Well I don´t think one can prove the existance of god. John Lennon said "god is concept". And logic says that the part can´t comprehend the whole, so the phrase "prove it exists" would be invalid even if God really does.
All we can do for now is accpet that both science and religion are way to biased some times. Science is supposed to change its beliefs when new discoveries are made, confirming or denying theories and adpting to what is known at the time - they have a real hard time doing so. And religions needs to see that all books were written by men, using their knowlodge and vocabulary and based on their culture, so many concepts beyond "be good", "love", can in fact be allegories, and don't forget that religion is also a domination tool (medieval europe)
But science is getting into something not so materialistic:
1 - Studies on nonlocal consciousness - You are not your brain! Maybe YOU don´t die when your body cease to function.
2 - Akashic Field or something like it - Conection between everything desregards of distance or any known connection, still researching with particles .
3 - Subatomical strutctures - hindu guys are saying that like forever.
4 - Influence of prays and good thoughts on ill peopple that doesn't even know they are being targeted by these factors - to avoid any kind of placebo or psicological effect to cause self restore.
And the good old situations you can´t explain with conventional science:
1 - Edgar Cayce (and others)reads on health, exactly location to find oil (depths and quantity included) - He was right on 50k reads and was not generical ones like "oh you should eat vegetabeles to get better"
2 - Children speaking languages that nobody ever spoken next to them, or knowing precise facts of a person on another country they never met.
3 - Peopple that died for short periods of time (no brain function) and rememberd what happened at the room or saw everything from a top perspective (telling medical mistakes, conversation and a stuff they could not see from the bed perspective)
4 - Mediunic paints and writings, tested and approved by arts and caligraphy experts, done by peopple with no paint/writing skills at all.
Atheists are, in general, as litteral and short sighted as any religious fanatics. They just lean to the opposite side.
Heres a question for you: What evolutionary benefit did Humans gain by being able to sense (see/hear/feel/taste) beauty? Why is it that we determine that music is auditorily pleasing? Art is is aesthetically pleasing... etc?
Well i do kno that when Im in the presence of something beatiful, like paintings, or incredibly designed room, I do feel more at peace. But when i leave the room or whatever, iust feel like fuck all this life sucks RAWRRAWRRAWR. sometimes. I also believe that God is in beauty.
That peace you feel is a chemical release that originates from your brain. According to evolution, your DNA has to have mutated the ability to release this chemical when you encounter said events. My question is... what evolutionary benefit did we recieve that caused us to start creating art 50,000 years ago? Why is it that we now see beauty in things... when art and beauty did not directly contribute to our ability to survive.
I'm not saying you as a person are uneducated on this topic, you may very well be a perfusion on the topic. But your view on science being a religious concept lends itself to assuming you have not researched this topic through an education system. A simple dictionary can clearly define the two with their difference. Yes there was something before the Big Bang, and something before that, and so on. But I'd rather say, "I don't know what was there, but I'd like to one day find out" than "God was there". I'd rather leave the slate blank, since indeed that is the most logical thing to do, and than try to figure it out through science. Science has a base in which is the best thing we have to view reality from. Yes, I agree with you science is based on theory, but it's that process which has brought us everything we have today. What has your process brought us?
Heres the thing.. I believe in and study modern science. I believe all the same stuff (science wise) you do.. I just believe that there is a God, and he is the root cause for the existence of the universe. I believe that he/it has impacted my life and that I should be thankful for certain events in my life that seem more than pure random chance.
As you stated earlier, there really is no harm in believing in god. If you die and there is no god... then no harm done. But what if you die and there IS a god? What if hell exists and you just damned yourself to it due to your staunch disbelief? Simply put, this is like the laptop + xbox deal going on in US right now. If you can recieve a free xbox with the purchase of your laptop (which you were going to buy anyways) why would you just simply deny it? Its free... and no cost to take it?
I'd be lying if I said you've come across clear in your view on science in that case. For most of the debate it seemed you more so believed in antirealism, that nothing really exists how we see it, pretty much the whole 2+2 doesn't equal 4 thing. And yes I did state there's no harm being done as long as A. your views lead you to do good, and B you don't force you views on others through force, but never the less I feel it's unhealthy to lend credit to something which is unprovable. I'd rather lend credit to myself, for making it through the hard time in one piece. That's another of my irks of religion in most cases, all too often credit is given away to the God, when it should be added to the persons' self esteem for toughing the problem out, or finding a solution.
I understand the whole, if I'm wrong oh well but if I'm write concept, but I feel it's not a strong base to stand on when living your life which requires so many choices. What if God hates men? Shit, it doesn't matter what we've done. What is God hates people who eat carrots? My point being there are infinite circumstances in which that view point could go wrong. So again, logically, it makes sense to only go off of what we know.
