Reflecting on a few interesting answers

[MarysGirls]

I didn’t read the whole thread, so pardon me if I’m off the current topic.

If I had absolute proof that there is no God, I would have no meaning, no purpose in life. Without God, there is no Truth. Without God, there is no hope. What would be the point of trying to be good? What would be the point of anything?

I’ve shared this quote on a different thread, and I think it pretty much sums it up:

To the question, “How did it all begin?” Science answers, “Probably by an accident.” To the question, “How will it all end?” Science answers, “Probably by an accident.” And to many, the accidental life is not worth living.

Hope this helps.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am answering this one time out of sheer politeness. The tone of your post is contary to the forum rules.

The tone of my post? Excuse number 1

The content shows that your do not differentiate between “objective” and “absolute”.

An assertion/accusation without an explanation or demonstration? Excuse number 2

Moral truth is both objective (in that it transcends human opinion), and absolute (in the sense that raping a small child, or any person, is always and eternally wrong).

As such I have no desire to talk to you.

Only because you know that what i am saying is the truth, and you cannot respond, so you decided to find fault with my character instead. Perhaps thats one difference between M.O.M the “Theist” and Spock the “Atheist”. One accepts the the existence of objective moral values, and the other one does not. M.O.M accepts that it is objectively wrong to rape a small child, and the atheist Spock does not think it is objectively wrong to rape a small child.

Its hardly surprising that you no longer want to respond.

You may waste your time on making posts, but I will not read them nor reply to them.

Then I will continue to make posts for the sake of those readers looking for a rational form of hope, so that they are not deceived by your fallacies.

 

[Luke_K]

If I had absolute proof that there is no God, I would have no meaning, no purpose in life. Without God, there is no Truth. Without God, there is no hope. What would be the point of trying to be good? What would be the point of anything?

“Good” is basically defined as that which is to be desired and acted for, so it is a truism that we should try to be good.

Under an atheistic worldview, the point of life is to accomplish whatever you personally decide is good. The theistic worldview is the same, except that what we decide is good is whatever God has revealed as good.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“Good” is basically defined as that which is to be desired and acted for, so it is a truism that we should try to be good.

So if somebody has a desire to rape a small child, we should consider this a good thing because a person desires it?

This is obviously false.

 

[Luke_K]

So if somebody has a desire to rape a small child, we should consider this a good thing because a person desires it?

This is obviously false.

You are equivocating between the “good” of basic definition and the Christian “good.” Christians consider God and his commandments as that which is to be desired and acted for.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are equivocating between the “good” of basic definition and the Christian “good.” Christians consider God and his commandments as that which is to be desired and acted for.

It is more likely that I found your post confusing. Apologizes. I am talking about the “moral good” full-stop. That which is morally true. I am making no equivocations, i simply assumed that the moral good is what you were talking about. If you are simply talking about good, as in that which gives pleasure or that which is desired, then this can include all manner of things that could very well conflict with what is truly and morally good. In fact i see it as misleading to speak of good outside of its moral connotation since the word has no objective meaning beyond subjective taste.

What you really intended to say is that there are things that feel nice to us, and then there is moral law, what we ought to do, whether it feels nice or not.

 

[Spock]

I didn’t read the whole thread, so pardon me if I’m off the current topic.

If I had absolute proof that there is no God, I would have no meaning, no purpose in life. Without God, there is no Truth. Without God, there is no hope. What would be the point of trying to be good? What would be the point of anything?

If this existence is all we get, then it makes very good sense to live it to its fullest. It makes very good sense to leave good memories behind. As the sign in the National Forest says: “Take nothing but pictures, and leave nothing but footprints”. We enjoy our existence while it lasts and when our time is up, we leave the world to our children and grandchildren to enjoy it. (At least that is what conscientious people do

I’ve shared this quote on a different thread, and I think it pretty much sums it up:

Your quote was incorrect. It should say: “How did it begin?” Science answers: “We don’t know and we don’t care. We leave empty speculations to the philosophers”. Or it will answer: “It is not even a valid question. Time is not defined and cannot be defined outside the universe and thus for the universe” .

