Here's my problem with the whole infinite god concept:
(and it's very similar to raskolknikov's)

If god is omniscient, then he knows the future
If god knows the future, then he knows my/your future
If god knows my future, then I have no power to do anything other than what he knows I will do.
If I have no power over my actions, then I have no free will

If god knows the future, then he also knows his future, therefore he has no power to do anything other than what he knows he will do.
If the above is true, then god is not omnipotent, because he does not have free will.

This argument is, of course, moot if one is speaking of a non-personal god. But then, if a non-personal god does, in fact exist, what does it matter? There is no point in worshiping a non-conscious entity, is there?

Nabob: You still haven't answered the question.

"It is because I can understand pain from personal experiences and don't want it for another." But why would you not want it for another... c'mon, I want you to discover the answer. No free passes!

"But why develop emotions? Why develop sympathy? Why care about others at all? That is the root of my point. Humans have this incredible emotional system that doesn't seem to fit without God. I'm not saying that this is "proof of God." I'm saying that to me it is another indicator. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? Why develop it at all? What caused us to be something other than animals?"

First, humans are animals, Nabob. Furthermore, there are some very practical reasons for our "incredible emotional systems"... reasons that can be discovered without having to violate the principle of parsimony. There are numerous examples of "animals" besides humans behaving "morally"...

Nabob

I know what you mean, as well, but, given the ultimate question (does God exist) in this thread, my contribution is that I do not care (to be brief about it). I was never really trying to associate a person's actions with their philosophical/spiritual inclinations. In short, I think all things are human things. The (non-)existence of God is not relevant to me.

IEApe

I have to step into your corner on this one. My post above (in response to Nabob) is that the depth of sympathy (or feelings of moral obligation) is directly proportional to the ability of humans to express emotions to each other.

A weak example might be that over the course of human development, people died. More to the point, people close to other people have died (family members, whatever). Death in an of itself is just an event. But insofar as we have developed a way to express this loss in deeper and deeper terms over time, it has become something that causes "pain". And, insofar as "pain" is assumed to be undesirable, we associate things that cause pain as "bad".

To me, everything boils down to the human ability for self-expression and comprehension.

i always loved what they tell monks to do when they join an eastern orthodox monastary:

write everything down that you think god is (moral, great, good, omniscient, etc). people usually can write pages of titles and such. then they tell them to tear up the paper(s), because god is beyond anything.

ESH: I concur.

Ok Ape...
1. I don't want pain for others because I can imagine myself or someone I care for enduring it at some level. As such, I can personalize the suffering of others and experience it through them. These thought processes trigger a chemical reaction in my mind/body that causes me to "feel" anger, anguish, pain, etc. This ability to directly feel the suffering of another causes my mind to develop and maintain certain notions of right and wrong, good and bad, etc. I think this is a gross oversimplification of a complex biological system but hopefully it will satisfy you.

2. I recognize that there are other examples of animals showing emotion and acting in ways that could be termed "moral". I also recognize that there are an overwhelming number of life forms that do not. I don't consider it to be random chance that humanity appears to be unique in the level of thought and feeling that we have. I don't think that it is just an evolutionary chemical anomoly. I don't personally believe that the process developed undirected.

anomaly, sorry.

mindless dung-flinging apes

Nabob:

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. :)

"I recognize that there are other examples of animals showing emotion and acting in ways that could be termed "moral". I also recognize that there are an overwhelming number of life forms that do not." Don't many of these life forms include human beings?

"I don't consider it to be random chance that humanity appears to be unique in the level of thought and feeling that we have. I don't think that it is just an evolutionary chemical anomoly. I don't personally believe that the process developed undirected."

With all due respect Nabob, I'd recommend that you read a bit more about evolution and especially evolutionary psychology.... I think that you are making some unsubstantiated assumptions in your thinking...
For your own benefit (even if nothing more than to improve as an apologist), it would behoove you to check out "The Problem of The Soul" by Owen Flanagan, "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley, and "Good Natured" by Franz de Waal.

Nice chatting with you, Nabob!

Gotta run, I'm sure we'll run into each other again... Long Live Fark!

Sorry, gotta run for now.

