U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-20-2011, 08:09 AM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,433,626 times
Reputation: 106

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
Please answer the question:

What exactly would be different about the world if there were no gods?
Well, being that you ask nicely, I'll answer:

If God didn't exist, then, I think it logical to conclude that nothing would exist. Therefore, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because we wouldn't be here.

"From nothing, comes nothing."

If you meant to ask what life would be like if no one believed in God, that's a good hypothetical. I really have no idea. Would God simply sit back and permit everyone to deny his existence or would he choose to intervene before such a thing could happen? In a world bereft of God believers would there be enough people willing to coexist and maintain some semblance of sanity and coherence? Great question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
Yes. The OP's assessment is spot on. We are thankful that not everyone has the consistency of Ted Bundy.
..and so it goes. The REALITY of the choices dictated by logic are each determined as distasteful. You are unable to fathom the notion of God's existence and cannot accept nihilism...and voilą, choose to skip along in your pie-in-the-sky 'la la land' where you're able to have your cake and eat it too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2011, 10:14 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,742,175 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
"if there is no God, all people are responsible." Have to agree with you. Still trying to work out just where you stand. You seem to have ah...complex views.

.....looking over your other posts...agnostic Deist cover it?
the beauty is, that if there is a God, we still share in the resposibility anyway. Like I have said before, I am a fundamental agnostic, but currently: I am theist towards the true descriptions of God and atheist to all the false ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,742,175 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Test myself? I prefer to think of it as logical deduction.

Either God exists and there is Transcendent authority or God does not exist and it's nihilism. If God does not exist then, logically, we are forced to conclude that Bundy's assessment is spot on.

If I'm to be persuaded otherwise it's going to take more than your personal opinion or the personal opinion of some famously "credentialed" pointy headed "intellectual."
Bundy didn't know what was good for him, let alone what was good for humanity in general.

If we are to put an illogical God as the "transcendent" authority, then all reality is arbitrary. which means all authority is arbitrary. which means there is no objective authority, just a self-imposed and meaninglessly "transcendent" subjective one. However, if God is the messenger of an objective and real morality, then morality would be truely consistent and discernible, and there would be need not to worship the messenger, other then for being the messenger. The false dilemma lies in believing that if God does not exist, then there is no Objective truth or morality. such dilemmas are jumping to conclusions.

Though Bundy would be quite right in thinking he could do any evil he wished to, such would be the case in our seemingly objective reality, whether or not gods existed, whether or not he was theist or atheist... he might actually pretend to have more authority in his ramblings if he was a religionist.

You don't have to insult scholars, calling them perhaps "eggheads", and what not else, because of your hatred and jealousy. I was merely letting that title toy with you to test your reaction. I have no college degrees in philosophy, so I am no doctor in it, instead more of a makeshift and student philosopher. but anyone with a good, clear head and access to information, would know that such as you propose are tired religionist arguments, that fail.

This is the hypocrisy of religionists as well. They fail to see that the Secular arts and sciences are part of a better way of life. they fail to understand that what they do is take the personal opinion of some famously "credentialed" round-head "spiritualist" and pretend that it's better that way.

Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-20-2011 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 11:13 AM
 
39,091 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
the beauty is, that if there is a God, we still share in the resposibility anyway. Like I have said before, I am a fundamental agnostic, but currently: I am theist towards the true descriptions of God and atheist to all the false ones.
But if there is no god we share in the responsibility without telling ourselves that the fellow who did it all and is controlling everything is free of responsibility - because he says so. I hope and trust that your idea of a 'true' description of God does not entertain such nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 11:22 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,742,175 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
[...]

"From nothing, comes nothing."
such a statement implies "nothingness" has rules which it must follow. such is a false premise. now think about the implications, did God make something come from nothing. or are we part of God? "I and the Creator are one, but my Creator is greater then me" ...wise words, but perhaps wrong. pantheism and panentheism. "something must come from something"
Quote:

If you meant to ask what life would be like if no one believed in God, that's a good hypothetical. I really have no idea. Would God simply sit back and permit everyone to deny his existence or would he choose to intervene before such a thing could happen? In a world bereft of God believers would there be enough people willing to coexist and maintain some semblance of sanity and coherence? Great question.
we would only need to take a look round about us, and see the examples of our brethren specie, the non-conceptualizing animals.
for some reason, I have never heard of an atheist kill another atheist in te name of atheism. Neither have I heard this of deists or other less anti-agnostic theists; for they cannot use God as an excuse for their own actions and beliefs

Quote:

..and so it goes. The REALITY of the choices dictated by logic are each determined as distasteful. You are unable to fathom the notion of God's existence and cannot accept nihilism...and voilą, choose to skip along in your pie-in-the-sky 'la la land' where you're able to have your cake and eat it too.
It is foolish to think that if you will not be punished, you should not do good. it is much better to stop being selfish and instead look out for the entire specie, so that the specie as a whole can look out for everyone. either way, if a God dictator of morality existed, nihilism would still be true. the only difference is that now there exists a dictator powerful enough to delegate it's own subjective desires into existence. arguments by pretend external authority rarely work in logic. if they did, then the schools of philosophy would be populated by religionist theists constantly fighting and hurting eachother in the names of their subjective believes of what objective morality was, all by their personal whims.

Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-20-2011 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,350 posts, read 2,977,723 times
Reputation: 2030
What keeps humans alive is a pact, the agreement that if everyone acts basically half decently, it will help everyone. That we honor this pact has little to do with religion, but knowledge of this pact. If morals were based entirely from religious teachings, why would anyone vote? Voting is a waste of time to the individual. A single vote is useless. Bundy was wrong, in that he had no knowledge of our pact. If someone has no conscience, he or she would still be wisest to honor our pact, unless it appears that a sufficient amount of other humans were not honoring the pact to make the pact false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 06:02 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,433,626 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Bundy didn't know what was good for him, let alone what was good for humanity in general.
While this may well be the case, if the OP quote is accurate I think it reasonable to accept it at face value. Rhetorically speaking, would it be possible for an insane "sociopath" to arrive at conclusions that are fundamentally logical and soundly coherent from time to time...even if totally by accident?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
If we are to put an illogical God as the "transcendent" authority, then all reality is arbitrary. which means all authority is arbitrary. which means there is no objective authority, just a self-imposed and meaninglessly "transcendent" subjective one.
This is, at the very least, a borderline nonsense statement. There are any number of weird conclusions that could be arrived at based on your hypothetical "illogical" God.

I personally have no use for an "illogical" God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
However, if God is the messenger of an objective and real morality, then morality would be truly consistent and discernible, and there would be (no?) need (not) to worship the messenger, other then for being the messenger.
...and who would make the determination with respect to "consistent and discernible" morality? Would it be the Transcendent Authority or would it be those who are subject to the Transcendent authority?

If the morality is not discernible to the subjects, ultimately, what good is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
The false dilemma lies in believing that if God does not exist, then there is no Objective truth or morality. such dilemmas are jumping to conclusions.
Bravo! I'll bow to you...

Please explain how it is logically possible to have objective morality in the absence of Transcendent authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Though Bundy would be quite right in thinking he could do any evil he wished to, such would be the case in our seemingly objective reality, whether or not gods existed, whether or not he was theist or atheist... he might actually pretend to have more authority in his ramblings if he was a religionist.
Sorry, I find this statement to be utterly incoherent...please rephrase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
You don't have to insult scholars, calling them perhaps "eggheads", and what not else, because of your hatred and jealousy. I was merely letting that title toy with you to test your reaction. I have no college degrees in philosophy, so I am no doctor in it, instead more of a makeshift and student philosopher. but anyone with a good, clear head and access to information, would know that such as you propose are tired religionist arguments, that fail.
The apparent fact that you've taken my statement (pointy headed intellectuals) personally is somewhat telling. You're betraying a rather thin skin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
This is the hypocrisy of religionists as well. They fail to see that the Secular arts and sciences are part of a better way of life. they fail to understand that what they do is take the personal opinion of some famously "credentialed" round-head "spiritualist" and pretend that it's better that way.
Inferring what? That I'm a "religionist?"

Would you care to explain what your definition of a "religionist" is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,350 posts, read 2,977,723 times
Reputation: 2030
There's a God who says something's good, so that means something's good. How is that any different from, say, George Foreman saying something's good, and that making it good?

Religion could make sociopaths behave better, I guess, because of the increased fear and rewards aspect, but it would be a fragile way of keeping sociopaths in line. A sociopath would need to believe in the given religion. Also, quite a few religions have get-out-of-jail-free cards relating to forgiveness. Also, a sociopath might believe personal penances could make up for his or her immoral actions, as I wonder if many pedophile priests do.

Also, the root of the human urge for immortality comes from the human urge to live in this life. If nothing in this life matters, the afterlife doesn't matter either.

I don't know much about sociopaths though...

Last edited by Clintone; 08-20-2011 at 08:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 08:09 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,433,626 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
such a statement implies "nothingness" has rules which it must follow. such is a false premise.
Really? I'm all ears...please explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
..now think about the implications, did God make something come from nothing. or are we part of God? "I and the Creator are one, but my Creator is greater then me" ...wise words, but perhaps wrong. pantheism and panentheism. "something must come from something"
According to the "credentialed" Stephen Hawking, time itself had a beginning. Does God exist? If so, was there ever a time when God did not exist? If God has always existed, is it logical to conclude that there was never a time when there was nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
we would only need to take a look round about us, and see the examples of our brethren specie, the non-conceptualizing animals.
for some reason, I have never heard of an atheist kill another atheist in te name of atheism. Neither have I heard this of deists or other less anti-agnostic theists; for they cannot use God as an excuse for their own actions and beliefs
...really deep man...like...far out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
It is foolish to think that if you will not be punished, you should not do good. it is much better to stop being selfish and instead look out for the entire specie, so that the specie as a whole can look out for everyone. either way, if a God dictator of morality existed, nihilism would still be true. the only difference is that now there exists a dictator powerful enough to delegate it's own subjective desires into existence. arguments by pretend external authority rarely work in logic. if they did, then the schools of philosophy would be populated by religionist theists constantly fighting and hurting each other in the names of their subjective believes of what objective morality was, all by their personal whims.
I can understand the confusion of some over apparent inabilities to come to grips with that which is true. Still, either God exists or no God exists. Either Christianity is true or Christianity is false. If Christianity is indeed true it would appear logical to conclude that nihilism is false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2011, 08:44 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,742,175 times
Reputation: 1328
Forgive me, tiget, I don't feel like answering all of your objections, interjections, or questions.

futhermore, I feel that I did a fine job writting what I wanted to get across, and that more objective and open "seekers" will be able to understand or investigate for themselves what I am saying.

As a bit of explination, Hawkings explains one way that Existence can come about from empty space. But in essense, "nothingness" has nothing stopping it from creating energy. Within nothingness there would be no laws of physics to make any logic or presupostion valid. As for the meaning of "religionist", I use that word in the same way that the founding fathers of the United States of America did. Also, forgive my mispellings and grammar mistakes, I had little time to double check and I was writting on my iTouch.

If you feel that I rashly and unfairly skipped over one of your main rebuttles, then please tell me as a responce to this post.

Thank you tiget, and God bless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top