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.
If one does not believe any God even exists...why would they trouble their thoughts about any sort of mindset, attitude, and actions?
Nonexistent Gods do not think, assess, or do anything.
I don't consider myself a nihilist, but I've heard many nihilists answer that question, despite their view that nothing really matters except in subjective senses. Most of them would probably say, "because things feel good" or "because it subjectively matters to me, even though it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things."
Aside from that though, the very idea that a lack of belief in a God implies that there is any less motive for anyone to do anything is pretty easily refutable. There's just nothing whatsoever about the existence of a God that provides any more purpose or meaning to life than life would have without one. A God is, just, basically, a more powerful sentient being. It has no more power to determine ethics and purpose than your next door neighbor does. It might be able to change the layout of the universe...but its opinions about the nature of the universe are no more valid than the opinions of one's neighbor.
Aside from that too though...I'll ask you a question: How would it be possible to not have any sort of mindset, attitude, or actions? The shortest response to your question is simply that, people who don't believe God exists trouble their minds with mindsets, mentalities, and actions because they have no option not to.
Now, I could go further, explaining why I think nihilism is bunk, and there are more concrete forms of purpose and motivations to have a sense of meaning than I've typed so far...but even from a nihilistic perspective, I think your comments can be refuted without difficulty.
Quote:
One would have to 1st, establish that they consider it a given that such a God as they are critiquing exists...otherwise it's just a indirect way to interrogate some Believers about, and bash them for, having the views they hold.
Which is obvious this intends to do.
No...if you think the obvious intention of this thread is to bash anyone's beliefs, you are incorrect. If I can't engage in such a useful discussion as this, on a discussion forum designed for controversial topics, that relates to such important ethical issues and WHETHER OR NOT ETERNAL HELLFIRE FOR NONBELIEF IS A GOOD OR BAD THING, without people thinking I'm merely bashing people or behaving childishly, we have something wrong with society. I think I've been pretty polite too. I can't really think of many ways I could have been more so.
I even described how my arguments were a refutation to Pascal's Wager. That's a very defensive, not aggressive, motivation for making this thread. The more refutations for Pascal's Wager there are, the less people will be motivated by fear.
I'm not at all motivated to make this thread by any desire to bash people's beliefs.
Society should see nothing hostile about this thread, and people who do see something hostile within this thread have worldviews that are probably preventing them from examining many aspects of reality, and that might be something I'm opposed to in their beliefs...but it's not the beliefs themselves that I was motivated by in the making of this thread.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to believe. I'm simply requesting arguments for people's positions.
The idea that people are immediately thought of as intending to bash people's beliefs merely for engaging in a VERY useful discussion of ethical issues is what I'm really concerned about. That's no different than living in a society in which we're widely condemned for criticizing the President in a polite and elaborately described manner...and you could probably imagine how destructive that attitude could be for culture, and I don't know why society's opposition to judging God's ethical code is going to be any less destructive to society. Both a God's supposed ethical stances, and the President, rule over society, and we should discuss the positions of each for the same reason.
Quote:
Some Believers will be of the view that you are wrong not to accept and embrace their God...and that if the edicts determine that you should be forever punished for outright rejection, then, so be it.
Don't like that? Oh, well...better learn to cope...cuz billions hold that view.
Regarding your last sentence...the entire reason this website exists is to change minds and/or vent. This thread benefits me in both ways. It gives me the illusion of power, which feels good. I am a little ant screaming into a hurricane, but without my ability to scream, that annoys me more, so despite the minute chance of accomplishing anything useful, I'd prefer to take that chance because A: it's better than nothing and B: it's an amusing hobby for me.
If one does not believe any God even exists...why would they trouble their thoughts about any sort of mindset, attitude, and actions?
Nonexistent Gods do not think, assess, or do anything.
One would have to 1st, establish that they consider it a given that such a God as they are critiquing exists...otherwise it's just a indirect way to interrogate some Believers about, and bash them for, having the views they hold.
Which is obvious this intends to do.
Yes, the point is not flying over your head, you simply do not understand it. We are 'bashing' the believers for worshiping what would be an immoral god if it existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Some Believers will be of the view that you are wrong not to accept and embrace their God...and that if the edicts determine that you should be forever punished for outright rejection, then, so be it.
Don't like that? Oh, well...better learn to cope...cuz billions hold that view.
'Like' is irrelevant for atheists, who are simply pointing out the immorality of the idea. But well done for telling the religious who have been traumatized by this concept to 'cope', it must be a great comfort for them.
If one does not believe any God even exists...why would they trouble their thoughts about any sort of mindset, attitude, and actions?
Nonexistent Gods do not think, assess, or do anything.
One would have to 1st, establish that they consider it a given that such a God as they are critiquing exists...otherwise it's just a indirect way to interrogate some Believers about, and bash them for, having the views they hold.
