Do you believe in God? - Page 14

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.

Although i have read random posts i think there is a big misunderstanding between God and religion.Each religion creates a God in order to 'guide' humanity in certain paths; in that way God is a human creation.
Moreover apart from Big Bang there are a lot of things that scientists dont really have a clue about(we dont even know how human brain works),but all the discoveries that have been made so far have been proved by pure maths and thus God has no place there.Plus a lot of theories in physics even if they havent been proved, have been assumed to work(since they seem to work) and these theories are the result of logical assumptions.So even though there is still no proof that God doesnt exist, every step science made so far is taking a percentage of the possibility of his existence.
In conclusion why still believe whereas all the indications pointing that we shouldnt?I think its because of theophobia which is part of all religions(not sure about that) and the lack of ability for human to rely on himself (which is the main goal of most-maybe all?-religions)

On October 11 2008 03:38 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + 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

get stoned, dig deeper. you'll get it i promise...

On October 11 2008 03:41 tokeweed wrote: Show nested quote + On October 11 2008 03:38 Zorglub wrote:   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 get stoned, dig deeper. you'll get it i promise...

its not working, im stoned already

I admit I dont know for sure there isnt some god, but the thing is I dont know if there isnt some green guy with 6 eyes and living in a cabin in the core of the earth bouncing on a pogo stick either, but does it mean I can tell you I believe he does and just because you cant prove he doesnt you are wrong?

Its not up to us to prove god doesnt exist, its up to religious people that he does.

On October 11 2008 03:45 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On October 11 2008 03:41 tokeweed wrote:   On October 11 2008 03:38 Zorglub wrote:   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 get stoned, dig deeper. you'll get it i promise... its not working, im stoned already

damn... it made perfect sense when i wrote it...

btw. off topic sorr but is weed easy to get in the philliphines, and how severe is the penalty if you get caught?

totally with mez that god in the christian conception is pretty much out of my field of view.

humanism is the way to go...questions of deities become moot

free will seems like a long shot, but i guess we act as though it exists for ethical purposes. we're still free to doubt whether physics/neurology/self-reflection supports free will's existence. i guess we can always hold out for hope that something that totally defeats determinism, but i have no idea what that would be or how we would find it

Life is so depressing, im into determinism too even though i sort of dislike the idea i can't deny it.

I think people who are adamantly atheist are just as fundamentalist as those who are religious, but I'm not sure so Patrick all the way.

On October 10 2008 21:19 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 20:56 lebowski wrote:   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.

first of all,I am not saying that the origin of moral values is their beneficial effect on society. Society works with a standard set of rules (created exactly because people have differences in their viewpoints/moral codes) and people are forced to comply with them in order to remain socially active(or sometimes even alive for that matter)
What we are debating here is clearly moral relativism vs moral absolutism. Assuming you don't believe in an absolute morality provided by god, your basis on the belief that there can be an absolutely correct morality should be the common ground of human nature and the way the laws of the universe have shaped it. Although I see the way you imagine morality existing without humanity is relevant to Plato's and Aristotle's beliefs (metaphysical in nature and I prefer the sophists' philosophy from that era).I think it is obvious that for morality to be truly absolute, it would have to spring from a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority.

You insist that there could be a morality that is ultimate and that would be accepted by everyone if everyone was perfect in the way he perceived reality,however you fail to realise that according to eg social class there can be more than one conflicting truths. Nobody will ever feel surprised that sheep are afraid of wolves,there is no reason for us to get mad because the wolves attack sheep though. We could easily imagine the sheep giving the face of a wolf to what they understand as evil and on the other hand the wolves finding happiness in killing for their lunch. You can take that analogy and apply it to a world of people constantly battling for power,something very natural to be happening, and you'll see why it's naive to assume that people would have similar values if they were smart enough.Especially when people with actually similar values end up killing each other (see nationalism)

That said,I am 100% with the idea that social structure requires generally accepted laws and these laws should probably reflect values based on what human beings have in common and what they understand as positive for the common good through rational thinking,to the extent that this is possible.Thinking that the perfect rules could be found and put to practice is not only utopian but probably dangerous too though

edit:I wrote a paragraph about how the absence of free will and therefore the incapability of choosing in a deterministic universe renders morality irrelevant in an objective form,I am unsure that I can be positive on whether free choice is required for an action to be 'moral' so I deleted it.oh well.

so my phone wasn't working yesterday and it caused me to miss a package so i flung the shit to the ground really hard and sorta reassembled it and it works now

it aint god. its majikz.

ps we fucking monkeys aight. smart monkeys. fuckers who quote kant are dumb monkeys. dumb fucking monkeys.

oh it was 2 late i missed another package.

i flung it to the ground harder and watched it explode into little bitty pieces of plastic. i forgot to spit on it. i think i'll go do that now.

On October 09 2008 18:51 Jelle wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2008 18:10 SfydjkLm wrote: i believe in God god, but i really think one way or another it is rather foolish to not believe in intelligent design in some shape or form. Seems to me like the things are way too together and not random and in line with humane way of thinking to really be just a random occurrence. it's natural to feel this way but this argument has been countered so thoroughly you should watch some richard dawkins stuff he's a really classy guy fun to watch and I think it'll interest you or maybe even change your opinion

Well i just stated my opinion, under no circumstance will i argue about something that cant be ever proven.

You know I hear this same line all the time "humans are way too complex to have just happened by coincidence". Are we really though? Exactly what intelligent design has been put into our physical bodies? We have a patch of random hair on our head, a couple of smaller random patches on our chest, armpits. Our legs are ridiculously over-hairy compared to our arms or back. Pound for pound we are very weak compared to other animals. We have absolutely zero defenses against attacks.

Now look at our internal structure. We have what would seem to be a complex delivery system for nutrients and supply. Our bodies are wrapped in veins and other circulatory channels, but it is in complete disarray. We have multiple upon multiple redundant paths, none of them take the most efficient route, they wrap and intertwine around themselves like a spaghetti soup. They are all different sizes and widths, total inconsistency.

A ferrari is intelligent design. An F-22 fighter jet is intelligent design. A human with intelligent design should have like fucking lasers coming out of our eyes. Why dont I have that shit? I should have fuckin claws that shoot out of my finger tips for climbing trees. I should be able to run 100mph to escape predators. See in the dark 500x better. Smell shit from a mile away. Have super hearing. Be able to breathe under water.

If anything, humans are one of the worst fucking designs i have ever seen.

On October 11 2008 04:34 Zorglub wrote: btw. off topic sorr but is weed easy to get in the philliphines, and how severe is the penalty if you get caught?

yes.. but the stuff you get is crap... the good stuff is hard to get... you get a life sentence if they catch you with like half a kilo of weed on you, but who walks around carrying that much except for the dealers. and the narcs here don't really care much if it's just weed... they are more concerned about the increase in the use of crystal-meth so they catch those guys.

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

If somebody asks you if u believe in ghosts and you say "NO" you are implying you believe in them too right?

lol wtf.

didnt read any posts

but yes god exists, its science