Thanks for the reading suggestions, Ape. I'll check out some of them.

And ape, if you haven't already, check out Rare Earth - Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe.

My dog is God.
He told me so.
Wait...
I don't have a dog.
Where's my gun and why does my head hurt?

I think I already answered that, InsolentEnlightenedApe. In case I didn't, it is because I can understand pain from personal experiences and don't want it for another. But why develop emotions? Why develop sympathy? Why care about others at all?

Apparently you missed my earlier post. You may want to read Robert Wright's _The Moral Animal_, Frans de Waal's _Good Natured_ (or _Peacemaking Among Primates_), and Richard Alexander's _The Biology of Moral Systems_ as to how these complex emotions arise in nature by means of evolution through natural selection.

That is the root of my point. Humans have this incredible emotional system that doesn't seem to fit without God. I'm not saying that this is "proof of God." I'm saying that to me it is another indicator. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? Why develop it at all? What caused us to be something other than animals?

We are nothing more than animals. Or should I say we are marvelous animals who, like other animals, have very unique and interesting traits. But we are animals, none the less. Any desire to require gods to understand our behavior is only from ignorance.

I'm totally with Revenant-Locke on this one. As a philosophy major I'm totally disgusted by the sloppy way some of these things were laid out. They aren't proofs, most of them aren't even arguments. The logic is horribly wrong and many of the arguments are based on actual arguments, only they are called by improper names-- attributing them to schools of thought that didn't hold said opinion. This has got to be one of the worst things I've ever seen.
Having said that, it really does make sense to try to force your beliefs onto other people, especially if thoes beliefs deal with salvation. If you believe that there is only one way to salvation, by definition you must think that it is true, and therefore think that eveyone else is wrong. If you think everyone else is wrong, it's only responsible to try to show them the error of thier ways.

And ape, if you haven't already, check out Rare Earth - Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe.

The sentiments of _Rare Earth_ are similar that of Gould's _Wonderful Life_.

The fact that my life has a statistical probability of 0 has nothing to do with gods. Most of the probabilities of any one set of lottery numbers being picked is statistically 0. But everyday one of these statistically close to 0 numbers are picked by you local lottery hostess.

2003-08-01 12:08:10 PM InsolentEnlightenedApe
Nabob: You still haven't answered the question.
"It is because I can understand pain from personal experiences and don't want it for another." But why would you not want it for another... c'mon, I want you to discover the answer. No free passes!
"But why develop emotions? Why develop sympathy? Why care about others at all? That is the root of my point. Humans have this incredible emotional system that doesn't seem to fit without God. I'm not saying that this is "proof of God." I'm saying that to me it is another indicator. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? Why develop it at all? What caused us to be something other than animals?"

Survival instinct. There were most likely, way back in the prehistoric days, groups of sympathetic protohumans and groups of self-centered protohumans. Obviously, a human by himself is no match for a lion, a tiger, or a bear (oh my!). But, if we have 2 humans making weapons for 3 other humans to use when they band together to fight a tiger, they stand a much better chance. And the only way the humans are going to band together is if they care about each other--i.e. if they have sympathy for each other.

Therefore, the sympathetic humans survived and taught their young the same ethics, and the self-centered humans didn't. Sympathy gets passed on through each generation.

I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm saying this is another possible explanation--and an excellent reason why God is not necessary for sympathy.

Argument of Limited Powers
1) God is all powerful.
2) Therefore, God can create a rock that he cannot lift.
3) However, since God is all powerful, he would be able to lift that rock.
4) Therefore, God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.
5) Hence, God is not all powerful.
6) Therefore, God is not God in the biblical sence.
7) Therefore, God does not exist.

I love that one.

Ugh, i have been involved in hundreds of these argumetns, and get an unusual amount of enjoyment out of them. Because i am operating under the assumptions that no one here cares what i think, here is a simple formula.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy + Dogma + Stigmata = important ideas for theists and atheists alike



Socrates may have been on to something . . .

Using logic to prove God is like using hedge clippers to drive a car.