It is definately unhealthy to lend credit to something that is unprovable because its essntially unprovable, that sucks. Luckily for me I do have prove that God exists, and im not talking about a feeling, those are fleetin. Im talking about actual facts and events. But these facts and events are not like mass miracles so that everyone can see and believe all at once. Because God wants to show YOU, each of us individually, that he exists and he loves us. So unless you see the facts and events in ur life, doesnt really matter what I say. There comes a point when u can no longer live on borrowed faith and experiences, in other words ur parents or pple around you.
Heres a question for you: What evolutionary benefit did Humans gain by being able to sense (see/hear/feel/taste) beauty? Why is it that we determine that music is auditorily pleasing? Art is is aesthetically pleasing... etc?
Well i do kno that when Im in the presence of something beatiful, like paintings, or incredibly designed room, I do feel more at peace. But when i leave the room or whatever, iust feel like fuck all this life sucks RAWRRAWRRAWR. sometimes. I also believe that God is in beauty.
That peace you feel is a chemical release that originates from your brain. According to evolution, your DNA has to have mutated the ability to release this chemical when you encounter said events. My question is... what evolutionary benefit did we recieve that caused us to start creating art 50,000 years ago? Why is it that we now see beauty in things... when art and beauty did not directly contribute to our ability to survive.
wow man thats deep, lol well the first marks of art were done by cavemen and they did it out of instruction not really beauty. It was used as a tool to instruct others about the lands they were in, and what to survive on. have u studied art because many of old art was not seen as beautiful during the times they were made, that only started I believe, correct me if im wrong, with the religious paintings. Where sudeenly art was no longer used for a ritual or as instructing but the painter was trying convey within the painting, love, beauty, etc.
Heres a question for you: What evolutionary benefit did Humans gain by being able to sense (see/hear/feel/taste) beauty? Why is it that we determine that music is auditorily pleasing? Art is is aesthetically pleasing... etc?
I didn't even see this post lol.
Again, you seem really set in your attempts to dislodge any science brought up as evidence, but this has been tapped by science on a few fronts. This sadly again is a super complicated topic which I don't claim to know all about, but I have luckily had some informal education through research and shows on the matter.
Long story super short it's a fluke. Certain patterns such as complex audible beats, or viewable measurements are related in our brains to certain emotions. Why this happens is still unknown, but for example.
Which shape is named Kiki?
<input type='button' class='bbc_spoiler_show' value='Show = more stuff' />
Over 90% of people answer that the left one is named Kiki. The sound for some reason matches the sharp nature of the shape.
These are flukes in our mental wiring, and frankly vary from person to person, which lends itself to the concept that it's in our unique brain chemistry. Some are based on crossing logics, like the Kiki test. The word "sharp" is used to both describe the image, and the word, so amazingly our brains make the conclusion. All perspective can be brought to this kind of conclusion when it comes to senses.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
You are wrong to say that we cannot prove things, only disprove them. This is truly incorrect. E.g. I can easily prove that there is an infinite amount of integers. I can prove that the earth is a sphere. etc.
What I dont understand about your position is how you automatically attribute something you dont understand (i.e. where the matter in the universe came from) to a special being "God". You say he is not a "man on a throne", however this is what popular religions depict him as. If you are calling "god" whatever was before the universe, then by way of labels, any atheist would be fine with that. The fact is, what you're saying doesn't matter because you are just making stuff up and giving it a label. What real religions/theology talk about god is an omnipresent being that exists RIGHT NOW all around us that is watching us and influencing us and accepting us into his everlasting kingdom.
You didn't read what I said... I said there is no such thing as a postive fact (something that has been proven)... only something that is a negative fact (something that has been disproven). In freshmen level science classes they explain that all science is... is a set of rules that have yet to be disproven. Science is built from the ground up on THEORIES.
You try to rationalize your statement on an infinite amount of integers. You cannot explain that... because:
1.) You cannot prove that math is inherently correct. It is only correct to the point that it has not been proven incorrect.
2.) Your example of math uses conditions that cannot be defined and/ or explained. What is ANYTHING / 0? How is it that imaginary numbers are used in mathmatical conditions but they are just that... imaginary?
Next... you do not apparently understand the concept of aethism. Aethism is not that you don't believe in the christian god. It is that you believe in NOTHING. ZIP. NADA. I guess you do not understand the whole thread so far as a whole... because this is not Christian god vs aethism. This is "God" versus nothing.
