universe is tuned to creating life. Therefore god. You cannot make such contradictory statements about scientific theories. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then evolution as we know it is impossible. It relies on an old universe. But religion? It will squirm, twist and bend to whatever it needs to be to support its original conclusion.
Did he really say "little chance"? That's a pretty dumb thing to say honestly because pretty clearly there's no chance.
If a car manufacturer designs cars with a specific defect that on occasion they blow up or somehow injure the people inside and he did it that way on purpose, he is not loving. That's not a stance. That's a matter of fact.
Melchiah
Member
Sorry if this has already been posted. It puts to question the old idea, that religion is the cornerstone of morality.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140035.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140035.htm
I wasn't quoting. The video was a whiole back in another religious hate thread (there's so many, who can keep up except the ones that start them?)
I assumed he playing his Dawkins wannabe persona , he goes the the route of talking down to religious folks by being all superior with wisdom and knowledge and stuff (As if we didn't already know the universe is a pretty dangerous place and as if there are sermons out there indicating that we think there are Christians on Pandora).
Your analogy doesn't make sense btw so I won't try to guess what your point is. 'll just go off on my own tangent so no confusion can occur.
The problem with arguing in a manner that we have the right to expect our versions of perfect life from God is very similar to the whole "Why we still got monkeys?" question. Evolution does not concern itself with the best surviving. It's silly to think that God should concern himself with making the universe accessible in all locations as long as there is sufficient accessibility for us. There is.
A flaw in the video is the notion that just because there are very few ideal locales for life to develop in the universe, that somehow lessens the awesomeness & uniqueness of life on this planet. That couldn't be further from the truth. For all we know scientifically, the Earth remains the most amazing thing in the universe since we can do more on it than just look in awe of it.
So depending on the view, the earth can be seen as a great expression of God's love for us. Now maybe if you want to blame God for having people move near a volcano or even refuse to leave when people tell them that volcano is about to blow (I mention volcano because I think the video mentioned it and tidal waves), then yes the Earth is a car that blows up on occasion and there should be a class action suit of some kind.
BruiserBear
Banned
A woman who gets raped is tragic pregnant or not.
I didn't say anything about God's grand plan did I? That's pretty easy to decipher and making the Earth inhabitable has little to do with it except in a very vague way.
Am I correct in thinking you are making an argument in support of lack of free will to protect the innocent? Just curious since it's such a tangent statement from what I was saying.
BruiserBear
Banned
My comment was just a random thought, provoked after reading your previous reply. On the one hand, as I've said before, I used to be just as convinced a believer as you are today, so I should understand how you approach such difficult questions. But on the other hand, it's almost like I've forgotten what exact logic paths I went down when reconciling such concepts.
I'm sure you've had it pointed out for you before, that just because we find ourselves on this one planet that sustains life, does not make that planet at all special. We would never find ourselves on a planet that didn't sustain life.
Do you fully understand and accept evolution as the explanation for how life came to be on this planet?
....
No.. You wouldn't blame God for people living near the volcano. You would blame him for the actual volcano. What is wrong with you?
The Japanese tsunami killed 16,000 people. The Indonesia tsunami killed 250,000. You're a pretty cold person if you could blame those victims or think those acts are expressions of love.
Mother Teresa thought that the suffering of the "patients" in her hospices was God's love, and that's why she withheld any sort of painkillers from them.
I don't necessarily disagree with the bold. However, I personally think life is more interesting an aspect of the universe than the...universe. I don't think I'm alone in that. Further, since this is the only place that life exists that we are aware of, it may be very well be the most interesting. Assuming life exists elsewhere, we may very well be the most interesting species out of all hypothetically life sustaining planets out there.It's hard to tell since our imaginations have a hard time contemplating cultures much different than ours and we're likely never to meet them anyway to compare/contrast.
EDIT: Forgot to answer. I do not believe evolution was the start of life on this planet. Thanks to many helpful Youtube videos brought to my attention, I understand to a limited extent how some think that.
What's wrong with volcanoes? I'm pretty sure we need them for something...but I'm not the science guy so what do I know?
Your analogy still seems disconnected to me. Is everything in your life purely binary code? Are you saying that God created the tsunami because he loved the victims?
Buckethead
Banned
The point is that if God created the world for man, he sure has a funny way of showing it.
