Do you believe in God?

[TankAss95]

Without God, life is absurd.

If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death. Man, like all biological organisms, must die. With no hope of immortality, our lives' only lead to the grave - nothing but a spark in the infinite blackness that appears, flickers, and dies forever. Without God, life becomes absurd. It means that there is no ultimate significance, value or purpose.

Because of this we need to take arguments for God's existence seriously. If we take the idea that we are nothing but purposeless machines then any sense of morality becomes diminished.

 

[Jubby]

I believe that it is wrong to harm another human being.

TankAss, If God showed himself to you (gave you a vision, revelation, etc.) and told you to kill a human in His name for the greater good, what would your response be?

(Alternately, anyone could answer this)

 

[huskeR32]

Whatever contributes to human flourishing is good, and whatever detracts from it is bad, and that's the end of story. We can supposedly get objective moral values from science in this way because science can tell us what is beneficial for Human life, but then why is human life more valuable than ants or mice? Science can tell us what is beneficial for the flourishing of rice or corn, but has nothing else to say about it, so how can we know how to treat it, and how are we of any more value than that? Plus why think that inflicting harm on another member of our species is wrong? Of course I believe that it is wrong to harm another human being, but why would it be wrong if atheism is true?

The higher "value" of one species over another is a human construct that has no real bearing on inter-species relationships.

Through evolution, species compete with each other to become better suited for survival. This evolutionary competition causes many instinctual responses in animals like aggression and fear.

I would argue that humans, as a species with an extraordinary awareness of itself and its place in nature, experiences those basic, primal responses as a feeling of superiority, or higher "value" when compared to other species.

So once again, god is not the only explanation.

 

[DK]

It means that there is no ultimate significance, value or purpose.

Who said life NEEDS to have a purpose in the first place other than reproducing yourself?

Besides, I think that life is more precious when you realise that when you die, that's it. At least you don't have to worry about pleasing a possibly non-existent God.

 

[Liquid]

Without God, life is absurd.

Your opinion.

If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death.

We die either way, God or no God.

Man, like all biological organisms, must die.

True. We just have to deal with it.

With no hope of immortality, our lives' only lead to the grave - nothing but a spark in the infinite blackness that appears, flickers, and dies forever. Without God, life becomes absurd.

So dying and becoming nothing forever with God isn't absurd? Again, dying is a fact of life. You'll either come to terms with it or you won't, but it's going to happen one day.

It means that there is no ultimate significance, value or purpose.

And again, why does there have to be? What is so difficult with comprehending that we're not so special and we're probably thinking into things a bit too much.

Because of this we need to take arguments for God's existence seriously. If we take the idea that we are nothing but purposeless machines then any sense of morality becomes diminished.

Not true. I truly believe we're just a collection of electrical impulses, blood circuits and cells. Nothing more. There's nothing special about us that really, really sets us apart biologically from other animals. We're ~96% similar.

That said, I care deeply for those I consider friends or family. As others have asked TankAss, what were you like, morally, before you found God? Were you a lawless bandit, or a ruthless murderer? No, you almost certainly were not. You clearly had a sense of morality before then, as you were influenced by those who nurtured you, and you took the abstract decisions of others and measured them against your own capabilities.

Before you say that God gave them to you and it was only after you found him that you realised this, can you prove that? We make countless observations about what is right and what is wrong. It's what we're taught as children. What we learn as teenagers. What we practice as adults.

 

[huskeR32]

Without God, life is absurd.

To you. To me, life is beautiful and awe-inspiring. All the more so when I realize how small and precious it is in our vast universe. Please try to realize that statements like this are only true to people with your same mindset. There are actually other ways to think about life.

If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death. Man, like all biological organisms, must die. With no hope of immortality, our lives' only lead to the grave - nothing but a spark in the infinite blackness that appears, flickers, and dies forever. Without God, life becomes absurd. It means that there is no ultimate significance, value or purpose.

So what? This doesn't prove anything other than the fact that you have a lot of insecurity about the possibility of dying and finding out that something you put so much stock into was wrong. To people that don't make that investment, this possibility isn't particularly upsetting.

As an aside here, do you feel great consternation about the meaningless of the lives of animals? Your argument seems to be "our lives must have a spiritual meaning, otherwise we wouldn't exist." So then why do animals exist? To me, that kinds shoots down your whole argument right there.