Funny - I took a course in logic in college, and our first lesson was why this is an illogical argument:


ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Ray Charles is blind.
(4) Therefore, Ray Charles is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

My penis hurts

Just because I can:

ARGUMENT OF INSOLENT ENLIGHTENED APE:
1) You feel sympathy for your fellow man
2) That sympathy has to come from somewhere
3) It couldn't possibly be from survival instinct or societal pressure
4) Because I said so!
5) Therefore, God Exists.

Thales


Here's a comprehendable english version:

1)It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

2)God exists as an idea in the mind.

3)A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4)Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

5)But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

6)Therefore, God exists.


It doesn't prove god exist - it proves that a god that is greater than you can imagine is greater than you can imagine.
Your logic doesn't jump to the last step there. Your logic dictates that a god that existed would fit your definition of a god.

Nabob
I wasn't really meaning to push that argument, I was just throwing it out there for the hell of it. My honest opinion is that people have certain intrinsic moral beliefs from their culture, their parents, or whatever (I guess you would say from god). I think that people adjust their religion to suit their morals and not the other way around as most religious people would have you think. You seem be saying that you do that consciously, whereas I think most people of faith would be offended by the suggestion that the whole morals/religion thing works that way. Kudos for your honesty, if that is indeed what you were saying.

My real philosophy, in a nutshell:
I'm an atheist, but I consider myself to be a pretty good person. I try not to be selfish or assholish in any way. Don't always succeed, but I do try. I've found that there are good people who are atheists and good people who are religious, and likewise bad people of both stripes. I have seen nothing to indicate that either one is better than the other in the good people/bad people ratio.

The one thing that really pisses me off is proselytizing. I dislike evangelical atheists as much as I dislike evangelical Christians. When I was younger, I was first one and then the other. Eventually I realized that just as evangelical Christians pissed me off, evangelical atheists do nothing but irritate people of faith. Faith, right or wrong, makes people happy. Granted it's behind some really horrible things in this world, none of the Christians I know participated in the crusades, the Klan, or the Salem witch trials. All I would ever do by convincing people not to be faithful any more (assuming that such was possilbe) would be to make them less happy than they were. I didn't like the idea of making people less happy out of my own selfish pursuit of what I feel to be intellectual honesty. I now restrict myself to picking on the faithful only when it's someone who's being really obnoxious about it...like Bevets, for instance.

BTW, here's a couple more (not meant to be insulting to anybody in particular, just insulting in general):

ARGUMENT OF PATRILINEAGE:
1) Jesus lived.
2) Jesus claimed to be the son of God.
3) Jesus had to have a father.
4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT OF PROPHECY
1) Jesus fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.
2) No, Jesus was not named Immanuel.
3) No, Jesus did not lead the Jews militarily.
4) No, Jesus did not take back Israel and rule it as king.
5) He still fulfilled the prophecies.
6) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT OF MOEBIUS
1) The word of God is infallible
2) The Bible is the word of God
3) The Bible says that God exists
4) Therefore, God Exists

"HeartburnKid: Just because I can:

ARGUMENT OF INSOLENT ENLIGHTENED APE:
1) You feel sympathy for your fellow man
2) That sympathy has to come from somewhere
3) It couldn't possibly be from survival instinct or societal pressure
4) Because I said so!
5) Therefore, God Exists."

Wow, talk about missing the point...

HBKid, I'm an atheist, you silly asshat!

ARGUMENT FROM LOVE:
1) Religion is an institution.
2) Religion is love.
3) Love is blind.
4) Therefore, religion is an institution for the blind.

PROOF YOU'RE NOT ON FARK:

1) You're not visiting the Yahoo website.
2) You're not visiting the Google website.
3) If you're not visiting the Yahoo website, and you're not visiting the Google website, you must be visiting some other website.
4) If you're visiting some other website, you can't be visiting the FARK website.
5) Therefore, you're not visiting the FARK website.

InsolentEnlightenedApe: If you're an atheist, why are you arguing that sympathy for your fellow man is proof of the existence of God?

Or did I misread your post?

HBK: The "quoted" statements in my post were made by user: Nabob. My responses follow and are not in quotes. Clear?