Heres a question for you: What evolutionary benefit did Humans gain by being able to sense (see/hear/feel/taste) beauty? Why is it that we determine that music is auditorily pleasing? Art is is aesthetically pleasing... etc?
I didn't even see this post lol.
Again, you seem really set in your attempts to dislodge any science brought up as evidence, but this has been tapped by science on a few fronts. This sadly again is a super complicated topic which I don't claim to know all about, but I have luckily had some informal education through research and shows on the matter.
Long story super short it's a fluke. Certain patterns such as complex audible beats, or viewable measurements are related in our brains to certain emotions. Why this happens is still unknown, but for example.
Which shape is named Kiki?
<input type='button' class='bbc_spoiler_show' value='Show = more stuff' />
Over 90% of people answer that the left one is named Kiki. The sound for some reason matches the sharp nature of the shape.
These are flukes in our mental wiring, and frankly vary from person to person, which lends itself to the concept that it's in our unique brain chemistry. Some are based on crossing logics, like the Kiki test. The word "sharp" is used to both describe the image, and the word, so amazingly our brains make the conclusion. All perspective can be brought to this kind of conclusion when it comes to senses.
Hey now... you put words in my mouth. I never said beautity explains god or dissproves science. I may have alluded to that... but I did not say that. I simply asked a question.
Simply put, this is like the laptop + xbox deal going on in US right now. If you can recieve a free xbox with the purchase of your laptop (which you were going to buy anyways) why would you just simply deny it? Its free... and no cost to take it?
God isn't the guy at Bestbuy handing you an Xbox though. I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. To me you're saying "better safe than sorry." but then you aren't really devoted to God or believe in God if you're just doing it to play it safe?
According to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions you are correct, and I suppose drawing on the example of hell would infer that I meant you had to abide by one of those religions. However, I simply meant that it is possible that believing in god is a hedged bet, and that there is no damage done by doing so; whereas, believing against a god brings no realized benefits.
The topic of hell itself is a complex one, and as my Dad once stated (and he is extremely christian),"If hell is the way the bible describes it... then God has to be a Sadist."
well hell is something we choose, not something God throws our way. and you say hes extemely christian so tell me how many brothers and sisters do you have? or What is God? or Who is God? or even better what does he believe the cross is?
just curious cause if he's a extremely Christian, didnt kno there were levels/ranks of being a Christian, I wanna meet him.
well hell is something we choose, not something God throws our way. and you say hes extemely christian so tell me how many brothers and sisters do you have? or What is God? or Who is God? or even better what does he believe the cross is?
just curious cause if he's a extremely Christian, didnt kno there were levels/ranks of being a Christian, I wanna meet him.
You are doing what many do incorrectly... basing a black or white label on Christianity. There are SEVERAL denominations of christianty that range from the politically and/or theologically left to the politically and/or theologically right. Christianity is more of a diamond than a left right scale.
All it takes to be considered a christian is a belief in Christ.
Second, if you do not believe in a higher power at all... then why do you believe in morals or ethics? If there is no extraworldly punishment for what we conceptualize as evil... why do YOU not live a hedonistic selfish life? Why do YOU conform to the rules of society when they do not personally benefit you? Theoretically, if there is no such thing as sin... then there is no reason to not commit these acts. Lying, Stealing, Cheating, Raping, Murder... they are all perfectly fine acts, as there is absolutely no reason to be an ethical person.
Very weak point. The overwhelming majority of prison inmates are religious and if you would argue that they become so after being incarcerated, then there is the even sadder reality that over half of the prison population are affected by recidivism.
Actual (practical) reasons not to:
lie- it decreases your credibility on the long run especially if you are discovered. Ever heard of the story of 'The boy who cried wolf'? Something like that. Being viewed as an untrustworthy person affects your chances of finding friends or a partner which are kind of desirable for a life in society nowadays.
Steal- You get sent to jail. Duh. No but seriously.
Rape- On top of being illegal, it is not the best way of spreading your genes or getting sexual gratification- you can get yourself badly hurt, acquire a deadly disease or increase the chance of reprisal in the form of having your dick cut off by the family of the victim or the victim her/himself. As you can see- very bad on the long term. Not to mention that there are various studies that have highlighted the main driving reason for rape is actually revenge.
Murder- It's very bad for health.
Anyway my main point is that if any of those acts become common place, they threaten the cohesion of the group you live in. The fact of the matter is that we are not driven by logic alone but by emotion too. Retribution alone will cause irreversible destruction.
So there is very much an actual reason not to do any of these beyond mere ethics/morality. Nothing to do with god.
