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)
 
Old 11-17-2013, 12:45 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,227,966 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by baxendale View Post
As my Father used to say.......Everyone has a purpose in life, if nothing else, they can serve as a bad example.
I like that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2013, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
269 posts, read 168,114 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by iohanan View Post
Hi all atheists, what answer would you give to the following questions?

1- Why is there something rather than nothing (nothing being the non-existence of anything at all)?
hi back...

the search for nothing would lead to an endless regression. if there is something what was the cause of the cause?
lawrence krauss pretty much said that there is no evidence of nothing as the nothing we can observe weighs something...so nothing is really a concept that cannot be verified.

Quote:
"2-If there is no God, is there good and evil, also called moral values? (No, there isn't) How could you come to the conclusion that helping is good and killing is bad?"
first of all i would like to understand how you link god to morality.
secondly we are social animals. most of us, except the sociopaths, have the ability to empathize and coupled with that ability, we can rationalize that killing someone is an act that is subject to some sort of consequence...in self defense you are freed, if it were an offensive act (which is subject to the social laws humans set up) there will be retaliation. so as a social animal who can rationalize that in order to live cooperatively with other social animals, taking a life, for the sake of taking a life, would be self defeating.

Quote:
"3- If you believe that God is just a human idea and doesn't exist, than you have to consider that the moral values are also just human ideas and are not true in reality.
again, how do you connect god with morality? facts dictates reality.

Quote:
If that is so, being you someone who was taught about the moral values since your childhood, how could you believe in your perspective of reality, once your own mind was built based in something that isn't actually true (moral values) by your own perspective?

Thanks!
again...facts dictates reality.
fact; we are social animals
fact; we are rational thinkers
fact; we are born with oxytocin which plays a part in our genetic make up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 12:44 PM
 
50 posts, read 53,103 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by minidiaz View Post
hi back...

the search for nothing would lead to an endless regression. if there is something what was the cause of the cause?
lawrence krauss pretty much said that there is no evidence of nothing as the nothing we can observe weighs something...so nothing is really a concept that cannot be verified.



first of all i would like to understand how you link god to morality.
secondly we are social animals. most of us, except the sociopaths, have the ability to empathize and coupled with that ability, we can rationalize that killing someone is an act that is subject to some sort of consequence...in self defense you are freed, if it were an offensive act (which is subject to the social laws humans set up) there will be retaliation. so as a social animal who can rationalize that in order to live cooperatively with other social animals, taking a life, for the sake of taking a life, would be self defeating.


again, how do you connect god with morality? facts dictates reality.


again...facts dictates reality.
fact; we are social animals
fact; we are rational thinkers
fact; we are born with oxytocin which plays a part in our genetic make up.

1- All the theories defend a far away beggining, but still a beginning. If time, space, matter and energy started with the big bang, or right before it, than of course something outside it has to be the cause for it. I really think that defending a possibility of something like the universe without a reason just by pure accident is just an excuse for not to believe in God.

2- If there is no God, there is no objective moral values and duties (Yes, WL Craig argument). To understand this clear, we would be just peaces of matter. So killing somebody wouldn't be wrong or evil, that would be just changing the state of matter.

3- By the way, Krauss is a grat physicist. That is all. He know nothing about logic, history, philosophy, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
269 posts, read 168,114 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by iohanan View Post
1- All the theories defend a far away beggining, but still a beginning. If time, space, matter and energy started with the big bang, or right before it, than of course something outside it has to be the cause for it. I really think that defending a possibility of something like the universe without a reason just by pure accident is just an excuse for not to believe in God.

right there was a beginning...there was something...there is no evidence of nothing...
the concept of "starting" space and time cannot apply since all we are capable of measuring is with in the realm of space and time.

Quote:
2- If there is no God, there is no objective moral values and duties (Yes, WL Craig argument). To understand this clear, we would be just peaces of matter.So killing somebody wouldn't be wrong or evil, that would be just changing the state of matter.
you didn't answer the question...how do you make that link? what is the criteria that you use in order to establish this assertion?