 

[MarysGirls]

If this existence is all we get, then it makes very good sense to live it to its fullest. It makes very good sense to leave good memories behind. As the sign in the National Forest says: “Take nothing but pictures, and leave nothing but footprints”. We enjoy our existence while it lasts and when our time is up, we leave the world to our children and grandchildren to enjoy it. (At least that is what conscientious people do

Depends on what you mean by living it to the fullest I guess. Some people think enjoying their life includes doing irresponsible and often-times stupid things. Life is short; have fun while you can. How do you have fun? For some people having fun means getting drunk and having sex with someone you barely know. Then, say that person drives home before he’s sober and hits some kid’s mom, killing her. The kid can grieve and move on or give up hope. But wait, there is no God, so there is no hope. And people tell the kid that it’s okay, your mom isn’t hurting anymore. Will that be any consolation, knowing that his mom isn’t alive anymore either? And others say that as long as you remember her, she’ll always be alive. Well, I tried that when my friend died; it doesn’t work. And other people say that she’s in heaven and she’s happy. But, that can’t be, because there is no God, so there’s no heaven either.

I’m sorry if I’m rambling, but a life without God just doesn’t work for me.

Your quote was incorrect. It should say: “How did it begin?” Science answers: “We don’t know and we don’t care. We leave empty speculations to the philosophers”. Or it will answer: “It is not even a valid question. Time is not defined and cannot be defined outside the universe and thus for the universe” .

Hmm. You may be right there. I don’t know; I’ve heard a lot of different theories about how the world began that I thought were scientific… But it’s beside the point anyways.

 

[Windfish]

You are applying values to things that exist only in your imagination and the imaginations of those who choose to be apart of your fantasy. “Sociopaths”, if by that word you are implying that somebody is behaving in a way they ought not to, or in a way that is morally abnormal, is an objectively meaningless concept given your world view. It is not objectively true of people; there is no such thing as a sociopath. Effects are just effects; physical behavior is just physical behavior. The only true function that word can have is to differentiate between one form of human behavior and another. It doesn’t tell us whether that behavior is wrong or abnormal or something people shouldn’t like doing. This thread is purely an exercise in meaninglessness while pretending to have meaning, and at the same time pretending to have some kind moral high ground as if the people who were honest enough and brave enough to act on all their desires were doing something immoral.

The real question is, why would you want to create that illusion if not to scorn members of this forum. The logical consequences of your world view is that we are the products of physical interactions and so is our thoughts. The logical consequences of your world view is that to rape and kill ah small child or a women or anyone in general is not objectively wrong. You have accepted that world view, but i dare say that you are not honest enough to accept it in your heart. Our being has no more objective value than cow-dung. We have no true moral value. We are objects like everything else and it is irrational to think of us as being anything more than that; and thus so is your empathy.

The existence of temptations in general is not of our own creation although they may have experiential and social roots. Thus when a Catholic chooses to sacrifice those desires for a true objective moral good, they are doing something that is truly virtuous, as opposed to some subjective self-glorifying moral delusion that ones actions have some kind of objective meaning without God. I do good because it truly is good, not simply because it pleasures me.

Your inability to understands the wants and the whys, is qualitatively the same as saying “i like cheese and pickle sandwiches and i don’t understand why other don’t”, since it is devoid of objective moral truth and the intrinsic meaning expressed.

It’s stuff like this that lead me out of atheism and helped to see how mad and pitiable it really is. I would think any honest person would see that nonsense and the discontinuity it has with real life and notice the problem.

 

[Spock]

Depends on what you mean by living it to the fullest I guess. Some people think enjoying their life includes doing irresponsible and often-times stupid things. Life is short; have fun while you can. How do you have fun? For some people having fun means getting drunk and having sex with someone you barely know.

Yes, some people do things like that. As long as they do not hurt others, it is their business, no one else’s. Though I would not recommed such behavior.

Then, say that person drives home before he’s sober and hits some kid’s mom, killing her.

Now that is nonsense. No one would do such things on purpose. Driving under the influence, when your ability is impaired is highly irresponsible. And it is not “fun”, it cannot be included in living life to its fullest. By the way living life to its fullest is not throwing rationality into the wind.

The kid can grieve and move on or give up hope. But wait, there is no God, so there is no hope. And people tell the kid that it’s okay, your mom isn’t hurting anymore. Will that be any consolation, knowing that his mom isn’t alive anymore either?

No atheist would offer this as consolation.

And others say that as long as you remember her, she’ll always be alive. Well, I tried that when my friend died; it doesn’t work.

For a kid it will not work. Small children are not rational beings. For adults it does. I worked for me.

And other people say that she’s in heaven and she’s happy. But, that can’t be, because there is no God, so there’s no heaven either.

I always thought that looking at problems in the “face” and dealing with them can be painful on the short run, but much better than finding solace in something that is just imaginary. Believe me, I would be delighted in there would be a loving, caring God, if I had the opportunity to see my deceased parents again. Unfortunately I see no evidence for this.