Because of this we need to take arguments for God's existence seriously. If we take the idea that we are nothing but purposeless machines then any sense of morality becomes diminished.

Another implication that people who don't believe in god have inferior morals. Not only have we repeatedly pointed out that this is wrong, it's also somewhat offensive.

 

[Famine]

So let me get this right, you are saying that...

No.

I'm saying what I said. The phrase "Sauce for the goose (is sauce for the gander)" indicates that what is deemed good enough for one should also be deemed good enough for the other.

You determine that it is up to atheists to prove there is an independent, non-religious objective morality. You then assert that if we cannot do so, there is no independent, non-religious objective morality and the only objective morality comes from God. Sauce for the goose - you are also required to prove that.

Of course religion is somewhat short on objective and testable proof - as established - and we have already established an objective morality in the Human Rights thread to which Vince_Fiero has directed you. Perhaps reading it before leaping to unsound conclusions would be a sane course of action?

Atheism offers no meaning, value, or purpose to human life, because we are all destined to the same extinction anyway.

Which is neither a proof of subjective morality on behalf of atheism nor of objective morality on behalf of religion and, thus, not relevant to your current line of reasoning.

 

[Exorcet]

If we take the idea that we are nothing but purposeless machines then any sense of morality becomes diminished.

This thread has shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that this is wrong.

Half of the people discussion this topic think as you say, or at least attribute nothing to God. Yet, every single one of them has a sense of morals. God is not required for morality. The only requirement is a thinking mind.

 

[Hun200kmh]

TankAss, If God showed himself to you (gave you a vision, revelation, etc.) and told you to kill a human in His name for the greater good, what would your response be?

(Alternately, anyone could answer this)

I would answer "Do it yourself, God".

Let me tell you, however, that the Greater Good is a very pragmatic, logical concept. So if you have a judge showing himself to you and saying "kill a human, in the name of this country, for the greater good" ... what would your response be?


(btw, it's funny that you ask this, because the Catholic Church WORLDWIDE is against the death penalty. And I'm not too familiar with other christian churches, but I guess most have the same position)

The higher "value" of one species over another is a human construct that has no real bearing on inter-species relationships.

Through evolution, species compete with each other to become better suited for survival. This evolutionary competition causes many instinctual responses in animals like aggression and fear.

I would argue that humans, as a species with an extraordinary awareness of itself and its place in nature, experiences those basic, primal responses as a feeling of superiority, or higher "value" when compared to other species.

So once again, god is not the only explanation.

Indeed it is. Because if the "higher value" of humanity is merely a human construction, then it is entirely subjective and, in the end, there's no "higher value" at all.

I can accept that an atheist sees it that way. It sounds logical, we are superior (to other animals) because we rule.

My only problem is that, then, the same kind of thinking can be applied to a supposed existence of "inferior men" and "superior men". Because, in the end, we are only self-aware animals and science does not stop because of some subjective foolishness about the superiority of the human race making us anything different than animals.

 

[TankAss95]

TankAss, If God showed himself to you (gave you a vision, revelation, etc.) and told you to kill a human in His name for the greater good, what would your response be?

(Alternately, anyone could answer this)

May I turn that question around and ask that to you?

Who said life NEEDS to have a purpose in the first place other than reproducing yourself?

Besides, I think that life is more precious when you realise that when you die, that's it. At least you don't have to worry about pleasing a possibly non-existent God.

Life doesn't NEED a purpose specifically, but in order for any base of morality we need to introduce value, meaning and purpose for human life. Again, why is reproducing in itself purposeful? According to atheism, your just giving another being a ticket to death.

Fortunately life does have a purpose, and it's my job to show you why I think that which I will do in the future. First I need to show people why considering the belief in God is important.

Your opinion.

We die either way, God or no God.

True. We just have to deal with it.

So dying and becoming nothing forever with God isn't absurd? Again, dying is a fact of life. You'll either come to terms with it or you won't, but it's going to happen one day.

And again, why does there have to be? What is so difficult with comprehending that we're not so special and we're probably thinking into things a bit too much.

Not true. I truly believe we're just a collection of electrical impulses, blood circuits and cells. Nothing more. There's nothing special about us that really, really sets us apart biologically from other animals. We're ~96% similar.

That said, I care deeply for those I consider friends or family. As others have asked TankAss, what were you like, morally, before you found God? Were you a lawless bandit, or a ruthless murderer? No, you almost certainly were not. You clearly had a sense of morality before then, as you were influenced by those who nurtured you, and you took the abstract decisions of others and measured them against your own capabilities.

