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.
I have a Philosophical Question: Should god Exist?
We have a number of discussions here about the existance or non-existence of god. Many of us, myself included, so not believe that such a thing exists. Many of us, with education, science and reason behind us, can show scientifically and reasonably that such a thing probably could not exist.
And we have a number of references from the neuroscience sector on why people want to believe such a thing exists, or why peoplle need such a thing to exist. Of course, the religious sector is tied entirely to the idea that it does exist, for without it, no money and no follwers.
BUT philosophically SHOULD it exist?
Let's look at the Biblical god as an example. This creature is an egotistical, megalomanioiac whose very value seems to be centered around worhship of it's fragile ego. Without worship and validation from flawed humans which he supposedly created, his value is nil. Of course, there is the argument regarding the personality of such, vindicative, angry revengeful, all the characteristics of a tribal leader of the bronze age, but way to unhealthy for a post-renaissance society. Serisouly, do we need an angry, vengeful, hatful diety? One who inspires wars, one who practices racism, condones slavery and favors one tribe over all else? Would we vote for someone like that for Presdent? Would we want a person with those traits as a friend or even an employee, much less as a boss?
How can a supposedly omnipotent, loving diety, demonstrate such psychologically reprehensible symptoms?
IS that the best religion on this planet can do? And don;t let me forget, the Islamic and Jewish god, the same one who seems to inspire each group to hate the other, is not desirable in any way.
In away, we see this as another proof of the non-existence of god. We as 21st century humans are already have the potential without needing a god to save ourselves. So in a way we are already evolved way beyond what religions tell us god is. So if god is all so special and so omnipotent and perfect, then why are we as humans in possession of higher morals in many cases on this planet? It seems like god could learn from us.
If that is the case, then we as humans are superior, and as such, why would an inferior god create a superior race? Does not eseem plausable to me.
IS it socially irresponsible for us as humanists and atheists to sit back and allow those who believe in this diety to destroy each other, threaten us, and destroy our planet all for some antiquated belief in some imperfect diety?
(Not that such a thing exists, but the actions of those who believe it as such are the problem.)
Would it not be our responsibility to demonstrate through our abilites and talents that the answers to humanity's problems lie within US ? Is it socially irresponsible to allow less intellegent decisions , especially destructive ones, to be made to influence others via belief in god?
Do we really need god? I don't think we do. Should such a flawed being be allowed to exist? Again, I do not think so.
If anyone finds a reason for it to exist; Why?
Personally do not think there is any reason.
It was created in the first place by humans to control humans.
Those who declared themselves Kings took advantage of the superstitious masses for control and profit.
Would it not be our responsibility to demonstrate through our abilites and talents that the answers to humanity's problems lie within US ? Is it socially irresponsible to allow less intellegent decisions , especially destructive ones, to be made to influence others via belief in god?
Do we really need god? I don't think we do. Should such a flawed being be allowed to exist? Again, I do not think so.
"Should" a god exist?
I think you just answered your own question in the above statement. As much as I want to believe, I cannot knowing what I know now. And any informed, intelligent and rational human being would do the same. But believers aren't rational are they? They ignore science and base their whole belief on faith of things unseen and the words of an ancient book.
It does seem like a daunting task to change something like that when it is so overwhelmingly the majority and so ingrained in the fabric of society for centuries. But the great minds of science and the small voices of the unbelieving are getting stronger and louder, and the absurdity of "faith" and the belief of a deity is being questioned, whether it's being verbalized or not. As a hard-core fundamentalist I was saying one thing, and thinking another. It's the fear of that eternal hell that keeps people in line, so scared NOT to believe for fear of burning for all of eternity. Pretty powerful stuff.
So, we go on, talking and teaching and hoping for some small bit of change, one person at a time. My ideal is not to see people completely giving up all hope, but to see more skepticism and agnosticism rather than atheism. Just to see some real thought and rationalism instead of denial and fear.
"should" god exist? (social responsibility of atheism)
That's a deep question, Cat.
I think many of the things god represents, such as order, wisdom, knowledge, benevolence, righteousness and concern for things beyond one's own self NEED to be part of humanity.
Our tendency to reinforce those values though the use of fantasy archetypal characters shows how immature we are as sentient beings... but it's only natural to believe they are embodied and enforced by some entity beyond our comprehension because so many other humans don't practice them in real life, which threatens to invalidate them.
Someday we'll value such things on their own merits... but for now, god is a fairly decent crutch to keep them part of humanity's highest ideals. Mankind must eventually grow out of the need for a god character, but we shouldn't forget the human values and ideals that god represents.
I think you just answered your own question in the above statement. As much as I want to believe, I cannot knowing what I know now. And any informed, intelligent and rational human being would do the same. But believers aren't rational are they? They ignore science and base their whole belief on faith of things unseen and the words of an ancient book.
It does seem like a daunting task to change something like that when it is so overwhelmingly the majority and so ingrained in the fabric of society for centuries. But the great minds of science and the small voices of the unbelieving are getting stronger and louder, and the absurdity of "faith" and the belief of a deity is being questioned, whether it's being verbalized or not. As a hard-core fundamentalist I was saying one thing, and thinking another. It's the fear of that eternal hell that keeps people in line, so scared NOT to believe for fear of burning for all of eternity. Pretty powerful stuff.
So, we go on, talking and teaching and hoping for some small bit of change, one person at a time. My ideal is not to see people completely giving up all hope, but to see more skepticism and agnosticism rather than atheism. Just to see some real thought and rationalism instead of denial and fear.
Sadly, neither one of us, nor anyone else that posts here for that matter will ever live to see the day. But I think it will happen.
That "ancient book" was written by old men before any advancement of science. As I have posted here before I truly think those men were doing some serious drugs at the time.