I’m sorry if I’m rambling, but a life without God just doesn’t work for me.

I understand. We are all different.

 

[MarysGirls]

Yes, some people do things like that. As long as they do not hurt others, it is their business, no one else’s. Though I would not recommed such behavior.
What if they do hurt others? If there is no God, why would it matter?

Now that is nonsense. No one would do such things on purpose. Driving under the influence, when your ability is impaired is highly irresponsible. And it is not “fun”, it cannot be included in living life to its fullest. By the way living life to its fullest is not throwing rationality into the wind.
I wasn’t trying to imply that he did it on purpose, it just happened the way it always happens when someone drives under the influence.

No atheist would offer this as consolation.

For a kid it will not work. Small children are not rational beings. For adults it does. I worked for me.

I always thought that looking at problems in the “face” and dealing with them can be painful on the short run, but much better than finding solace in something that is just imaginary. Believe me, I would be delighted in there would be a loving, caring God, if I had the opportunity to see my deceased parents again. Unfortunately I see no evidence for this.
If you experienced something for which you had no evidence, would you reject the experience?

I understand. We are all different.

Thank you for your kind reply. I’m curious. For me as a Christian, living life to its fullest means becoming a saint. As an atheist, what does living life to its fullest mean to you?

 

[Spock]

What if they do hurt others? If there is no God, why would it matter?

Remember the reciprocity, as the basis of atheistic morality. The two golden rules (do not hurt others…). The truth is that such a question would have left me wondering a few years ago. After having spent years of this board I am not surprised any more. I have seen believers state that if they did not believe in God, they would go on a killing rampage, start substance abuse, sexual escapades, etc… What a sad picture they painted about themselves. I don’t need an overseer to respect other humans.

If you experienced something for which you had no evidence, would you reject the experience?

I don’t understand. If I experience something, that is the strongest possible type of evidence, personal experience. I could not possibly discard it.

Thank you for your kind reply. I’m curious. For me as a Christian, living life to its fullest means becoming a saint. As an atheist, what does living life to its fullest mean to you?

Pretty much the same, without the religious overtones. To be kind and good to others. Follow the the two golden rules. There is no real difference, except that the atheist does not expect a reward or a punishment later.

 

[loneviking]

Remember the book of Judges? and how it ends with ‘And every man did what was right in his own eyes?’.

Remember the story just before that, where a man turned his concubine over to a crowd, who gang raped her to death during the night? These were Jews, Gods’ people, entrusted with the law, the Tabernacle and a complex moral code. It didn’t mean anything to them, their hearts weren’t in the right place. Same is true today with many people.

I would guess that most of those who would go on rampages and commit atrocities are those who’ve never experienced such things. There’s a reason that cultures have religion,law and moral codes. Without such things, human beings self destruct. Destructive behavior like this looks ‘fun’ if you’re the one dishing it out, but when the tables turn and they are on the receiving end, then their perspective will change in a hurry!

 

[AitchB]

Moreover, a truly small percentage of the posters went even further. They said that they would go and kill and torture others. There would be no restriction on their behavior (except they would try to avoid getting caught).

Now that is amazing. I cannot fathom why these people felt like it. So the question is: “if you are one of these people, please explain your reasons”? If you are not one of these people, “what do you think their reason might have been”? Any ideas? (By the way, none of them indicated - by smilies or otherwise) - that they intended to pull our leg. They were dead serious in their answers.)

I am not one of these people. I cannot offer any explanation why they would feel that way, but if this is true then I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the church fathers were practical atheists.

 

[Rolypoly]

IN MY OPINION:

The question posed is without even a slight possibility of being REALITY and therefore cannot and ought be replied too.

Because 1. God is real as are heaven and hell 2. because basic morality in instinctive but can obviously be ignored. 3. Because HUMANITY alone of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of living things can choose good, avoid evil and LOVE.

God Bless,
Pat

I have been trying to think of my own response for a ridiculously long time now but I have concluded that this is probably the best answer, especially reason #1.

 

[MarysGirls]

Remember the reciprocity, as the basis of atheistic morality. Actually, I can’t remember; I’ve never heard of it. The two golden rules (do not hurt others…). The truth is that such a question would have left me wondering a few years ago. After having spent years of this board I am not surprised any more. I have seen believers state that if they did not believe in God, they would go on a killing rampage, start substance abuse, sexual escapades, etc… What a sad picture they painted about themselves. I don’t need an overseer to respect other humans. I’ve never thought of God as an overseer. But such things as substance abuse doesn’t hurt anyone else; it only makes your life a little shorter and more erratic. Without God, why would it matter?