Before you say that God gave them to you and it was only after you found him that you realised this, can you prove that? We make countless observations about what is right and what is wrong. It's what we're taught as children. What we learn as teenagers. What we practice as adults.

That's a misunderstanding, my argument was that in order for there to be objective moral values and truths God must exist, not that we need to believe in God to be good or recognise these objective moral values and duties. If life has no further meaning, then any sense of morality is worthless - it doesn't matter whatever you do. And please give me evidence of what is right or wrong: again, we can't get an ought from an is.

So, what is the basis of our moral values?
A. Social convention?
B. Personal preference?
C. Evolution?
D. God?

 

[Starfirebird]

I found this earlier and thought i should post it.I just felt it would fit in with all of the chaos going on in this thread.

The one and only Lord God Almighty of monotheistic religion.

But which religion? There are several — and although they all agree that there is only One True God, they can't seem to agree much on anything else.

The world's major monotheistic religions kicked off in the ancient Middle-East, a volatile place where nation begat nation like you wouldn't believe — and war, commerce and chaos were never far away.

With peoples and tribes swarming all over the place, the Middle-East was overloaded with competing Gods. In fact it was a classic environment for the process of Natural Selection — and 'survival of the fittest' ensured that only the very best Gods evolved to prosper down the millennia. (If you can't cope with the idea that the existence of God proves Darwin's Theory of Evolution, you'll just have to put up with it.)

Apart from a brief fling with AHURA-MAZDA, the first mono-God to make a lasting impression was YAHWEH, the God of his chosen people the Israelites. (Let it be noted that they didn't choose him, he chose them. That instantly set him apart from just about every other God we can think of.) Brooking no rival, he demanded non-stop attention, being a self-confessed Jealous God (Exodus 20:4). And if jealousy can be a divine attribute then paranoia and vindictiveness may also get a look-in. The Hebrews may have respected him, but he wasn't exactly chummy.

Then something happened which changed religion forever. JESUS was born — and not only was he a nice guy with stunning revelations, he was also the first religious figure to really understand the importance of psychology, love and a good photo-opportunity. Much to the distress of the Jewish people (particularly the High Priests), YAHWEH was given a holy makeover and became JEHOVAH, a somewhat more approachable God for all nations.

After the rise of Christianity, JEHOVAH enjoyed Top God status for a while — until Muhammad came along with a whole new slant and explained that YAHWEH and JEHOVAH were really just alternative versions of ALLAH, and Blessed Be His Name. Which was enough to drive the Christians into a fighting frenzy of Holy Wars.

As if all that isn't confusing enough, you have to realise that these (supposedly definitive) monotheist religions are full of splinter groups, sects, factions, cliques, schisms and in-fighting. When it comes to the attributes of God and the best way of worshipping him, no-one can agree on anything — and you can count yourself lucky if the discussion doesn't terminate in explosions.

There are so many different views of the One True God, it sometimes seems to us that all those schisms and sects are really a desperate yearning for the good old days of polytheism. Which is probably the ultimate irony.

 

[Jubby]

I would answer "Do it yourself, God".

Wait. You would question your creator and his methods?

May I turn that question around and ask that to you?

I would be more than happy to elaborate on it, after you answer it, as I asked first. If you need time to think it over, that fine. Don't deflect. It's a simple question. Your God asked you to do something, would you obey or disobey? What if it was a command?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Wait. You would question your creator and his methods?

Yep. I'm not His slave.




PS - Is this news to you?


PPS - But I did answer your question, while you still didn't answer mine. Would you kill for the greater good if ordered to do it? By whom?

 

[huskeR32]

Indeed it is. Because if the "higher value" of humanity is merely a human construction, then it is entirely subjective and, in the end, there's no "higher value" at all.

My point exactly.

I can accept that an atheist sees it that way. It sounds logical, we are superior (to other animals) because we rule.

My only problem is that, then, the same kind of thinking can be applied to a supposed existence of "inferior men" and "superior men". Because, in the end, we are only self-aware animals and science does not stop because of some subjective foolishness about the superiority of the human race making us anything different than animals.

I agree that only bad can come from finding superiority/inferiority within the human race, but I feel it needs to be pointed which standard is most often used to determine superiority/inferiority: religion (believers vs. non-believers).