I never argued that sympathy is proof of God. I suggested that to me sympathy comes from God; it is additional supporting evidence that I can't find a rational explanation for in my understanding of evolution without direction. I admit that I am not an expert on evolution (macro, micro, psychological, etc.). I am willing to read and learn more. I don't expect that this will cause me to stop believing in God or that our advanced nature is anything other than directed. I have read a good deal on the subject and understand a great deal of the current thought but there is always room for more.

HeartBurnKid
The fact that you take another's comments and make a mockery of them (especially when done out of context) is a testimony to your character. What do you hope to accomplish? Make someone laugh at InsolentEnlightenedApe's expense (really mine but you didn't take the time to understand that from the conversation)? Perhaps you should re-read the entire conversation before you assume that someone is offering sympathy as a proof for God and question your motives for the post.

Ah. Sorry. Didn't notice the quotes.

You really should think about italicizing quotes in your posts. It'd help readability.

I guess all that stuff above would be directed at Nabob then.

I think that people adjust their religion to suit their morals and not the other way around as most religious people would have you think. You seem be saying that you do that consciously, whereas I think most people of faith would be offended by the suggestion that the whole morals/religion thing works that way. Kudos for your honesty, if that is indeed what you were saying.

What I do is question my understanding and interpretation of the Bible and the traditions of my faith. I examine that understanding in light of whatever prompted my self-examination. If I find my attitudes or actions to be in error in light of my faith, I work to correct them. If I find my beliefs to be questionable, I review them in light of my understanding of the character of God and the Word of God. I've changed my beliefs before based on this.

HBK: Will do. Thanks, I appreciate the suggestion.
Nabob: Thanks for backing me up!

O.k. then, this time I really have to go! I love Farking, but alas, my work suffers...

Peace!

*sigh*
And the only way the humans are going to band together is if they care about each other--i.e. if they have sympathy for each other.

Or because they recognize a need based on a common enemy that can't be overcome other than by banding together. People work together sometimes because they have to, not because they care about each other or want to. The world is a hard place and you stand a better chance together than apart.

Therefore, the sympathetic humans survived and taught their young the same ethics, and the self-centered humans didn't. Sympathy gets passed on through each generation.

How do some end up with a total lack of sympathy then? Surely that would have died out by now based on this model.

Finally, I personally believe in God. I believe that the complexity and yet beautiful simplicity of the entire universe point to a creator. At the same time, I understand how people believe in the absence of Him. I used to be one so that knowledge is first hand. I choose to attribute the characteristics of the universe to direction from God. I'm not arguing that these characteristics are proof of God, rather that they show His character.

Director_Mr

Guys, please understand, I'm only arguing a position, like you would do in a philosophy class, its not necessarily what I believe. If I just agreed with everyone I couldn't have this much fun.

This is even worse than if you were actually arguing what you believe. Instead of being a moron (like I originally thought), youre simply making moronic arguments, to have fun. While it might be more intellectually stimulating, I dont much of a difference between arguing this way for fun and playing video games for fun.

I seriously doubt you are going to add or respond to anything intellectually at any time. I seriously doubt I myself am either (but thats another story). Yes I am no atheist. but I'm trying to make my arguments from a philosophical point of view, just for the fun of it. You seem to be disappointed people are debating a real issue. My suggestion is grow up or play video games. Do you have any real thoughts or just flamebait?

I think its great that people are debating a real issue! My problem is that, according to you, youre not arguing what you actually believe. Whats the point if people debate something, even very intelligently, with sound reason, if one or none of them actually believes the arguments theyre making? If one does manage to make a solid point that makes the position that one is arguing for (that they dont believe, anyway), nothing is really gained since they didnt believe in it in the first place. Thats my problem, not that debate is occurring (besides what I think are moronic arguments from you).

Ive read every word on this thread, and I just went through and read all your posts again. Ive wasted so much time already, so heres to wasting a bit more. Youre not an atheist, but you try to take an atheists philosophy to its logical end. How are you qualified to do this? You repeated yourself a bunch since no one showed why you were wrong. Well, reading over everything, its clear why this is so. Youve defined things so you cant be wrong. According to you, only objective morality is really morality. Anything else is preference. According to you, objective morality can only come from an absolute source, i.e. God. So of course, an atheist, lacking belief in the only source of true morality you think possible, is simply amoral.