I don’t understand. If I experience something, that is the strongest possible type of evidence, personal experience. I could not possibly discard it. In that case, I will pray that you experience my LORD. You’ll just love Him once you get to know Him.

Pretty much the same, without the religious overtones. To be kind and good to others. Follow the the two golden rules. There is no real difference, except that the atheist does not expect a reward or a punishment later.

But you see, this is what I don’t understand: Reward and punishment aside (it’s not the real point of doing good anyway), how can you know what is good and what is evil without something (or someone) to measure it by?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi Spock!

Let’s look at reasons. Specifically, let us look at reasons that I have not to X, where Xing represents some activity that I strongly desire to do but consider to be very wrong.

If God did not exist, two major reasons that I have not to X would be eliminated: (1) Because, if God exists, then Xing is not actually advantageous to me, even though it may seem to be, and (2) Because God might punish me for Xing.

(Personally, I think that reason #1 above is much stronger than reason #2, although many atheists and theists tend to assume that threat of punishment is the only operative reason here.)

But, as you have suggested, I have other reasons not to X. For example…

(3) Xing would hurt someone. This reason might be sufficient to cause me not to X, but – then again – I might rationalize. Some Nazi soldiers considered killing Jews to be an act of mercy, and some child molesters justify their actions to themselves by saying that adult/child sex is sometimes beneficial to children. Thieves tell themselves that they will use the money better than its current possessor. In short, we tell lies to ourselves, and these can be extremely dangerous.

Moreover, it is unclear why I should care if other people – outside of my group, say – get hurt. (I *do *care, but do I have a *reason *to care?)

(4) Xing is forbidden by society. This is a weak, weak reason – akin to Nietzsche’s slave morality. Needless to say, many people live their lives in blind adherence to the whims of society. Authors like Dostoevsky offer a powerful critique of this.

(5) I will be arrested/divorced/disowned/ashamed if I X. This is a much stronger reason, and **many **wrong actions are avoided for this very reason. But notice … the problem here is not that the wrongful act is committed, but that the wrongful act is known about.

All the more reason, then, to do wrong in secret – unless, of course, you have internalized the scruples of the society. But why should you internalize the scruples of society, if these do not gain you some benefit? This brings in the sixth reason:

(6) Doing X will hurt me (or those I care about) in the long run.

Why should an atheist believe that #6 is true? It is a claim about the world – that wrongdoers tend toward misery. This might be true if a God were there to make the world that way. But the atheist has no such guarantees.

Thus, I am afraid that most atheists lack sufficient reason not to do wrong, so long as they do not get caught. What say you?

 

[Spock]

Actually, I can’t remember; I’ve never heard of it.

I think you heard by another name, the golden rule(s).

1. Do unto others what you would like them to do unto you.
2. Do not do unto others what you would not like them do unto you.In other words help others when they need it, and do not hurt others, because you do not want to be hurt yourself.

I’ve never thought of God as an overseer.

I did. I hear that God judges us all the time, even in the privacy of our bedroom (is there privacy there, if God is constantly looking?). What else is that if not “overseeing us”?

But such things as substance abuse doesn’t hurt anyone else; it only makes your life a little shorter and more erratic. Without God, why would it matter?

It does not matter. If someone wants to do it, while clearly knowing what they are getting into, it is their own business. Obviously, the ignorant ones should be educated. And the children need to be protected.

In that case, I will pray that you experience my LORD. You’ll just love Him once you get to know Him.

Most kind of you. Thank you very much.

But you see, this is what I don’t understand: Reward and punishment aside (it’s not the real point of doing good anyway), how can you know what is good and what is evil without something (or someone) to measure it by?

Look at the golden rules and you see my answer. So very simple. Helping others is good. Spreading good will around you is beneficial (or loving). Hurting others is bad (or evil). You act the same way as I do, but you do it because you obey God’s commandments, and I do it, because I came to this conclusion by logic and reason alone.

 

[Spock]

Hi Spock!

Let’s look at reasons. Specifically, let us look at reasons that I have not to X, where Xing represents some activity that I strongly desire to do but consider to be very wrong.

If God did not exist, two major reasons that I have not to X would be eliminated: (1) Because, if God exists, then Xing is not actually advantageous to me, even though it may seem to be, and (2) Because God might punish me for Xing.