Read my statement again. EVERY rationale you listed is wordly. You stated that we make decisions based on emotions in addition to logic. If you want, I could start quoting sociology and explain how you only believe in the cohesion of the group based on the way you were raised. If you had been raised feral... emotion would play no part in your decision to not "sin".
You did not give me a single good reason why if I should live my life ethically. If I did not get caught for any of it... then I could not recieve the wordly punishment you listed. I should honestly just be a hedonist and spend my life trying to self gratify since there is absolutely nothing after this right?
Quote sociology? Please do.
These are practical reasons I gave you. If you do not consider a single one good then you are simply in denial of the practicality of the laws under which our societies are governed.
The point being, ethics or morality have nothing to do with god but everything to do with self preservation as either an individual or a group.
There are definite, substantial ADVANTAGES to not doing any of these acts. If you can get away with them, good for you. But how many times exactly can you can away with any of those? And what will be the repercussions once you are caught? Modern society are against those for good reasons and that's because they greatly endanger group cohesion.
And yes, you should lead a hedonist life if it keeps(understand the word holds connotation of long-term) you happy. This implies that as an individual, you will be happy even if others around you become unhappy as a result of your actions.
There are some people who find happiness by helping others but I don't think either you or me are one of them since we are spending time on a game forum while millions are dying of famine at the moment and we could be actively helping them instead.
And what has after-life anything to do with it? Someone should be good just so they don't end up in hell? How honorable.
Hey, I didn't mention God in that post either. But seeing as this thread is about a friendly debate on proving a metaphysical existence, I may have "alluded" to that.
Nifty test though on your question, none the less . (See, giving credit to myself, not a "God" for helping me find the answer, or gifting us with the universe in which we live to allow me to find that picture.)
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
You are wrong to say that we cannot prove things, only disprove them. This is truly incorrect. E.g. I can easily prove that there is an infinite amount of integers. I can prove that the earth is a sphere. etc.
What I dont understand about your position is how you automatically attribute something you dont understand (i.e. where the matter in the universe came from) to a special being "God". You say he is not a "man on a throne", however this is what popular religions depict him as. If you are calling "god" whatever was before the universe, then by way of labels, any atheist would be fine with that. The fact is, what you're saying doesn't matter because you are just making stuff up and giving it a label. What real religions/theology talk about god is an omnipresent being that exists RIGHT NOW all around us that is watching us and influencing us and accepting us into his everlasting kingdom.
You didn't read what I said... I said there is no such thing as a postive fact (something that has been proven)... only something that is a negative fact (something that has been disproven). In freshmen level science classes they explain that all science is... is a set of rules that have yet to be disproven. Science is built from the ground up on THEORIES.
You try to rationalize your statement on an infinite amount of integers. You cannot explain that... because:
1.) You cannot prove that math is inherently correct. It is only correct to the point that it has not been proven incorrect.
2.) Your example of math uses conditions that cannot be defined and/ or explained. What is ANYTHING / 0? How is it that imaginary numbers are used in mathmatical conditions but they are just that... imaginary?
Next... you do not apparently understand the concept of aethism. Aethism is not that you don't believe in the christian god. It is that you believe in NOTHING. ZIP. NADA. I guess you do not understand the whole thread so far as a whole... because this is not Christian god vs aethism. This is "God" versus nothing.
An aeitheist once walked into a room a Catholic had and this room when the lights were shut would the entire unvierse we know as of right now, earth, pluto, mnars, etc. everythin in our space was in there, it was an amazing sight. The aethiest is amazed, oh n hes also a scientist, and says this beautiful how do this come to be? The catholic says, " well it was just all by chance. Then aethiest says,"thats impossible this is to beautiful and perfect to have been chance." This is a true story actually thought i would share. Just how its interesting how the catholic uses the same words a scientists or someone who deosnt believe in anything would use.
These are practical reasons I gave you. If you do not consider a single one good then you are simply in denial of the practicality of the laws under which our societies are governed.
The point being, ethics or morality have nothing to do with god but everything to do with self preservation as either an individual or a group.
There are definite, substantial ADVANTAGES to not doing any of these acts. If you can get away with them, good for you. But how many times exactly can you can away with any of those? And what will be the repercussions once you are caught? Modern society are against those for good reasons and that's because they greatly endanger group cohesion.
And yes, you should lead a hedonist life if it keeps(understand the word holds connotation of long-term) you happy. This implies that as an individual, you will be happy even if others around you become unhappy as a result of your actions.
There are some people who find happiness by helping others but I don't think either you or me are one of them since we are spending time on a game forum while millions are dying of famine at the moment and we could be actively helping them instead.
And what has after-life anything to do with it? Someone should be good just so they don't end up in hell? How honorable.