Well, if God is the only possible source of objective morals (and according to you if its not objective then its not morals), then if God(s) never existed, then there are no morals, according to your definition. Also, many religions, with their different descriptions of God(s), have different ideas on whats moral. Unless all of these Gods really exist (which raises the question whether, in the existence of multiple Gods, with different morals, whether any is objective, and therefore whether morals exist, outside of different Gods preferences).

In response to your posts on this position:

But the idea that moral standards exist without a god is laughable. What moral standard can possibly exist without a source of that standard?

Ok, heres an idea. If supreme being God(s) have never existed, then the source of religious standards of morality is simply human beings our own subjective creation. Does that mean theyre not really morals, since theyre not from an objective source? Or by being institutionalized and having objective results (because billions of people were taught murder was wrong, the incidence of murder has been greatly reduced), do they become more than just preference? Moral standards, created subjectively, if followed, often have objective consequences. For instance, we might agree that murder is wrong and have laws against it, punishing those who commit it. Those who like murder or are murder-curious might then be disinclined to commit murder, fearing the consequences. Here, theyre not acting out of morality but fear of punishment. Is this any different from the theist who acts, not out of acceptance of an alleged supreme beings objective moral code, but out of fear of punishment? Then again, we might not agree. But if we approach the questions of human freedom and human happiness with the aim to solve them as best as possible, then were approaching an objective moral standard. For instance, if one person proposes that murder is fine and should be allowed and encouraged, and another says that murder is terrible and should be outlawed and discouraged, then we can see how these two views affect human freedom, human happiness, and what ever other problem we want to address. To the extent that one set of moral standards better preserves human freedom, human happiness, and other things that we want to preserve, it can be objectively better than another. Of course, its still subjective on whether human freedom and happiness are worth preserving (and we each have our personal reasons for this as well as group consensus), but we can measure objectively how a moral standard supports those values.

An atheist trying to be moral is intellectually dishonest. He should be looking out for himself and screw everyone else.

Well, a philosophy of screw everyone else would not be a good way for one to look out for himself. If one adopted a screw everyone else attitude, then its likely others would adopt the same attitude towards him. Cooperation, doing favors for others, and looking out for others welfare is likely to make them reciprocate, in which case everyone wins, even if each persons underlying goal is (an enlightened, non-myopic) selfishness.

But Isaac Newton himself said if the only thing in the universe he ever saw was only his hand, he would be convinced God existed because of the perfect design of the hand. He implied there was an inherent intelligent design to everything in the universe. Where did it come from? Either a designer, or random chance. You decide which you choose to believe.

Isaac Newton (1642 1727) existed before a scientific, naturalistic explanation for apparent design was put forth, most notably with the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species in 1859. Pure speculation, but if Isaac Newton existed today, I doubt hed be convinced by the argument from design. I think he would understand how apparent design can exist in a universe with a few basic physical laws governing processes. Like how if you throw a ball up in the air, its not mere random chance that it will come back down (although I know of nothing more than random chance as to why the physical laws are as they are, and not the opposite).

What atrocities. There have never been any atrocities committed at any time. How dare you make a moral judgement on what someone else does? You are being sentimental and stupid if you do. Who cares what others do if it doesn't directly affect you?

It might not directly affect him, but it certainly indirectly affects him, in a variety of ways. If genocide is decided to be OK, and anyone can do it, then that puts him, those he cares about, and others (who can potentially help him in life, and contribute to his freedom and happiness), in risk. So even if just indirectly, it matters.

My point is that atheists never can have morals. Morals imply an independent standard of right or wrong. The best educated and raised atheist will never have morals. He will at best have personal preferences.

Well, as I said before, the way youre defining this here makes your whole argument pretty obvious and superficial. If, according to you, moral standards must come from a source independent of humanity (such as an alleged God), then moral standards only exist if a personal God exists, which since the atheist rejects, then they are amoral. But other atheists and I would argue that an independent standard of morality is not necessary. There might be disagreement, and a morality, no matter how its objectively based on subjective standards, will still have those who disagree with it, for whatever reason.