Which is obvious this intends to do.
Some Believers will be of the view that you are wrong not to accept and embrace their God...and that if the edicts determine that you should be forever punished for outright rejection, then, so be it.
Don't like that? Oh, well...better learn to cope...cuz billions hold that view.
The point is sound is. the coping part might be a bit rough to say it that way but the point is sound.
If we are in group we are focusing on saying things based on "coping". And that is fine. Any rational person knows we say some 1/2 truths in group to help people. If we are in the seat and rational we get it too. If the forum is for activism and recovering I would would totally on board with it.
But its a forum to talk about the similarities, difference, and merits of all of our way to believe.
Like pantheism, it has evidence and some merit. what does it mean when people say ":Its meaningless and doesn't get us anywhere?"
what does that mean in this forum? for religion and spirituality?
Yes, the point is not flying over your head, you simply do not understand it. We are 'bashing' the believers for worshiping what would be an immoral god if it existed.
'Like' is irrelevant for atheists, who are simply pointing out the immorality of the idea. But well done for telling the religious who have been traumatized by this concept to 'cope', it must be a great comfort for them.
People believe all kinds of things that "others" don't agree with and are "traumatized" over. Theological concepts & doctrine are just part of a long, long list.
Though...considering that 4 out of 5 people in this world embrace some mainstream theological ideas/doctrine...that will be a very difficult one to find traumatizing.
How about understanding this?: The thoughts and actions of many people in this world will not conform to your preferences/desires, and many times will work against what you feel are your better interests.
If this bothers you...as soon as you are able, remove yourself from general society and go to some remote area all by yourself.
Because, otherwise...your displeasure over the differing thoughts and actions of others is assured.
People believe all kinds of things that "others" don't agree with and are "traumatized" over. Theological concepts & doctrine are just part of a long, long list.
Though...considering that 4 out of 5 people in this world embrace some mainstream theological ideas/doctrine...that will be a very difficult one to find traumatizing.
How about understanding this?: The thoughts and actions of many people in this world will not conform to your preferences/desires, and many times will work against what you feel are your better interests.
If this bothers you...as soon as you are able, remove yourself from general society and go to some remote area all by yourself.
Because, otherwise...your displeasure over the differing thoughts and actions of others is assured.
you more correct than not right again ...
Thats a huge thing that some atheist ignore when they rant about no evidence of any kind.
Most people believe in something. Most atheist believe in something (not defined because of all the different beliefs).
Most people believe because that what the evidence and commonsense show.
many atheist believe in stuff far more super natural than I even believe so what exactly are"we" atheist saying there is absolutely no proof of?
Thats a huge thing that some atheist ignore when they rant about no evidence of any kind.
Most people believe in something. Most atheist believe in something (not defined because of all the different beliefs).
Most people believe because that what the evidence and commonsense show.
many atheist believe in stuff far more super natural than I even believe so what exactly are"we" atheist saying there is absolutely no proof of?
Yes, agreed, trauma is suffered by many people.
The Religious turn to ancient Theological texts to get the Moral Codes they adopt.
Others may use the past or current Penal Code put forth by some jurisdiction of a Country in this world to get moral instruction.
Some just use their own personal preferences and desires.
There are many things in any one of those basis I am sure I would find, not only disagreeable to me, but even henious and appalling. Especially some of the things the Legal Code allows in many Countries...I find to be the most barbaric and evil deeds that are even possible.
And that just comports with my observations of How The World Works.
I also know...it will ALWAYS be like that.
SO...one will either learn to cope...or live in constant angst and strife.
People believe all kinds of things that "others" don't agree with and are "traumatized" over. Theological concepts & doctrine are just part of a long, long list.
Though...considering that 4 out of 5 people in this world embrace some mainstream theological ideas/doctrine...that will be a very difficult one to find traumatizing.
How about understanding this?: The thoughts and actions of many people in this world will not conform to your preferences/desires, and many times will work against what you feel are your better interests.
If this bothers you...as soon as you are able, remove yourself from general society and go to some remote area all by yourself.
Because, otherwise...your displeasure over the differing thoughts and actions of others is assured.
See, here's a point of disagreement we have. I think that a certain amount of arrogance is probably healthy for society. The way I see it, most of culture is created through blind, random traditions, like deer trails. Individuals have consciences and empathy and intelligent brains. Therefore, I suspect the more we teach society to have disdain for any aspect of culture that doesn't seem to have clear benefits, the better off we'll be - the more we'll push society towards individuals coming up with their own ideas about the best ways to behave, created by conscientious, intelligent, individual minds as opposed to the randomly developed, slime-mold like traditions of group-think.
Therefore, I see benefits to people thinking, and behaving, like, "I don't care if nobody agrees with me or not. Behavior X doesn't make sense to me, so I intend to complain about it," in order to inspire more of that rebellious, individualistic mindset I like so much.