Why is that all of you keep turning this into a Christian versus Aethist battle. Seriously... either I am wording everything poorly, or your inherent hatred of Christianity keeps presenting itself.
I am not saying that you need to live your life based on the bible... because god ordered you to do so. I am saying that basing your life on that fact that you live life NOW and nothing LATER... there is no reason to not live life for your own pleasure. If you only live once... you should make the most of it now.
I don't hate christians, I just hate people who shove their religion in my face. Theres a lot of people who do that to me. So I hate a lot of people. Like Harold Camping. I follow him to laugh at him. A man who doesn't follow his own faith by predicting rapture? I can't wait to see his explanation for October 21, 2011 the new rapture date. It was his excuse for the 21st of may.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Went outside today, the graphics were ok. But the gameplay sucked
I live well because it makes me happy, and since I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, or higher being I live for myself, and my loved ones because those are the things that effect my happiness. This life to me is all that is, afterword is nothing. I'm not going to be in the ground saying, "Well it sucks being dead". Death isn't something I fear, since after all from my view, when I die I won't have a mind to worry about it with. I do what I can in this life because it makes me happy.
At least your view guides you to do good things, be it one reason or another. You have not read my first post in this thread, or else you wouldn't have asked your part two question about why I do good, and not bad. I explain that deeper there if you're still left wanting an answer.
I just feel living on faith is a shame to your human gift of reason, why assume there is an afterlife, or a higher being? If you're wrong you've lived your life with false hopes, even though if you are wrong it won't matter in death. It's rational to live by facts, because if something else exists, than what a pleasant surprise, but if it doesn't than you've been as right as you could be with your races' hard earned knowledge.
I honestly feel it's a sign of weak rational development to believe otherwise, it very simply doesn't make sense. I could come up with infinite metaphysical solutions to life, but what good would that do? It dishonors everything your ancestors have worked for by developing the workd in which you live. By saying this, I want to also state I don't judge personality off of this topic, so anyone who I offend should know that. I may strongly disagree with you, but that dose not mean I don't like you. I separate this kind of stuff from outside topics with people, since just because we disagree doesn't mean we should bicker.
I can respect aegnosticism (even if you believe that the universe was created by a giant space whale dropping a turd), but am perplexed by aethiesm. First, science is a higher power. Second, if there is no higher power at all... then what is the point of being an ethical person (and please note that statisically speaking aethiests are liberal politically).
Not to undermine your questions or points, but that last paragraph is very uneducated. Honestly to explain where Science stands in this you have to A. have a logical foot on the ground, then B. partake in either a class on the matter, or do research online. If you views really are how you live by, than you won't accept any reasoning you find on the matter anyway.
The thing that irks me about metaphysical based views is you undermine all of mans' accomplishments. Nothing is real is pretty much what you're saying. Science isn't factual, and should be disregard. I don't understand the reasoning behind any of this. At this very moment 2+2=4, and has for as long as we know. Why not use that to your advantage?
I don't understand how you claim that statement is uneducated. If anything, I am overeducated. You, just like the majority of all aethiests I encounter refuse to define science as your "god". If I am going to agree with you and say that 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4... then you need to agree with me that in order for the big bang to occur something needed to exist before it ( and eventually at some point infinite years ago.. had to create the cycle that we are simply a part of). The energy for this event/singularity had to be in the universe before that point and therefore your science is only as theoretical as what you percieve god to be.
Its not that I don't believe science... Its that 100% of science is simply theoretical. String theory is theoretical. Black holes are theroetical. Higgs-Boson particles are Theoretical. The universe being 13Billion years old... is theoretical. The fact that DNA is a series of random events/ mutations from RNA is theoretical.
Have you seriously never had an ephiphany/moment that your life just feels (even if momentarily) surreal? If you have then you should know that the fact that we are self aware and even having this conversation is momentous.
You base your life off what you consider achievements of mankind (science). These achievements have been proven wrong again and again overtime... and as such... there is not such thing a scientific postivie... only a scientific negative. Also, wasn't albert einstein a christian?
Ohh man you must be trolling us seriously? These flimsy arguments have been covered so many times in popular literature.
- Einstein was a christian, as it was a cusom in those days. I am a christian (baptised) but I am an atheist. So what? You call this proof of anything?
- Scientific achievements proven wrong? This is where you miss the point. If a scientific achievement is proven wrong that is a SUCCESS for science. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - science embrasses being wrong (because it was proven)!