Mike, how can you possibly judge the crusades or the inquisition? By what standard were they "wrong"?

Personal standards and group consensus come to mind.

My point is this. you don't have morals you have arbitrary preferences. Why is murder wrong? Why is it bad to hurt people? What difference does it make if you do good or bad things? You can't answer those questions. You were taught or raised to prefer a certain thing, but what if I wasn't. Your morals don't apply to me. I like to murder rape and steal. (not really, but for sake of argument people) Now what?

Superficially this might seem like a great problem, but I dont think it is. If on a given topic one person has one opinion, and another has another opinion, does that mean one opinion must be wrong? Or that its some great problem they dont agree? I dont think so. One can answer the questions why murder is wrong, why its bad to hurt people, and why it does make a difference, through reasoning and evidence, about how those things negatively affect human freedom and happiness. How are you going to argue for murdering, raping, and stealing? Personal preference? I think this can be reasoned through and shown why these things are bad without resorting to God or might makes right.

I do not believe in human morality, rapid eye movement.

THe reason I do not, is there is no proof of it. I do believe in God's morality, because there is a yearning for morality within me, myself. Now my point is, that yearning for morality within me, I can point to an objective source where it came from. But there is no objective source for your morality as atheist. No one will be able to agree what that morality is. In the end, no standard will be able to be had. What if someone feels murder is good and rape is ok. There is no way to show him that is not true in atheism. That in and of itself does not disprove atheism. Just don't tell me you are a moral atheist. IT is intellectually dishonest.

This is certainly similar to the previous post (arent they all?), but with this one I think youre getting closer to seeing the holes in it. You say you do not believe in human morality because there is no proof of it, but you believe in Gods morality because there is a yearning for morality within you. Well, why not reject Gods morality because theres no proof of God, and believe in human morality to sate your yearning for morality? With a God of most religions, you can point to an independent source of morality, but that doesnt mean that any of the Gods are real (and therefore the independent objective source of morality). On the agreement issue, again, if there is a non-Godly objective moral standard (even if based on subjective assumptions), both through individual thought and group consensus, then some who disagree is a problem, but it certainly doesnt completely undo the moral standard. If you said what you mean when you say moral or moral standard, which I think is an objective moral standard, originating from a source outside of humanity, namely the specific supreme being personal God that I believe in, then to your definition of course atheists are amoral (as are those who believe in different Gods and different moral standards, as you are amoral to them, since you dont believe in each others exclusively correct moral standards), and if I reject your definition, then I can say, as an atheist, that I am moral, and be intellectually honest.

They [morals] are only based on what their perception of what most people would accept as OK is. So if you get caught in NAZI Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Inquisition Spain, you are going to be believing in what most people around you believe.

Well, even with popular consensus as a source of morality, thats no guarantee that the consensus will be looked upon as moral when judged outside of that time & place.

If you say you are an atheist who believes in objective morality, I would say you are an agnostic really. You are free to disagree, but at best in my opinion you are an atheist who hasn't taken all atheist philosophy to its logical conclusion yet. do you agree rapid?

These are lousy statements. Why is one who doesnt take atheism to what you think to be its logical conclusion not an atheist but an agnostic? I define agnosticism as the idea that it cannot be known whether or not God(s) exist, and atheism as either not believing that God(s) exist (weak atheism) or believing that God(s) do not exist (strong atheism). By these definitions, Im both an agnostic, since I dont think it can be known whether or not God(s) exist, and a weak atheist, since I dont believe in God(s). An interesting question is, assuming that if God exists, there is a perfect objective moral standard. But, if God doesnt exist, does the objective moral standard still exist, even if he wouldnt have created it and let us know what it is, or is it a perfect objective moral standard because God says so?

ok, atheism has not given us science. I am sorry. Christianity gave us science, buddy. Isaac Newton, Galileo, Pascal, all Christians.
Christianity has not given us science. The scientific method, devoid of superstition, predates Christianity by more than five centuries, and for hundreds of years the church fought those who had scientific evidence that was in opposition to the churchs teachings, based on the beliefs of ancient, pre-scientific agricultural societies.