 

[Jubby]

Yep. I'm not His slave.
PS - Is this news to you?

I don't keep track of who does or who does not believe. I take stock in what you're saying only. Correct me if I'm wrong, are a believer in God, and all of his teachings, yet would not follow his command?

 

[TankAss95]

I'm sorry for confusion, I've seemed to lay out my argument wrongly. Could I use another argument as an introduction instead of this one? I admit that I have not lightened the burden of proof that lies on me in anyway.

 

[PeterJB]

I don't keep track of who does or who does not believe. I take stock in what you're saying only. Correct me if I'm wrong, are a believer in God, and all of his teachings, yet would not follow his command?

We have free will. We can choose what we do and don't follow.

 

[Jubby]

We have free will. We can choose what we do and don't follow.

From the time that I was a strong Christian, I know that you cannot disobey God. You are supposed to do what you're told. Similar to your parents. Yes, you have free will, but disobedience from those that have authority granted from God is wrong... isn't it? I don't hold human authority figures (judges, police, etc.) up to that esteem or level of a God.

But I did answer your question, while you still didn't answer mine. Would you kill for the greater good if ordered to do it? By whom?

I apologize, should have in my first post reply to you. I was more interested in understanding more of what you said... and I missed your subsequent PSS, as I saw your original posting. So here goes:
At this point, since I question the idea of a single God, and we're all humans with equal rights (should be, but that's not for this debate), no. In addition to my reply to PeterJB (above), I would not commit premeditated murder for the purpose or agenda of another person.

I'm sorry for confusion, I've seemed to lay out my argument wrongly. Could I use another argument as an introduction instead of this one? I admit that I have not lightened the burden of proof that lies on me in anyway.

You may do as you wish, but now you have my answer to the question. Do you need time for your answer, or can you answer it?

 

[PeterJB]

From the time that I was a strong Christian, I know that you cannot disobey God. You are supposed to do what you're told. Similar to your parents. Yes, you have free will, but disobedience from those that have authority granted from God is wrong... isn't it? I don't hold human authority figures (judges, police, etc.) up to that esteem or level of a God.

I think it's a bit different when He (hypothetically) asks you to violate one of the Ten Commandments. There's the flaw in your example.

 

[TankAss95]

You may do as you wish, but now you have my answer to the question. Do you need time for your answer, or can you answer it?

God is ultimate good, so any action or commandment would be justified. So in an absolute sense yes.

But, first I would have to be sure that it was a commandment from God. Speaking from a Christian view the Bible is the word of God, and there is no reason why God needs to add any more content, or use any people to go against his word (it is complete), so over-all it is a complex issue.

An introduction to my argument:

I. If God does not exist, then all human life as well as every individual life will eventually be destroyed.

II. If there is no God and no life beyond the grave, then life itself has no objective meaning or purpose:
A) Meaning:
1. Without immortality your life has no ultimate significance and makes no difference to the world's outcome.
2. Without God there is no broader framework within which man's life can be seen clearer.
B) Value:
1. Without immortality there is no moral accountability, and your moral choices become inconsequential.
2. Without God moral values are just delusions ingrained into us by evolution and social conditioning.
C) Purpose:
1. Without immortality your only destination is extinction in death.
2. Without God there is no purpose for which you came into this world.

III. It is impossible to live consistently and happy with an atheistic world view:
A) If we live happy as atheists, it is only by inconsistently affirming meaning, value, and purpose for our lives, despite the lack of foundation for them.
B) If we live consistently as atheists, we shall be profoundly unhappy and even in despair because we know our lives are really meaningless, worthless, and purposeless.

IV. Biblical Christianity challenges the worldview of modern man:
A) According to biblical Christianity God exists and life does not end at the grave.
B) Biblical Christianity thereby affirms the two conditions sufficient for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality.
C) Biblical Christianity therefore supplies a framework within which we can live consistently and happily.
D) So why not consider some arguments I can bring forward to challenge your worldview, and perhaps change your life?

Fair enough?

 

[Exorcet]

Fair enough?

III. It is impossible to live consistently and happy with an atheistic world view:

No.


There is no purpose to life, yet I enjoy it, and as a result live happily.

 

[Jubby]

I think it's a bit different when He (hypothetically) asks you to violate one of the Ten Commandments. There's the flaw in your example.