- The point the previous guy was trying to make you cant even grasp/understand. He is trying to say that your theory is not useful to life as we know it. Your argument is known as Philosophical Skepticism (how do we even know we exist as we see ourselves, maybe there is no universe, maybe we are just a brain in a vat controlled by a robot ala matrix). This type of reasoning cannot be disproven, so sure, it could be true - but what value does believing it hold for you? Next time you leave a tall building, why do you leave through the door and not the window? If you always leave through the door you obviously reject your own believe of skepticism, because you know a bad thing will happen to you if you jump out of the window. Hence being a skeptic is a fun thought experiment but is downright useless in life and useless in a debate.
- Regarding ethics - ethics do not come from religion. Ethics are bred into us as we are social mammals. Other primates exhibit very similar social ethics to humans. It is evolutionary advantages to be ethical. If we got our ethics from the bible we would be screwed. If you dont know what I mean you should read it. Apparantly offering your daughter to be gang raped is fine if it means it saves your friend from being sold as a slave. Nice ethics!
I am saying that basing your life on that fact that you live life NOW and nothing LATER... there is no reason to not live life for your own pleasure. If you only live once... you should make the most of it now.
Hmmm, so rape and stealing are things that gives you pleasure?
No. I am an ethical person, I was raised to not be a hedonist.
Ohh man you must be trolling us seriously? These flimsy arguments have been covered so many times in popular literature.
- Einstein was a christian, as it was a cusom in those days. I am a christian (baptised) but I am an atheist. So what? You call this proof of anything?
- Scientific achievements proven wrong? This is where you miss the point. If a scientific achievement is proven wrong that is a SUCCESS for science. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - science embrasses being wrong (because it was proven)!
- The point the previous guy was trying to make you cant even grasp/understand. He is trying to say that your theory is not useful to life as we know it. Your argument is known as Philosophical Skepticism (how do we even know we exist as we see ourselves, maybe there is no universe, maybe we are just a brain in a vat controlled by a robot ala matrix). This type of reasoning cannot be disproven, so sure, it could be true - but what value does believing it hold for you? Next time you leave a tall building, why do you leave through the door and not the window? If you always leave through the door you obviously reject your own believe of skepticism, because you know a bad thing will happen to you if you jump out of the window. Hence being a skeptic is a fun thought experiment but is downright useless in life and useless in a debate.
- Regarding ethics - ethics do not come from religion. Ethics are bred into us as we are social mammals. Other primates exhibit very similar social ethics to humans. It is evolutionary advantages to be ethical. If we got our ethics from the bible we would be screwed. If you dont know what I mean you should read it. Apparantly offering your daughter to be gang raped is fine if it means it saves your friend from being sold as a slave. Nice ethics!
*Sigh* Please read all my posts before making a self righteous post. I have already touched every one of your topics and would rather not repeat myself.
These are practical reasons I gave you. If you do not consider a single one good then you are simply in denial of the practicality of the laws under which our societies are governed.
The point being, ethics or morality have nothing to do with god but everything to do with self preservation as either an individual or a group.
There are definite, substantial ADVANTAGES to not doing any of these acts. If you can get away with them, good for you. But how many times exactly can you can away with any of those? And what will be the repercussions once you are caught? Modern society are against those for good reasons and that's because they greatly endanger group cohesion.
And yes, you should lead a hedonist life if it keeps(understand the word holds connotation of long-term) you happy. This implies that as an individual, you will be happy even if others around you become unhappy as a result of your actions.
There are some people who find happiness by helping others but I don't think either you or me are one of them since we are spending time on a game forum while millions are dying of famine at the moment and we could be actively helping them instead.
And what has after-life anything to do with it? Someone should be good just so they don't end up in hell? How honorable.
Why is that all of you keep turning this into a Christian versus Aethist battle. Seriously... either I am wording everything poorly, or your inherent hatred of Christianity keeps presenting itself.
I am not saying that you need to live your life based on the bible... because god ordered you to do so. I am saying that basing your life on that fact that you live life NOW and nothing LATER... there is no reason to not live life for your own pleasure. If you only live once... you should make the most of it now.
Why are you mentioning Christianity at all? Once again, you've either shown very poor analytical skills or not worded yourself as intended. Hell is not exclusive to the christian religion if that's where you got the cue to frame your reply.
And since I'm not fond of expanding on faulty assumptions, I will concede that I don't understand the second paragraph(the words in full capital letters are not helping either). If you could elaborate(without double negatives if possible), that would be nice.
I don't hate christians, I just hate people who shove their religion in my face. Theres a lot of people who do that to me. So I hate a lot of people. Like Harold Camping. I follow him to laugh at him. A man who doesn't follow his own faith by predicting rapture? I can't wait to see his explanation for October 21, 2011 the new rapture date. It was his excuse for the 21st of may.