You have articulated why I believe in God. I'm not saying that is proof, but when I look at the final consequences in life based on belief in one or the other, it seems that faith brings better things into this world than the lack of it.

This is why you believe in God?

That is my point. If you are going to be an atheist, you have to reject the idea of morals. That is all. I'm not saying that proves or disproves anything... Its just fun to say because atheists get all pissed off when I say it.

That very point makes most people really agnostics, because they don't like the idea of rejecting morality

No, just your idea that objective morals from a God that may or may not exist is the only possibly valid source of morals. I got pissed off initially when you said it because I thought you thought that was true. Then you said its just a position to debate, for fun, to piss off atheists (although two posts later you say you dont REALLY mean to do this, even though you say this is a certain consequence of your doing this). I doubt 1 person has changed how they describe themselves from atheist to agnostic because of your ideas on moral standards.

When you claim to be an atheist, and complain about hipocracy or past injustices, or point out immorality, you are arguing something which you cannot believe in or apply to yourself. Don't be an atheist and claim to be a moral person.

As I said, I reject your ideas on morality, but I have my own ideas on morality, and based on them, I would claim to be a moral person and an atheist.

You have to have a philosophical framework in your life to process information. If you do not have that "Faith" no amount of facts will have any effect on you. Faith is believing in what you cannot see. Can you see atoms? Can you see distant galaxies. Technically you cannot. You believe in them however. You have faith in NASA, the Hubble Telescope, many things you yourself cannot verify to truly exist and work as you believe. Yet you have that faith based on facts as well. It is a reasonable faith, but faith none the less

So must one have faith that theyre really listening to Beethovens 5th, even though they cant see it? If you expand your definition to sense, then it improves, but its still nowhere close to Ambrose Bierces definition in The Devils Dictionary:

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

That said, one can see atoms with a powerful enough electron microscope, and can see distant galaxies with a powerful enough telescope. And one person mentioned seeing air, which is easily accomplished by putting a balloon underwater and letting the air out. It is a very different kind of faith to think that NASA, Hubble Telescope, and other things, which one could very easily verify to truly exist if their existence was ever seriously questioned, unlike verifying the existence of God(s), which cannot be done. Both technically faiths, but faiths of so different of a kind that comparing them to make one seem better is pointless.

If you cant acknowledge that Right and Wrong are absolutes, I don't know what we can discuss. We are not speaking the same English language at that point. When you say something is "wrong" that is an absolute statement. Look up the definition of absolute.

This is funny, but understandable since you posted so much in so brief of time (as I leisurely sit here typing away with little concern of time). You want to make absolute the key word, even though its right and wrong that are being discussed. It might not be objective, but through reasoning and appropriate debate we could argue whats right and wrong, without ever getting weight to make any decisions made absolute, but perhaps approaching a practical usefulness.

Dispoable, you can't separate religion and science that easily. Christianity is the reason we have modern science. The belief in an all-powerful, logical, consistant God allowed us to look for order and laws governing nature. Have you studied history?

We have modern science in spite of Christianity, if things had played out differently, the church might well have successfully ended the resurgence of scientific inquiry a few hundred years ago. The idea of using scientific inquiry, devoid of superstition, to investigate the workings of the world, goes back at least 2,500 years.

So thats it, but I want to add that, what youve done (according to you) is take atheism to its logical end, but the problem is you go way past its practical end, which is far short of abandoning all ideas of morality just because theyre ultimately not objective (even if they were objectively found to be the most successful at meeting certain subjective standards). Addressing the notion of morality and whether or not God is necessary for morality to exist, while interesting and important, doesnt address the underlying question of whether or not God(s) exist. All the debate in the world on how unsatisfactory morality is in a Godless universe wont change a thing if, in fact, God does not exist. Debating that directly, and offering reason and evidence for that, one way or the other, would be much more worthwhile than making all the posts youve made, even if they do piss off atheists, and prompt them to, in lieu of addressing meaningful questions, such as, on a scale of 1 to 1000, how arrogant is it to think that a supreme being that transcends space and time has a perverted fetish with the going-ons on small, insignificant planet, in an insignificant solar system, in 1 galaxy among trillions, write, in response to you, ridiculously long, moronic posts.