The example is actually an example from the Bible itself, since that is held to the greatest esteem in Christianity. Abraham ordered to kill his son (starting in Genesis 22:1), and Joshua ordered to kill the people of Canaan (Joshua 10:40), are two such examples.

God is ultimate good, so any action or commandment would be justified. So in an absolute sense yes.

But, first I would have to be sure that it was a commandment from God. Speaking from a Christian view the Bible is the word of God, and there is no reason why God needs to add any more content, or use any people to go against his word (it is complete), so over-all it is a complex issue.

My question was a presumption that it was indeed God, and a direct order. So, you would. Now, if you believe it is wrong to harm another human being, I cannot understand how you can do so.

An introduction to my argument:
I. If God does not exist, then all human life as well as every individual life will eventually be destroyed.

How so?

II. If there is no God and no life beyond the grave, then life itself has no objective meaning or purpose:
A) Meaning:
1. Without immortality your life has no ultimate significance and makes no difference to the world's outcome.
2. Without God there is no broader framework within which man's life can be seen clearer.

Why does it take God to give us significance?

B) Value:
1. Without immortality there is no moral accountability, and your moral choices become inconsequential.
2. Without God moral values are just delusions ingrained into us by evolution and social conditioning.

#2 makes sense by itself, so #1 is unnecessary.

C) Purpose:
1. Without immortality your only destination is extinction in death.
2. Without God there is no purpose for which you came into this world.

#1: We all die. #2 Do we need a purpose? If so, why?

III. It is impossible to live consistently and happy with an atheistic world view:
A) If we live happy as atheists, it is only by inconsistently affirming meaning, value, and purpose for our lives, despite the lack of foundation for them.
B) If we live consistently as atheists, we shall be profoundly unhappy and even in despair because we know our lives are really meaningless, worthless, and purposeless.

Really? I imagine you refer to atheists as against the idea of a single or group of Gods. I would qualify as that. I'm happy and have been happier without a belief in God over the last 10 years. Actually, my happiness has increased the more informed I've been, as my once firm belief in God has waned.

IV. Biblical Christianity challenges the worldview of modern man:
A) According to biblical Christianity God exists and life does not end at the grave.
B) Biblical Christianity thereby affirms the two conditions sufficient for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality.
C) Biblical Christianity therefore supplies a framework within which we can live consistently and happily.
D) So why not consider some arguments I can bring forward to challenge your worldview, and perhaps change your life?

Please do. I've challenged yours, so you may. I'd suggest by starting with my responses, then revolving them to understand why they don't make sense.

Fair enough?

Thank you for your response.

 

[Starfirebird]

I. If God does not exist, then all human life as well as every individual life will eventually be destroyed.

Dude,you bring this up constantly.

When the Sun dies and expands into a Red Giant it's game over.God or No God this will happen and there is nothing we can do about it.Oh the joys of the universe(not God), isn't it grand?

 

[nitrorocks]

Dude,you bring this up constantly.

When the Sun dies and expands into a Red Giant it's game over.God or No God this will happen and there is nothing we can do about it.Oh the joys of the universe(not God), isn't it grand?

What makes you think that?

 

[Jubby]

What makes you think that?

I suggest you look up the idea of nuclear fusion in a star. It is a class G star, more specifically G2V (you only need G2 for this).

I mean that nicely, as the alternative is: you'll probably get a long boring explanation with a bunch of us trying to explain it.

 

[Starfirebird]

I suggest you look up the idea of nuclear fusion in a star. It is a class G star, more specifically G2V (you only need G2 for this).

I mean that nicely, as the alternative is: you'll probably get a long boring explanation with a bunch of us trying to explain it.

exactly

 

[nitrorocks]

That's just a theory I doubt that'll happen.

 

[Starfirebird]

That's just a theory I doubt that'll happen.

There have been studies on other planets who have had their respective sun go into a Red Giant and the results do not look good for Earth.

There is a possibility that when the Sun does expand that the gravity will push some of the planets outwards,even if the Earth does not get engulfed it will eventually be in a non habitable zone,which will mean the end of us.

 

[Jubby]

That's just a theory I doubt that'll happen.

Since you believe you'll be in heaven after your life, you'll find out that it is true.

 

[huskeR32]

TankAss, how many times do you need somebody to tell you that they're perfectly happy being an atheist and have no problem with life lacking some grand meaning/purpose before you'll stop trying to tell us that we must all be miserable?

That's just a theory I doubt that'll happen.

Wow.