I agree... I hate people that shove their religion in my face too. This is why I despise the majority of aethists.
well hell is something we choose, not something God throws our way. and you say hes extemely christian so tell me how many brothers and sisters do you have? or What is God? or Who is God? or even better what does he believe the cross is?
just curious cause if he's a extremely Christian, didnt kno there were levels/ranks of being a Christian, I wanna meet him.
You are doing what many do incorrectly... basing a black or white label on Christianity. There are SEVERAL denominations of christianty that range from the politically and/or theologically left to the politically and/or theologically right. Christianity is more of a diamond than a left right scale.
All it takes to be considered a christian is a belief in Christ.
you are doing what many also do incorrectly which is consider being a Christian just a religion or belief, where in fact Christianity is NOT a religion or just a belief, but a way of life. You can tell a Christian apart from the way he lives his life. Now im a catholic so i have catholic beliefs and a baptist has baptist beleifs so on and so forth but a Crhistian is the same anywhere. Anyone can say they believe in Christ but that does not make them a Christian. because what is their belief based on, is it on fear of hell, or just because his parents believed. I could also ask this, if a Christian is simply a belief in Christ, then who is Christ? and what does that have to do with you or me or anybody. And i didnt put a label on anything just pointing out the fact that pple use the word Christian to loosely, if you researched the history behind being Christian and what a Christian is, you'd be amazed as i was. and other thing Christianity is NOT a morality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All we can do for now is accpet that both science and religion are way to biased some times. Science is supposed to change its beliefs when new discoveries are made, confirming or denying theories and adpting to what is known at the time - they have a real hard time doing so. And religions needs to see that all books were written by men, using their knowlodge and vocabulary and based on their culture, so many concepts beyond "be good", "love", can in fact be allegories, and don't forget that religion is also a domination tool (medieval europe)
But science is getting into something not so materialistic:
1 - Studies on nonlocal consciousness - You are not your brain! Maybe YOU don´t die when your body cease to function.
2 - Akashic Field or something like it - Conection between everything desregards of distance or any known connection, still researching with particles .
3 - Subatomical strutctures - hindu guys are saying that like forever.
4 - Influence of prays and good thoughts on ill peopple that doesn't even know they are being targeted by these factors - to avoid any kind of placebo or psicological effect to cause self restore.
And the good old situations you can´t explain with conventional science:
1 - Edgar Cayce (and others)reads on health, exactly location to find oil (depths and quantity included) - He was right on 50k reads and was not generical ones like "oh you should eat vegetabeles to get better"
2 - Children speaking languages that nobody ever spoken next to them, or knowing precise facts of a person on another country they never met.
3 - Peopple that died for short periods of time (no brain function) and rememberd what happened at the room or saw everything from a top perspective (telling medical mistakes, conversation and a stuff they could not see from the bed perspective)
4 - Mediunic paints and writings, tested and approved by arts and caligraphy experts, done by peopple with no paint/writing skills at all.
Atheists are, in general, as litteral and short sighted as any religious fanatics. They just lean to the opposite side.
That peace you feel is a chemical release that originates from your brain. According to evolution, your DNA has to have mutated the ability to release this chemical when you encounter said events. My question is... what evolutionary benefit did we recieve that caused us to start creating art 50,000 years ago? Why is it that we now see beauty in things... when art and beauty did not directly contribute to our ability to survive.
Again, you seem really set in your attempts to dislodge any science brought up as evidence, but this has been tapped by science on a few fronts. This sadly again is a super complicated topic which I don't claim to know all about, but I have luckily had some informal education through research and shows on the matter.
Long story super short it's a fluke. Certain patterns such as complex audible beats, or viewable measurements are related in our brains to certain emotions. Why this happens is still unknown, but for example.
Which shape is named Kiki?
These are flukes in our mental wiring, and frankly vary from person to person, which lends itself to the concept that it's in our unique brain chemistry. Some are based on crossing logics, like the Kiki test. The word "sharp" is used to both describe the image, and the word, so amazingly our brains make the conclusion. All perspective can be brought to this kind of conclusion when it comes to senses.
You didn't read what I said... I said there is no such thing as a postive fact (something that has been proven)... only something that is a negative fact (something that has been disproven). In freshmen level science classes they explain that all science is... is a set of rules that have yet to be disproven. Science is built from the ground up on THEORIES.
You try to rationalize your statement on an infinite amount of integers. You cannot explain that... because:
1.) You cannot prove that math is inherently correct. It is only correct to the point that it has not been proven incorrect.
2.) Your example of math uses conditions that cannot be defined and/ or explained. What is ANYTHING / 0? How is it that imaginary numbers are used in mathmatical conditions but they are just that... imaginary?
Next... you do not apparently understand the concept of aethism. Aethism is not that you don't believe in the christian god. It is that you believe in NOTHING. ZIP. NADA. I guess you do not understand the whole thread so far as a whole... because this is not Christian god vs aethism. This is "God" versus nothing.
Hey now... you put words in my mouth. I never said beautity explains god or dissproves science. I may have alluded to that... but I did not say that. I simply asked a question.
just curious cause if he's a extremely Christian, didnt kno there were levels/ranks of being a Christian, I wanna meet him.
You are doing what many do incorrectly... basing a black or white label on Christianity. There are SEVERAL denominations of christianty that range from the politically and/or theologically left to the politically and/or theologically right. Christianity is more of a diamond than a left right scale.
All it takes to be considered a christian is a belief in Christ.
Quote sociology? Please do.
These are practical reasons I gave you. If you do not consider a single one good then you are simply in denial of the practicality of the laws under which our societies are governed.
The point being, ethics or morality have nothing to do with god but everything to do with self preservation as either an individual or a group.
There are definite, substantial ADVANTAGES to not doing any of these acts. If you can get away with them, good for you. But how many times exactly can you can away with any of those? And what will be the repercussions once you are caught? Modern society are against those for good reasons and that's because they greatly endanger group cohesion.
And yes, you should lead a hedonist life if it keeps(understand the word holds connotation of long-term) you happy. This implies that as an individual, you will be happy even if others around you become unhappy as a result of your actions.
There are some people who find happiness by helping others but I don't think either you or me are one of them since we are spending time on a game forum while millions are dying of famine at the moment and we could be actively helping them instead.
And what has after-life anything to do with it? Someone should be good just so they don't end up in hell? How honorable.
Hey, I didn't mention God in that post either. But seeing as this thread is about a friendly debate on proving a metaphysical existence, I may have "alluded" to that.
Nifty test though on your question, none the less . (See, giving credit to myself, not a "God" for helping me find the answer, or gifting us with the universe in which we live to allow me to find that picture.)
Why is that all of you keep turning this into a Christian versus Aethist battle. Seriously... either I am wording everything poorly, or your inherent hatred of Christianity keeps presenting itself.
I am not saying that you need to live your life based on the bible... because god ordered you to do so. I am saying that basing your life on that fact that you live life NOW and nothing LATER... there is no reason to not live life for your own pleasure. If you only live once... you should make the most of it now.
Ohh man you must be trolling us seriously? These flimsy arguments have been covered so many times in popular literature.
- Einstein was a christian, as it was a cusom in those days. I am a christian (baptised) but I am an atheist. So what? You call this proof of anything?
- Scientific achievements proven wrong? This is where you miss the point. If a scientific achievement is proven wrong that is a SUCCESS for science. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion - science embrasses being wrong (because it was proven)!
- The point the previous guy was trying to make you cant even grasp/understand. He is trying to say that your theory is not useful to life as we know it. Your argument is known as Philosophical Skepticism (how do we even know we exist as we see ourselves, maybe there is no universe, maybe we are just a brain in a vat controlled by a robot ala matrix). This type of reasoning cannot be disproven, so sure, it could be true - but what value does believing it hold for you? Next time you leave a tall building, why do you leave through the door and not the window? If you always leave through the door you obviously reject your own believe of skepticism, because you know a bad thing will happen to you if you jump out of the window. Hence being a skeptic is a fun thought experiment but is downright useless in life and useless in a debate.
- Regarding ethics - ethics do not come from religion. Ethics are bred into us as we are social mammals. Other primates exhibit very similar social ethics to humans. It is evolutionary advantages to be ethical. If we got our ethics from the bible we would be screwed. If you dont know what I mean you should read it. Apparantly offering your daughter to be gang raped is fine if it means it saves your friend from being sold as a slave. Nice ethics!
No. I am an ethical person, I was raised to not be a hedonist.
Do you understand the definition of hedonism?
*Sigh* Please read all my posts before making a self righteous post. I have already touched every one of your topics and would rather not repeat myself.
Why are you mentioning Christianity at all? Once again, you've either shown very poor analytical skills or not worded yourself as intended. Hell is not exclusive to the christian religion if that's where you got the cue to frame your reply.
And since I'm not fond of expanding on faulty assumptions, I will concede that I don't understand the second paragraph(the words in full capital letters are not helping either). If you could elaborate(without double negatives if possible), that would be nice.
I agree... I hate people that shove their religion in my face too. This is why I despise the majority of aethists.