"God is dead!" - Friedrich Nietzsche, 100 years ago

"Nietzsche is dead!" - God, today

ARGUMENT FROM MOTOWN:
(1) God is Love.
(2) Love is Blind.
(3) Ray Charles is Blind.
(4) Ray Charles is God.
therefore God exists and plays the best version of Georgia on my Mind ever recorded.

mmmm...Will..Holly....Pylon

Yes, Chaka, Pylon


/fark is serious, my world has turned upside down...sure enough, just checked CNN and they're telling dick jokes. O&A

C'mon Mr. All Knowing and All Powerful if you exist make this topic go away. Cause a glitch to make this post not appear. Do......... something!!!

would you be convinced then, jgag? or would you just write it off as coincidence?

"would you be convinced then, jgag? or would you just write it off as coincidence?"

for me, it would just re-inforce what I already believe...that sys admins think they're god

lol

"for me, it would just re-inforce what I already believe...that sys admins think they're god"

I was going to respond but there's no way I can beat that.

uhh it's been said before but this is the only thing worth reading on that list:

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.


IT's A JOKE--IT's NOT REALLY MEANT TO BE ARGUMENTS>>IT SPITS FUN AT THOSE YOU ARGUE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD...

by the way, God does exist, he loves you

matthew 6:25

Nabob "Yet the societies that held the most sway were the ones that conquered and then tolerated the beliefs of the overcome nation. Their authority was power, not gods. So I argue that gods aren't a necessary creation to maintain a moral code as long as there is power."

I would beg to differ about "tolerate." I think assimilate would be a better description. An example would be the Christian adoption and redefinition of pagan rituals and holidays in order to better assimilate non-Christians. The pagans were given a small sense of familiarity, but their old gods were banished. That is not tolerance, but the use of "god" to cement moral authority, as I have stated.

HeartBurnKid "Therefore, the sympathetic humans survived and taught their young the same ethics, and the self-centered humans didn't. Sympathy gets passed on through each generation."

Nabob "How do some end up with a total lack of sympathy then? Surely that would have died out by now based on this model."

And why can wolves and lions do this exact same thing without need to defer to a "god" as the reason they are capable of this? The god concept is unnecessary.

Nabob "Humans have this incredible emotional system that doesn't seem to fit without God. I'm not saying that this is "proof of God." I'm saying that to me it is another indicator. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? Why develop it at all? What caused us to be something other than animals?"

Language. Our advanced brains developed language, and we are capable of much more sophisticated levels of social interaction than apes, wolves, and lions. That high level of social interaction gave us culture, and allows us to do amazing things, like communicate things to those who were not there. This cultural sophistication was our evolutionary advantage, because our physical bodies alone were not enough to compete with other large predators.

However, we should not confuse sophistication and complexity with our desire to be in awe of something greater than ourselves. I think that is what you are trying to do when you attempt to create a causality link between what can be observed (human and animal behavior), and what you wish to be true (the existence of god).

jeremydragon: "by the way, God does exist, he loves you.
matthew 6:25"

From the page of silly religious logic:
ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

I am not convinced by circular logic.

cloudnin:

"Isaac Newton (1642 1727) existed before a scientific, naturalistic explanation for apparent design
was put forth, most notably with the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species in 1859. Pure
speculation, but if Isaac Newton existed today, I doubt hed be convinced by the argument from
design. I think he would understand how apparent design can exist in a universe with a few basic
physical laws governing processes."

Some more pure speculation: I doubt that Newton would be convinced that natural selection and mutation in any way explains away the 'argument from design', or accounts for "apparent design" in the universe. I think he would find it a superficial answer.

Armandeus:

"However, we should not confuse sophistication and complexity with our desire to be in awe of
something greater than ourselves. I think that is what you are trying to do when you attempt to create
a causality link between what can be observed (human and animal behavior), and what you wish to
be true (the existence of god)."

..our desire to be in awe of something greater than..what you wish to be true(the existence of god)..?

C'mon now. Do you desire to be in awe of something? Do you wish the existence of god to be either true or false? I can't answer yes to either of those questions. I think you may be just a bit prejudiced, or at least be painting with a very broad brush.