This given that the entire natural world is a serious threat to man's physical existence (natural disasters, poisonous plants, violent animals) not to mention it's supposed effect on one's immaterial soul.
And I didn't even mention complications from evolution or germ theory.
When one examines the natural world and anatomy it makes the idea of God creating man or "intelligent design" quite preposterous.
This given that the entire natural world is a serious threat to man's physical existence (natural disasters, poisonous plants, violent animals) not to mention it's supposed effect on one's immaterial soul.
And I didn't even mention complications from evolution or germ theory.
When one examines the natural world and anatomy it makes the idea of God creating man or "intelligent design" quite preposterous.
No one said he created the world for man. There's way more to the planet than people living on it. I haven't seen a verse yet that indicates God's only concern is people.
That said, we are definitely compatible with this planet of ours and are the primary ruiners of it.
And yet during all this time in far more primitive conditions, we remain and do as we please within the realms of possibility and tend to die of old age no less rather than the ravages of this hostile planet that doesn't like us.
I don't think it's a valid point to complain about not being able to swim in lava when there's some nice solid ground next to it that causes no harm to us.
You must not be the religion guy either if you think God needs volcanos in order for something to happen. Hint: God is omnipotent.
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I'm serious here, is there something mentally wrong with you? Why would I be saying God loved the victims? I'm saying God is not loving because he murdered 250,000 people.
I thought we'd already given this god guy the old heave ho? Doesn't really sound like the kind of fellow you'd want running things.
Just accept it - there's nothing more than this - life has no pre-destined purpose, our consciousness is the result of evolutionary forces on our genes. Let's try to be moral and all get along (except you crazies at the back - 6000yrs - pfft).
Just accept it - there's nothing more than this - life has no pre-destined purpose, our consciousness is the result of evolutionary forces on our genes. Let's try to be moral and all get along (except you crazies at the back - 6000yrs - pfft).
God's power has nothing to do with this. Just because God can do something doesn't mean he's the engine of everything.
Are you thinking God is anti-science lol?
I guess I just answered my own question. Actually I guess you may be saying that God hates people & science.
Um, God's power has everything to do with it since an omnipotent being would have the power to create whatever reality he wanted. He doesn't need anything. If volcanos and tsunamis kill people, it's because he wants people to be killed. There can be no other explanation.
These are pretty pathetic responses. Weren't you wondering in another thread why you have a bad reputation? It would certainly seem that God hates people seeing as he murdered 250,000 of them. I take it you're coming around to that fact since you have no argument against what I said. Why would God hate science?
Liquid Helium
Member
But the point is that if god is all knowing, which means he knew that lava and tsunamis were going to kill tons of people, and he knew the pain and suffering that this would cause to the friends and family of the people killed. And god is all powerful, and he could have created a world that didn't have or need tsunamis or volcanoes, and instead we had something harmless. And it would have been just as easy for him to create that world, but he chose not to, he chose a world were he knew he was going to inflict suffering on tons of people for no reason. Even if he isn't the force that powers natural disasters he is at least complicit in them, and that god is evil and not worth worshipping.
But then you condemn for creating this reality - one in which you can't be doing to bad in. Again, to me you seem to be upset that God does not control you. I have no idea why that would be a better reality for you, but it would not be for me. If that means there are some risks in life, then I'd rather live with those.
Beside I'm trying to avoid answering this in a religious way since that never goes well, but if we are talking omnipotence, then what makes you think this temporary life is the permanent one anyway?
I wasn't wondering that at all. I'm the one that doesn't care what my reputation is to you and others. You'll believe whatever fits your view of me. I know I've never said anything remotely dishonest or disingenuous so I'm good.
To the second point, I think it's silly to say the tsunami was murder to begin with, but I fail to understand why God allowing a normal, scientific course of events to happen (As has happened throughout most all of history) is a pathetic response - especially in comparison to God murdering people by tidal wave for no particular reason and no obligation being given to rescue them.
God is under no obligation at all to stop a particular course of events. There's not even an obligation for him to know about it ahead of time (Omnipotence & omniscience are two different things).