The Religious turn to ancient Theological texts to get the Moral Codes they adopt.
Others may use the past or current Penal Code put forth by some jurisdiction of a Country in this world to get moral instruction.
Some just use their own personal preferences and desires.
There are many things in any one of those basis I am sure I would find, not only disagreeable to me, but even henious and appalling. Especially some of the things the Legal Code allows in many Countries...I find to be the most barbaric and evil deeds that are even possible.
And that just comports with my observations of How The World Works.
I also know...it will ALWAYS be like that.
SO...one will either learn to cope...or live in constant angst and strife.
Constant angst and strife can be a very entertaining hobby to engage oneself in.
Regarding those systems of values you mentioned...it's worth nothing that throughout this thread I have not been complaining about all forms of God-belief. I've only been making negative comments about certain forms that I think are pretty clearly causing more good than harm.
Everyone in the world will, just through their own instincts, almost certainly develop more sophisticated moral codes than a god who punishes with eternal hellfire for nonbelief...including sociopaths who are driven by rage and impulse oftentimes. People have to twist their own moral codes to rationalize how such a being isn't evil, and they're teaching other people to engage in similar behaviors. Best case scenario, they'll be teaching society and themselves to practice destructive forms of selective empathy, or teaching themselves and society to just avoid certain thought process entirely. I cannot comprehend how either of those behaviors would be more healthy for society than harmful.
You cannot get more unfair than condemning someone to eternal terrible punishment for a lack of belief in a being whose existence is so difficult to prove as a traditional God. Therefore, that perspective almost certainly teaching people to alter whatever other moral codes people would have thought up through other sources, for the worse.
And...it may not be too long before people who think like that will end up having no choice but to consider complex issues like whether or not to create sentient machines, or practice cloning or genetic engineering.
I'm suspecting that either many of those people alter their perspectives towards something less removed from reality, or else our civilization will collapse and mother nature will take care of things Darwinian style. Hopefully at least the nations whose citizens practice less of that unquestioning brand of thought will still exist after the dust settles from whatever chaos drives us towards collapse.
I don't see that much of a downside to arguing this stuff. Option A: appears to be, impotently attempting to sway society's opinions. Option B appears to be impotently attempting to wrench society up from the cliff edge it is in the process of tumbling over. However impotent speech may be, I'm guessing it'll be easier than trying to haul that bus or whatever back up the cliffside it's plummeting down.
I do think, oftentimes, people can be tempted into wasting too much of their lives on this stuff though...because really, people are probably often better off playing with their kids or sleeping or whatever, given the low likelihood of actually accomplishing anything useful.
People believe all kinds of things that "others" don't agree with and are "traumatized" over. Theological concepts & doctrine are just part of a long, long list.
Though...considering that 4 out of 5 people in this world embrace some mainstream theological ideas/doctrine...that will be a very difficult one to find traumatizing.
Na, und?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
How about understanding this?: The thoughts and actions of many people in this world will not conform to your preferences/desires, and many times will work against what you feel are your better interests.
You must have the IQ of moss if you think you need to explain this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
If this bothers you...as soon as you are able, remove yourself from general society and go to some remote area all by yourself.
Because, otherwise...your displeasure over the differing thoughts and actions of others is assured.
How can it displease if it does NOT bother me? Think, moss head, think.
See, here's a point of disagreement we have. I think that a certain amount of arrogance is probably healthy for society. The way I see it, most of culture is created through blind, random traditions, like deer trails. Individuals have consciences and empathy and intelligent brains. Therefore, I suspect the more we teach society to have disdain for any aspect of culture that doesn't seem to have clear benefits, the better off we'll be - the more we'll push society towards individuals coming up with their own ideas about the best ways to behave, created by conscientious, intelligent, individual minds as opposed to the randomly developed, slime-mold like traditions of group-think.
Therefore, I see benefits to people thinking, and behaving, like, "I don't care if nobody agrees with me or not. Behavior X doesn't make sense to me, so I intend to complain about it," in order to inspire more of that rebellious, individualistic mindset I like so much.
The ideas you put forth here is either going to get you fighting/war or the majority dictating how things should be.
Once you say, "Individuals have consciences and empathy and intelligent brains. Therefore, I suspect the more we teach society to have disdain for any aspect of culture that doesn't seem to have clear benefits, the better off we'll be"...you then must determine who gets to decide what constitutes a "clear benefit", and what is used as a basis to determine that.
Most people use Theological Concepts/Doctrine to determine what is a "clear benefit" to society. They think that's best.
They also think very negatively about those that would refer to that as, "slime-mold like traditions of group-think".
And since they comprise the vast majority of the people in this world...it will probably not bode well for those that roll like that, especially if push really comes to shove.
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.
How can it displease if it does NOT bother me? Think, moss head, think.
