Do you believe in God? - Page 13

quit being such an asshole, seriously wtf is your problem

my last post is dumb forums are supposed to do this

--- Nuked ---

doesn't have to be a debate, i've definitely found it interesting and enjoyed posting.

devon you don't even know what my religious beliefs are.

On October 10 2008 18:54 Feiticeira wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 18:51 MezmerizePLZ wrote: ur wording was very bad which is why i was confused. are they saying you don't think they do? that is what confused me ... are you high? My wordin-- fuck it. This is why I get annoyed responding to people on LP.

yes! fuck it! that's your answer to everything mr Feticeira! Get a job sir!

--- Nuked ---

On October 10 2008 12:18 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 12:10 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 09:21 lebowski wrote: if you think that there are universally "good" or "bad" things you are clueless though Because...? well I think I already responded to that on the previous page in case you missed it if I didn't make myself clear tell me where,I admit I didn't take too much time in that response   On October 10 2008 09:15 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 08:28 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 06:54 lebowski wrote: well the most important thing of all is that a strictly defined "good" or "evil" doesn't exist what do you base this off? well first of all you can easily identify that different societies have different ethics throughout history For communities unable to feed themselves even cannibalism was acceptable ,with some restrictions. If we don't base our search for what is good for ourselves to books of supposed divine origin,we will inevitably draw different conclusions because we don't have similar experiences or even the same intelligence to draw the same. Most people will agree on some basic stuff,like that random murder is unethical,as that easily relates to self preservation and species preservation insticts. Most animals will do the same in a purely instictive way. So what organised society is doing is to enforce a certain moral code and punish those who fail to comply with it.Those who believe that it's good that such a code forced to people should be influenced by metaphysical packages of god given laws clearly don't understand that humanity will only have it's progress hindered by basing its decisions on the sayings of an absolute(non human) authority

Just because moral values have differed throughout diffrent times and cultures doesnt disprove the idea that there actually exists values of good and bad, either as natural phenomenons or just as objective facts indenpendent of thinking human beings. Maybe these truths of moral right or wrong are just very hard to acess and thus many have just come close or missed completely.

To completely deny their existence just because man have interpred or imagined them diffrently seems dumb, its kinda like trying to disprove the existence of god because theres are many diffrent views on what god actually is. The possitive aspects of morality for the survival of the species is an equal unsatisfying argument. Just because the moral idea of right and wrong has had benefits for our species survival doesnt mean its make believe.

Oh and I havent read even half of this thread but all I can say, as a for many years rabid atheist, that I think it is pretty arrogant to completely disregard the idea of the existence of God. I still dont really believe in god, but fuck man, we really dont know anything so what makes us so sure an omnipotent being/force/whatever doesnt exist? Just try and realize your own fucking lack of knowledge. Scientists have some idea of how the universe works up until miliseconds before the big bang, beyond that we have no fucking clue what so ever.

Your average joe doesnt even know how a refrigerator works, yet people continue to make statements about the certainty of Gods nonexistence. Fuck that man, try to be humble and realize you are just a completely clueless fart in the universe and atleast keep the possebility of gods existence open.


That is all.

well said.

now remember why it's called faith

On October 10 2008 19:44 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 12:18 lebowski wrote:   On October 10 2008 12:10 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 09:21 lebowski wrote: if you think that there are universally "good" or "bad" things you are clueless though Because...? well I think I already responded to that on the previous page in case you missed it if I didn't make myself clear tell me where,I admit I didn't take too much time in that response   On October 10 2008 09:15 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 08:28 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 06:54 lebowski wrote: well the most important thing of all is that a strictly defined "good" or "evil" doesn't exist what do you base this off? well first of all you can easily identify that different societies have different ethics throughout history For communities unable to feed themselves even cannibalism was acceptable ,with some restrictions. If we don't base our search for what is good for ourselves to books of supposed divine origin,we will inevitably draw different conclusions because we don't have similar experiences or even the same intelligence to draw the same. Most people will agree on some basic stuff,like that random murder is unethical,as that easily relates to self preservation and species preservation insticts. Most animals will do the same in a purely instictive way. So what organised society is doing is to enforce a certain moral code and punish those who fail to comply with it.Those who believe that it's good that such a code forced to people should be influenced by metaphysical packages of god given laws clearly don't understand that humanity will only have it's progress hindered by basing its decisions on the sayings of an absolute(non human) authority Just because moral values have differed throughout diffrent times and cultures doesnt disprove the idea that there actually exists values of good and bad, either as natural phenomenons or just as objective facts indenpendent of thinking human beings. Maybe these truths of moral right or wrong are just very hard to acess and thus many have just come close or missed completely. To completely deny their existence just because man have interpred or imagined them diffrently seems dumb, its kinda like trying to disprove the existence of god because theres are many diffrent views on what god actually is. The possitive aspects of morality for the survival of the species is an equal unsatisfying argument. Just because the moral idea of right and wrong has had benefits for our species survival doesnt mean its make believe.

You lost me there Saki. Moral values that exist without the need of humans thinking about them? Like what?I can't imagine justice existing as a concept without humans,so I 'm not sure what you mean.

I didn't say that good and bad doesn't exist,I pointed out that it differs from person to person and that this is a natural thing to be happening,as long as each individual forms his own set of rules and doesn't take them from religion packages. Because when people adopt the morals of a religion it's obvious that they won't really disagree in much if they are strict about it.

To speculate that humanity has probably missed the ultimate morality is also irrelevant because even if it existed,how could it ever be proved that it is indeed the most amazing of them all? Everyone thinks that his own morals are the best anyway,otherwise he would have changed it.
What I perceive as good is closely related to my influences, my analytical capability and what it helps me to understand as my best interest.
Since these are different for most people,it's obvious that a universal definition of good and evil is out of the question if we're not talking about religious people or tolkien books.
To assume that there is pure sense of justice,or a divine sense of right and wrong somewhere waiting to be grasped by failing humans is entirely fictional and it misses the insight on how these concepts were developed through the genealogy of ethics.Of course all these only apply if you don't believe in god.

I refered to some common ethical standards that correlate to the instinct of survival/survival of the species not to prove that they are fake because they are useful in forming societies,but to point out why they are really that common in many religions. A religion advocating people randomly killing each other would have no purpose at all,it would unite nobody and it could exploit nobody.

and I am kind of sleepy in case this doesn't make much sense at parts,I'll prob review it tommorow

On October 10 2008 20:56 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 19:44 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 12:18 lebowski wrote:   On October 10 2008 12:10 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 09:21 lebowski wrote: if you think that there are universally "good" or "bad" things you are clueless though Because...? well I think I already responded to that on the previous page in case you missed it if I didn't make myself clear tell me where,I admit I didn't take too much time in that response   On October 10 2008 09:15 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 08:28 SakiSaki wrote:   On October 10 2008 06:54 lebowski wrote: well the most important thing of all is that a strictly defined "good" or "evil" doesn't exist what do you base this off? well first of all you can easily identify that different societies have different ethics throughout history For communities unable to feed themselves even cannibalism was acceptable ,with some restrictions. If we don't base our search for what is good for ourselves to books of supposed divine origin,we will inevitably draw different conclusions because we don't have similar experiences or even the same intelligence to draw the same. Most people will agree on some basic stuff,like that random murder is unethical,as that easily relates to self preservation and species preservation insticts. Most animals will do the same in a purely instictive way. So what organised society is doing is to enforce a certain moral code and punish those who fail to comply with it.Those who believe that it's good that such a code forced to people should be influenced by metaphysical packages of god given laws clearly don't understand that humanity will only have it's progress hindered by basing its decisions on the sayings of an absolute(non human) authority Just because moral values have differed throughout diffrent times and cultures doesnt disprove the idea that there actually exists values of good and bad, either as natural phenomenons or just as objective facts indenpendent of thinking human beings. Maybe these truths of moral right or wrong are just very hard to acess and thus many have just come close or missed completely. To completely deny their existence just because man have interpred or imagined them diffrently seems dumb, its kinda like trying to disprove the existence of god because theres are many diffrent views on what god actually is. The possitive aspects of morality for the survival of the species is an equal unsatisfying argument. Just because the moral idea of right and wrong has had benefits for our species survival doesnt mean its make believe. You lost me there Saki. Moral values that exist without the need of humans thinking about them? Like what?I can't imagine justice existing as a concept without humans,so I 'm not sure what you mean. I didn't say that good and bad doesn't exist,I pointed out that it differs from person to person and that this is a natural thing to be happening,as long as each individual forms his own set of rules and doesn't take them from religion packages. Because when people adopt the morals of a religion it's obvious that they won't really disagree in much if they are strict about it. To speculate that humanity has probably missed the ultimate morality is also irrelevant because even if it existed,how could it ever be proved that it is indeed the most amazing of them all? Everyone thinks that his own morals are the best anyway,otherwise he would have changed it. What I perceive as good is closely related to my influences, my analytical capability and what it helps me to understand as my best interest. Since these are different for most people,it's obvious that a universal definition of good and evil is out of the question if we're not talking about religious people or tolkien books. To assume that there is pure sense of justice,or a divine sense of right and wrong somewhere waiting to be grasped by failing humans is entirely fictional and it misses the insight on how these concepts were developed through the genealogy of ethics.Of course all these only apply if you don't believe in god. I refered to some common ethical standards that correlate to the instinct of survival/survival of the species not to prove that they are fake because they are useful in forming societies,but to point out why they are really that common in many religions. A religion advocating people randomly killing each other would have no purpose at all,it would unite nobody and it could exploit nobody.

I never claimed you said that good and bad doesnt exist. What you do claim is that an objective thruth about what is good and what is bad doesnt exist and I contest that idea. And to your point about objective morality, it surely cant be proven to be the "most amazing of them all", all it can be proven to be is the TRUTH. A moral truth is the same as an empirical one, mount everest is the highest mountain on earth and it doesnt matter what your subjective view of the matter is. The same could be argued for moral values. Many people might have an opinion about which mountain is the highest, but only one mountain is, as many people might have an idea of what is right, independent of this, only one thing is actually right, regardless of all opinions. You keep giving morality a subjective label and this is exactly what I am disagreeing with.

I think the key point is the fact that you dont understand how moral values can exist without human existence. What I am arguing is that moral values can be similar to, for example, natural laws. Gravity exists wether you exist or not, the same could be applied to moral values. One could even argue that moral values arnt even natural laws but exist wether the universe does or not.

You keep insisting on that moral values originate from the benefits it gives to a society. Even though its true that almost any society benefits from moral values doesnt mean that these values originate from the fact that they make societies work better. Its like saying that fire exists because its been a benefit to society because it has kept us warm, kept predators away etc. I dont even know what you mean when you say that these "concepts have been developed" to me its like saying, to take a previously used example, "well, you have to consider the ways the concept of gravity have been developed" It doesnt matter how the concept has been developed as long it is true.

On October 10 2008 19:55 SakiSaki wrote: Oh and I havent read even half of this thread but all I can say, as a for many years rabid atheist, that I think it is pretty arrogant to completely disregard the idea of the existence of God. I still dont really believe in god, but fuck man, we really dont know anything so what makes us so sure an omnipotent being/force/whatever doesnt exist? Just try and realize your own fucking lack of knowledge. Scientists have some idea of how the universe works up until miliseconds before the big bang, beyond that we have no fucking clue what so ever. Your average joe doesnt even know how a refrigerator works, yet people continue to make statements about the certainty of Gods nonexistence. Fuck that man, try to be humble and realize you are just a completely clueless fart in the universe and atleast keep the possebility of gods existence open. That is all.

Saki its not arrogance, its a logic conclusion, the existence of a diety doesnt make sense for many reason, we are not arrogant to say 2 + 2 = 4, its quite simple actually. we dont need to know the origin of the universe to prove or disprove god, the fact alone of the vast existence of misery in this world disprove the existence of a benevolent omnipotent being.

God is a enormous leveling game which no one ever wins (untill one day science finds a way to prove everything, but everything that we cannot prove the immiediate answer will of course be God)

On October 10 2008 19:55 SakiSaki wrote: Oh and I havent read even half of this thread but all I can say, as a for many years rabid atheist, that I think it is pretty arrogant to completely disregard the idea of the existence of God. I still dont really believe in god, but fuck man, we really dont know anything so what makes us so sure an omnipotent being/force/whatever doesnt exist? Just try and realize your own fucking lack of knowledge. Scientists have some idea of how the universe works up until miliseconds before the big bang, beyond that we have no fucking clue what so ever. Your average joe doesnt even know how a refrigerator works, yet people continue to make statements about the certainty of Gods nonexistence. Fuck that man, try to be humble and realize you are just a completely clueless fart in the universe and atleast keep the possebility of gods existence open. That is all.

can't really argue with this. coz it's true.

i'm a virtual atheist. i will behave and act as if god doesn't exist until peer reviewed scientific evidence shows me reason to believe otherwise.

On October 10 2008 23:21 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 19:55 SakiSaki wrote: Oh and I havent read even half of this thread but all I can say, as a for many years rabid atheist, that I think it is pretty arrogant to completely disregard the idea of the existence of God. I still dont really believe in god, but fuck man, we really dont know anything so what makes us so sure an omnipotent being/force/whatever doesnt exist? Just try and realize your own fucking lack of knowledge. Scientists have some idea of how the universe works up until miliseconds before the big bang, beyond that we have no fucking clue what so ever. Your average joe doesnt even know how a refrigerator works, yet people continue to make statements about the certainty of Gods nonexistence. Fuck that man, try to be humble and realize you are just a completely clueless fart in the universe and atleast keep the possebility of gods existence open. That is all. Saki its not arrogance, its a logic conclusion, the existence of a diety doesnt make sense for many reason, we are not arrogant to say 2 + 2 = 4, its quite simple actually. we dont need to know the origin of the universe to prove or disprove god, the fact alone of the vast existence of misery in this world disprove the existence of a benevolent omnipotent being.

who said hes benevolent? all that "disproves" is that "god" is a kind dude with a white beard who loves us and watches over us. there could be infinitely many universes in existence outside ours, and our one just happens to be one that had the exact right universal constants so that physics can work the way it does and it gave rise to stable time and space and galaxies and planets forming, or there could be a 'higher being' that can be called 'god' that set the parameters and constants that way so that the universe could be formed exist in a stable enough state with just the right conditions to give rise to sentient life somewhere, or it could all be just a monumental and epic unprecedented coincidence. this higher being might not give a crap about us or be aware of our existence, and might have had some other motive for making the universe the way it is. the point is we just can't begin to know

the fact that when someone asks the question "do you believe in God?" and a lot of people answer yes or no already confirms that there is a God for those people, even if they said "NO i am an aethiest blah blah blah..."

cos if you truly believe there is no God you wouldn't even give a fuck about the stupid question anyway. you'd just be happy and content and even wanting to just sit down and watch the world burn.

On October 11 2008 03:36 tokeweed wrote: the fact that when someone asks the question "do you believe in God?" and a lot of people answer yes or no already confirms that there is a God for those people, even if they said "NO i am an aethiest blah blah blah..." cos if you truly believe there is no God you wouldn't even give a fuck about the stupid question anyway. you'd just be happy and content and even wanting to just sit down and watch the world burn.

uhmm this doesnt make sense at all, so santa exists because children believe in him and ask the question and if anyone would be content to see the world burn it would be the guys who believe in a life after death, us atheist guys have to make the most of it while we are here because we dont get a second chance