To create a world that didn't have those things would not be a self-sufficient world. The world needs volcanoes and blizzards and thunderstorms. Tectonic plates are necessary. Being a wholly independent creature, it's our responsibility to be cautious about these things and, as mentioned, hope that God rectifies it if we suffer through one unavoidably.
Scripturally God has the ability to beat death even after it gets us. So yes, there is pain and suffering (largely as a result of what we do or did to ourselves or to each other, but that's a digression). On the other hand, it's momentary- even when death is all you should expect.
I didn't misrepresent it. I said what you said. It just had an unintentional result I expounded on.
If history serves as any indication, I assume you won't be satisfied with that response?
See, I am not selfish. I don't consider someone good if he treats me well and makes millions of others suffer. (Unlike christians who are fine with the concept of hell as long as they aren't the ones to go there)
If you had the power to eliminate such a thing as tsunamis, you would keep them because you like risks? Am I reading you correctly?
According to this,
http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/pid/645
9% of Indonesia's popular are christian. If the Christian God exists... For the majority of the people that were killed in the Tsunami, that temporary life is all those people will have. Or even worse, they'll be suffering forever in hell for eternity.
Because he created that scientific course of events.
In fact, it sounds like a claim that someone dishonest or disingenuous would make. Hmm..
Wait, is that my part?
Then no I didn't say that nor did I say Tyson said that. If anything I'm agreeing with him without being an atheist. Life is pretty easy to explain without miracles (After all, it wasn't like I was the one talking about us getting here by abiogenesis...).
Anyway, why didn't you just quote what I said rather than paraphrase? The flaw has nothing to do with my beliefs about God, it's Tyson's belief about the religious.
LOL at you Finetuning and Intelligent Designing my response. You MUST prove me to be the dishonest so and so you know that I am don't ya?
You little obsessive compulsive you!
You wouldn't have to spay and neuter them. I'll take the lava...
They aren't competing.
Nature > People, but that's not a real competition either
If only this god chap would speak up, it could clear up so much confusion.
And not through some weirdo (talk about a history of bad choices regarding conduits for a message).
Maybe a nice interview with that guy from 60 mins,.... no even better - Oprah. The studio audience present could be forgiveness of sins, or some virgins....
It's hard to take this stuff seriously.
And not through some weirdo (talk about a history of bad choices regarding conduits for a message).
Maybe a nice interview with that guy from 60 mins,.... no even better - Oprah. The studio audience present could be forgiveness of sins, or some virgins....
It's hard to take this stuff seriously.
I hope you're not talking about me! Besides, they would be really cute kittens!
Didn't say anything about "competition", but if God created everything, universe, laws of physics and all, how does the "tectonic plates are necessary" argument stand?
You didn't make that claim. You shouldn't think I was talking about you. I'm talking about the guy that made that claim. A volcano that made kittens would be nice. That would actually be the work of a loving God.
I think JGS fundamentally doesn't understand the core idea we try to communicate with this.
God designed nature, the laws of physics everything from scratch no? He could write the laws any way he damn well pleases, he could make it so the only thing needed for the earth to be functional is for it to be filled with marshmallows.
The fact that he created such a hostile world, where life has to struggle to inhabit so much of it - yet inherently WANTS to inhabit as much as possible - it kind of makes you think. It's not a clear cut sign that there is no God, but it is a clear cut sign that if he is around, he's either not omnipotent, not omniscient or just doesn't give THAT much of a shit about drowning us and burning us alive every once in a while. Or worse.
Odds are? He's not around.
God designed nature, the laws of physics everything from scratch no? He could write the laws any way he damn well pleases, he could make it so the only thing needed for the earth to be functional is for it to be filled with marshmallows.
The fact that he created such a hostile world, where life has to struggle to inhabit so much of it - yet inherently WANTS to inhabit as much as possible - it kind of makes you think. It's not a clear cut sign that there is no God, but it is a clear cut sign that if he is around, he's either not omnipotent, not omniscient or just doesn't give THAT much of a shit about drowning us and burning us alive every once in a while. Or worse.
Odds are? He's not around.
Give me an example of his fundamental lunacy?
Explain - to me, he sounds like someone who knows what he's talking about, and gets sick of answering the same moronic questions every time he does a debate.
Or is 'dawkins is a fundmentalist loon' a meme that has just gained traction through over-use by those who either don't understand/disagree with his POV?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll