Duke wrote: The more that I acknowledge reality, and my right to a place within reality, the stronger, happier, and more moral I become. That is how I can be happy and moral without faith. That is what I want to teach my kids - I certainly don't think they need a faith to get this.
If then God is a myth, as you say, where do you get your morals from? What is right and wrong? Just curious.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins
That's the problem with Dawkins. He is far too sure there is no god. He is dogmatic about his atheism.
If you take it to the lowest common denominator, most people will admit there are some great unknown questions of the universe. Some people chalk it up to god, others refuse to chalk it up to anything.
In reply to Fletch1:
God has a monopoly on morals? Just curious.
“It turned out I was pretty good in science. But again, because of the small budget, in science class we couldn't afford to do experiments in order to prove theories. We just believed everything. Actually, I think that class was called Religion. Religion class was always an easy class. All you had to do was suspend the logic and reasoning you were being taught in all the other classes.”
George Carlin
scardeal wrote: Either God exists or He does not. He cannot both exist and not exist. He cannot exist for me but not exist for you or vice versa.
Ok, got it, God is not Schrodinger's Cat.
In reply to Cone_Junky:
Just wondered where they come from if not from Him. I hope I don't sound condescending or better than anyone else here. I know I'm not. Just discussing.
Per Schroeder wrote:scardeal wrote: Either God exists or He does not. He cannot both exist and not exist. He cannot exist for me but not exist for you or vice versa.Ok, got it, God is not Schrodinger's Cat.
...a small turtle, OTOH....
Otto Maddox wrote: That's the problem with Dawkins. He is far too sure there is no god. He is dogmatic about his atheism. If you take it to the lowest common denominator, most people will admit there are some great unknown questions of the universe. Some people chalk it up to god, others refuse to chalk it up to anything.
He is sure that there is no "God of man" and makes a superb biological case for that. Frankly, just an objective history of religions should be enough to wake any person from the belief that what they were sold came from anything divine.
Unknown questions are unknown questions. If you mean "God" as a form of black-box variable in a system - like zero in math or gravity in physics then you can call it what you want. I see no need to assign it willful purpose or sentience. "Chalking it up" to something is unnecessary.
Duke wrote: This is an attitude I've heard before (in addition to the "Why be good?" version) and, frankly, I just don't understand it. What's so wrong with the idea that one short shot is all we get? **Why WOULD I completely break down? Life is great, life is amazing, life is wonderful, even if I only get one. What's to break down about? I'm not rich, I'm not strong, I'm not handsome, I'm not a genius - but man, I enjoy the heck out of life. It sucks sometimes, yes. Bad things happen. People and things we love die. I'm probably more than halfway through my own life expectancy already, and anything could happen at any time to make that 100% through. But what's the point of agonizing about the inevitable instead of enjoying the current opportunity? Frankly, given how amazingly fortunate we are to be alive at all, I think that the wish for reincarnation or even just an eternal soul borders on downright greedy. Isn't one human lifetime **enough**? *Looking for just a good conversation here, no need to dip into religion or try to convince anybody of one way or the other.*
The question is inextricably linked with religion. It's like trying to discuss the ocean but ignore water.
When I had gone down that path, I could not escape the deep meaninglessness that comes with the understanding that nothing would matter. There is no opportunity if any pleasure, any pain, any good or any evil is ultimately meaningless. It's terrible unutterable nothingness.
If existence is the most basic good upon which all other goods rely, then non-existence is the most total form of evil. That's why I recoil in horror at the thought of non-existence.
ya know, I haven't posted in this thread even though I have opinions in the arena. I haven't even read the whole thread. I have been checking in every 3 pages or so just to see where the thread has gone. Just taking a snapshot.
Fascinating.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
The god of man is pretty easy to take down. As dogma and structure increase, the easier the take down becomes. But how do you respond to a guy like Curtis with his nontraditional views of god?
Fletch1 wrote: Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. - Heywood Broun Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. - C.S. Lewis
I only talk about God when the subject is brought up. Somebody asked the question about an afterlife, which is (pretty much) directly intertwined with belief in a supreme being. Therefore I expressed my opinion. Mr. Broun is wrong in his allegation up there, too - I never discuss the subject of god with people who don't bring it up first, yet I've had hundreds of people inquire about my faith over the years.
And, Mr. Lewis, I do not express my rage against God precisely because he doesn't exist - I express my frustration that so many people throughout history have been so willing to ignore their most powerful positive tools and do bizarre things based solely on their belief in something that is by their own admission non-understandable.
Fletch1 wrote: If then God is a myth, as you say, where do you get your morals from? What is right and wrong? Just curious.
Morals derive directly from logical human rights. If every human has a natural right to exist, which they are born with - the ownership of their own life, and by extension, the ownership of things that a person trades part of his life for. The entire moral code derives directly from protecting that right of self-ownership. Note that this natural right is completely different from the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which is mostly bull. But that's another topic.
In reply to Duke:
So would it be morally right for you to allow me to take your sweet Miata when you are sleeping since I can't afford one right now and your an architect and most likely make way more money than me?
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: The god of man is pretty easy to take down. As dogma and structure increase, the easier the take down becomes. But how do you respond to a guy like Curtis with his nontraditional views of god?
I don't make a distinction at all. I simply do not know how he came to believe those things and am uninterested in eyewitness testimony as evidence. If there is demonstrable, repeatable experimentation that can be independently verified I'll check it out.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: The god of man is pretty easy to take down. As dogma and structure increase, the easier the take down becomes. But how do you respond to a guy like Curtis with his nontraditional views of god?I don't make a distinction at all. I simply do not know how he came to believe those things and am uninterested in eyewitness testimony as evidence. If there is demonstrable, repeatable experimentation that can be independently verified I'll check it out.
Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?
I don't really feel like getting the whole God debate with you; what you believe really doesn't affect me. I don't think people need faith to have morals or any of that and the whole thing is totally wasted in this format.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: The god of man is pretty easy to take down. As dogma and structure increase, the easier the take down becomes. But how do you respond to a guy like Curtis with his nontraditional views of god?I don't make a distinction at all. I simply do not know how he came to believe those things and am uninterested in eyewitness testimony as evidence. If there is demonstrable, repeatable experimentation that can be independently verified I'll check it out.
One time some bread turned into human meat.
MG Bryan wrote: Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?
Yes. That is how we "Account".
MG Bryan wrote: I don't really feel like getting the whole God debate with you; what you believe really doesn't affect me. I don't think people need faith to have morals or any of that and the whole thing is totally wasted in this format.
I wasn't going to debate it with you unless you brought demonstrable, repeatable experimentation that I could attempt to objectively verify so that is a relief.
And Jesus shows up on lots of food products
scardeal wrote:Duke wrote: *Looking for just a good conversation here, no need to dip into religion or try to convince anybody of one way or the other.*The question is inextricably linked with religion. It's like trying to discuss the ocean but ignore water.
The discussion of religion is inextricably linked with the meaning of life, but I don't think the reciprocal is true.
When I had gone down that path, I could not escape the deep meaninglessness that comes with the understanding that nothing would matter. There is no opportunity if any pleasure, any pain, any good or any evil is ultimately meaningless. It's terrible unutterable nothingness.
When you share a moment with someone you care about, when you buy a buddy a beer, when you delight in the first bite of a pizza, or see a beautiful landscape or sunset, or build something, do you feel anything? Doesn't that mean something to you? All these things and more are meaningful to me. I don't expect to make a large change in the trajectory of the cosmos, but if I can make someone laugh, that gives me meaning. The world around me matters, the experiences of the other people, and heck, my own experience!
If existence is the most basic good upon which all other goods rely, then non-existence is the most total form of evil. That's why I recoil in horror at the thought of non-existence.
I think existence is neutral. Once we're here, we have the opportunity to become fond of people and things, and they of us. Non-existence is really only sad to me in terms of ceasing to exist. "It's a Wonderful Life" notwithstanding, one doesn't watch the world unfold without you while you sit there with the knowledge of what the world was like with you. I don't miss my brother, George. He was never even a twinkle in my dad's eye; in fact his concept has never existed prior to the previous sentence. There are an infinite number of people and things not existing right now, and I don't miss most of them one whit.
This is my sandwich. I made it at my house and it just came out like this.
Jesus on a fish stick
Otto Maddox wrote: And Jesus shows up on lots of food products
You can get better resolution with one of these:
Anybody wonder why Jesus always looks like "Catholic Jesus" when spotted? Why doesn't he look like some sort of middle eastern Jew when he shows up on my dinner plate?
Fletch1 wrote:Duke wrote: The more that I acknowledge reality, and my right to a place within reality, the stronger, happier, and more moral I become. That is how I can be happy and moral without faith. That is what I want to teach my kids - I certainly don't think they need a faith to get this.If then God is a myth, as you say, where do you get your morals from? What is right and wrong? Just curious.
Man, I do NOT want to start a flame war. In no way. I just can't let this pass without commenting. Far too many people automatically say 'atheism = immoral'. That is the #1 reason down here in the Bible Belt you do NOT repeat NOT flaunt your atheism. To do so is pretty much social and professional suicide. It's not as bad as it was 30-35 years ago but the problem still exists. Maybe it's not overt, but it's there.
Morals are not the exclusive province of religion or atheism. They may not even be the exclusive province of humans; there are many recorded instances of animals (particularly herd animals such as elephants) helping (or at least not killing) the injured among them and that could be considered morality of a primitive sort. Maybe it's only a survival instinct thing (the more individuals of a given species that survive, the better the chance of propagating that species). Morals might possibly be a learned behavior or merely the way any sane and intelligent human being would choose to live, regardless of their religious belief system.
The major problem I see is as George Carlin said (paraphrasing): 'Religion is a way of abdicating responsibility for your actions'. That means a person can truly believe that they can ask forgiveness of their trespasses against whatever/whoever and as long as they believe in God and ask forgiveness they will be rewarded forever (jailhouse conversions, anyone?).
Atheists don't have that eternity safety net. They take full responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That seems very moral to me.
Otto Maddox wrote: Jesus on a fish stick
Are you sure that isn't Mrs Paul?
You'll need to log in to post.