Quote:
3- By the way, Krauss is a grat physicist. That is all. He know nothing about logic, history, philosophy, etc.
moot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:12 PM
 
50 posts, read 53,103 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
What does your example have to do with with an objective standard for moral values?
It is clear that some people in the past and from different cultures have very different morals from some people today. There is definitely nothing objective or absolute about morals. You've got to have your head buried in the sand to think otherwise, when there is so much evidence that morality is subjective.

Did you want to be molested when you were a child? Yes or no? It is a fair question.
Do you ever want people to do bad things to you? Do you want to do bad things to people?

Feel free to answer the questions instead of ignoring them.
I gave an example of how impossible the Golden/Silver Rule (haha) wouldn't work. If there is a God, than the universe has a purpose, life has a porpuse. If there is no God, we are just peaces of particles. In this case, killing is not wrong in any case, killing is just changing the state of particles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:17 PM
 
50 posts, read 53,103 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by minidiaz View Post
right there was a beginning...there was something...there is no evidence of nothing...
the concept of "starting" space and time cannot apply since all we are capable of measuring is with in the realm of space and time.


you didn't answer the question...how do you make that link? what is the criteria that you use in order to establish this assertion?



moot.
1- Of course there is no evidence of nothing because nothing is the non-existence of anything at all. And yes, there are plenty of physicists who believe it had an absolute beginning. Stephen Hawking, for example.

2- The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,035 posts, read 18,583,829 times
Reputation: 18681
Quote:
Originally Posted by iohanan View Post
I really think that defending a possibility of something like the universe without a reason just by pure accident is just an excuse for not to believe in God.
.
The problem with the above is that it assumes a god as the default position and argues that not believing in one requires an "excuse." There is no excuse needed because theories of a god are indistinguishable from any other guess made in the knowledge vacuum we have.

Is suspecting that it is really your parents putting the money under your pillow just an excuse not to believe in the tooth fairy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:32 PM
 
50 posts, read 53,103 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The problem with the above is that it assumes a god as the default position and argues that not believing in one requires an "excuse." There is no excuse needed because theories of a god are indistinguishable from any other guess made in the knowledge vacuum we have.

Is suspecting that it is really your parents putting the money under your pillow just an excuse not to believe in the tooth fairy?
Does a husband have scientific evidences to believe his wife loves him? No. Is that a blind faith? No. He has evidences, but not scientific ones. You can't be human just believing in what can be tested scientificly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
269 posts, read 168,114 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by iohanan View Post
"Of course there is no evidence of nothing because nothing is the non-existence of anything at all."
absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...right? simply put, we are not capable of knowing at this time...to suggest the absence of evidence if proof that nothing exists is a suggestion based on conjecture.

Quote:
"then life is objectively meaningless"
by what standard?

Quote:
"but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless"
i agree, which is why "meaning" is subjectively understood..

Quote:
"so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning."
what is the criteria you use to determine people pretend their subjective understanding is based on pretense?

Quote:
"But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance."
no..the idea of god is insignificant since this god relies of fallible 3rd party revelations instead of speaking for itself in the language every human being speaks....the language of objective evidence.

so you still have all the work cut out for you...
sure fine there may be first uncaused cause, but to tie that in with objective meaning for our existence is a completely different matter altogether since there is no criteria available that would establish "meaning" as an objective experience....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:55 PM
 
258 posts, read 182,618 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by iohanan View Post
Hi all atheists, what answer would you give to the following questions?

1- Why is there something rather than nothing (nothing being the non-existence of anything at all)?
Nothing to do with atheism or gods.
Quote:
2-If there is no God, is there good and evil, also called moral values? (No, there isn't) How could you come to the conclusion that helping is good and killing is bad?
Because in a social context people who helped each other were more likely to survive, people who killed each other didn't survive. Survival good, hence helping good killing bad.
Quote:
3- If you believe that God is just a human idea and doesn't exist, than you have to consider that the moral values are also just human ideas and are not true in reality. If that is so, being you someone who was taught about the moral values since your childhood, how could you believe in your perspective of reality, once your own mind was built based in something that isn't actually true (moral values) by your own perspective?
Morals aren't just "a human idea" the behavior we call moral simply evolved as social animals living in communities developed a common code of conduct that gave them better chances of survival. Vampire bats will for example share food with hungry roost mates because that behavior ensures better chances of survival for the species.
Quote:
Thanks!
You're welcome!
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