With the idea that an invisable man is watching at all times and the fact that men wrote The Bible makes me even more baffled on how any woman could believe such crap...
That is a good point and I am annoyed that you though of it before I did Yes, of course, Human moral codes (if not human moral actions) are much better than those of God and of course, far better than His actions. That is because morality has evolved so to speak from the relative crude attempts of Hammurabi though the tortuous philosophy of 'what is good' to the rather unwieldy mix of letting people live their own lives as they like with interfering with them in miniscule detail for the common good.
The other point you make is, if there is no God, how can we live. In other words, what relative morality will work if God's absolute morality isn't valid? As the theists ask (but because they are asking from a standpoint of a belief in God and His say -so as a fixed moral basis -which you have pointed out is worse than useless, even with a redesign and re- launch by the Greek Christians -it was probably better than the Pagan trial by sword or hot iron stuff, but it won't do today) what is the absolute basis for atheist morality?
It is simply stupid, denialist and demonstrably wrong tosay we don;t have one and they probably reason that we follow God's 'Moral compass' and the absolute God - given morality without knowing it, but just ignore the bits thatdon't suit the 'Sinful life' we want to lead.
In a way that's true. The God -based moral codes we have developed and modified through the better and more tolerant rules of the Enlightenment and equal opportunity are theone we follow without thinking too much about them. But we ought to.
Rather like mathematics, they grew up as a rule of thumb and it wasn't till recently that people began to dig down to what mathematics actually were and to mentally rebuild them from the bottom up.
We need to do that and we need a rational worldview rather than one based on this traditional idea that right and wrong have to exist as an entity, even if we don't believe in a god that put them there.
That is a good point and I am annoyed that you though of it before I did Yes, of course, Human moral codes (if not human moral actions) are much better than those of God and of course, far better than His actions. That is because morality has evolved so to speak from the relative crude attempts of Hammurabi though the tortuous philosophy of 'what is good' to the rather unwieldy mix of letting people live their own lives as they like with interfering with them in miniscule detail for the common good.
The other point you make is, if there is no God, how can we live. In other words, what relative morality will work if God's absolute morality isn't valid? As the theists ask (but because they are asking from a standpoint of a belief in God and His say -so as a fixed moral basis -which you have pointed out is worse than useless, even with a redesign and re- launch by the Greek Christians -it was probably better than the Pagan trial by sword or hot iron stuff, but it won't do today) what is the absolute basis for atheist morality?
It is simply stupid, denialist and demonstrably wrong tosay we don;t have one and they probably reason that we follow God's 'Moral compass' and the absolute God - given morality without knowing it, but just ignore the bits thatdon't suit the 'Sinful life' we want to lead.
In a way that's true. The God -based moral codes we have developed and modified through the better and more tolerant rules of the Enlightenment and equal opportunity are theone we follow without thinking too much about them. But we ought to.
Rather like mathematics, they grew up as a rule of thumb and it wasn't till recently that people began to dig down to what mathematics actually were and to mentally rebuild them from the bottom up.
We need to do that and we need a rational worldview rather than one based on this traditional idea that right and wrong have to exist as an entity, even if we don't believe in a god that put them there.
AH Get the ice for my head ! Lest I feel too proud for thinking of omehting before Arequipa. Hey it is not a miracle. Maybe a fluke but
In regards to the theists moral relativity argument, I want to suggest something. about 30,000 yeatrs ago there became this extinction of the H. neanderthal species. H. sapiens survived and were present to witness it. It happened because of evolution, natural selection and perhaps even a few factors such as disease and mutation that we today have not fully discovered. (yet.) Yet at the time, H sapiens did not understand or realize or perhaps even consider the disappearance of H neanderthal to be something to explore. However, regardless of the understanding , evolutionary forces caused H neanderthal to become extint. Now in the 21st cetury, we are understanding more of the how and why it happened. We are , in other words, figuring it out and if you notice, this extinction has nothing to do with superstition or dieties. It has to do purely with science. We as humans (H sapiens) are figuring it out. But 30,000 years ago it happened, and certainly some human at the time thought it had to involes the wrath of a diety or a spirit.
Only now we understand that it has nothing to do with spirits, but science. Extinction was a natural part of evolution. It will happen one day to H sapiens too.
I propose that in the moral relativity argument, we have already figured it out ourselves. Proof of this is 1 there is no god, 2 gods are a concept created by humans so the morals of god are simply human morals projected onto the diety in question and 3 the morals change with every religion to suit the definitions of the god in question. Ancient jewish tribemen believed that their god was of a moral charcter that they could killl and enslave competing tribes. Christian leaders of the dark ages believed that killing Muslims was sanctioned by their god, and Muslims today probably want to kill me for not believing in their god. David Koresh cetainly thought his god was worth death, after his sexual exploits. Point is, we as atheists, do not sexually abuse children, we do not kill someone just because they offer an opposing viewpoint and we have clearly evolved without god to a higher moral standard. We do not have a god, but we have morals. And those morals are based not on god's rights but on human rights.
We have evolved without god or without the need for a god. We do not need bronze age or dark age morals to define our society values today. We as atheists and humanists owe it to ourselves and communities to bring about a higher level of moral s without the limits of bronze age superstition.
Yeah, a god should exist for some people because I think a belief in a god really helps some people to lead better lives. Listen to the words of this very inspirational Christian song:
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.
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.
"should" god exist? (social responsibility of atheism)
Yes, of course, Human moral codes (if not human moral actions) are much better than those of God and of course, far better than His actions. That is because morality has evolved so to speak from the relative crude attempts of Hammurabi though the tortuous philosophy of 'what is good' to the rather unwieldy mix of letting people live their own lives as they like with interfering with them in miniscule detail for the common good.