(Personally, I think that reason #1 above is much stronger than reason #2, although many atheists and theists tend to assume that threat of punishment is the only operative reason here.)

But, as you have suggested, I have other reasons not to X. For example…

(3) Xing would hurt someone. This reason might be sufficient to cause me not to X, but – then again – I might rationalize. Some Nazi soldiers considered killing Jews to be an act of mercy, and some child molesters justify their actions to themselves by saying that adult/child sex is sometimes beneficial to children. Thieves tell themselves that they will use the money better than its current possessor. In short, we tell lies to ourselves, and these can be extremely dangerous.

Moreover, it is unclear why I should care if other people – outside of my group, say – get hurt. (I *do *care, but do I have a *reason *to care?)

(4) Xing is forbidden by society. This is a weak, weak reason – akin to Nietzsche’s slave morality. Needless to say, many people live their lives in blind adherence to the whims of society. Authors like Dostoevsky offer a powerful critique of this.

(5) I will be arrested/divorced/disowned/ashamed if I X. This is a much stronger reason, and **many **wrong actions are avoided for this very reason. But notice … the problem here is not that the wrongful act is committed, but that the wrongful act is known about.

All the more reason, then, to do wrong in secret – unless, of course, you have internalized the scruples of the society. But why should you internalize the scruples of society, if these do not gain you some benefit? This brings in the sixth reason:

(6) Doing X will hurt me (or those I care about) in the long run.

Why should an atheist believe that #6 is true? It is a claim about the world – that wrongdoers tend toward misery. This might be true if a God were there to make the world that way. But the atheist has no such guarantees.

Thus, I am afraid that most atheists lack sufficient reason not to do wrong, so long as they do not get caught. What say you?

Hi, buddy! Good summary, as usual. I agree with you completely. And I am glad to see you again.

My answer is already included in what you said. I look both at the short run and the long run. Following the two variants of the golden rule, I help others, because I might need help myself, and spreading goodwill around is beneficial both for me, and for others. I do not hurt others, because I do not wish to be hurt myself.

Generally, what goes around, comes around. Sounds obvious, but it is still true. The golden rules are fully secular, and based upon logic, reason, a minimal understanding of human nature (we all seek happiness, and try to avoid pain) and the concept of reciprocity.

You may object, that there is no sure-fire, certain method of enforcing these rules in the society around us. I admit, there is none. Of course, I am sure you realize that there is no enforcement coming down from God either - in this existence. God allows all the atrocities to happen. (Let’s not get into that debate. I heard the arguments, and I think that they are pitifully weak.) I think you believe that there will be a perfect justice in the afterlife. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. You have no proof for it. And even if there is justice there, it does not help us here.

Look at it this way: “John Doe does something wrong. God could slap him down to learn from it. God does not do it. John Doe does not learn from his wrongdoing. He will repeat his deed, because there is no feedback from God”.

Moreover, even if there is perfect justice “over there”, it does not “undo” the injusticies here. The past cannot be altered, and what was “evil”, will stay evil, no matter what happens later on.

 

[MarysGirls]

I think you heard by another name, the golden rule(s).

1. Do unto others what you would like them to do unto you.
2. Do not do unto others what you would not like them do unto you.In other words help others when they need it, and do not hurt others, because you do not want to be hurt yourself.
   Oh, okay.

I did. I hear that God judges us all the time, even in the privacy of our bedroom (is there privacy there, if God is constantly looking?). What else is that if not “overseeing us”?
Well, I guess it depends on the way you look at it. I’ve always seen God as my Father. He cares about me so much that He doesn’t want me to do anything that would hurt myself or others, so He tells us what’s wrong, and what’s right. He won’t stop us from doing it (except in some extreme circumstances) because then He would be forcing us and He doesn’t want us to be slaves. In that way, He is sort of overseeing us, I guess. Just not in a bad way.

It does not matter. If someone wants to do it, while clearly knowing what they are getting into, it is their own business. Obviously, the ignorant ones should be educated. And the children need to be protected.

I guess that’s the difference between the atheist and Christian view of good and evil. We believe that if something’s wrong (like substance abuse) than it’s wrong no matter who it hurts - whether it’s others or just yourself.
Most kind of you. Thank you very much.
You’re very welcome.

Look at the golden rules and you see my answer. So very simple. Helping others is good. Spreading good will around you is beneficial (or loving). Hurting others is bad (or evil). You act the same way as I do, but you do it because you obey God’s commandments, and I do it, because I came to this conclusion by logic and reason alone.

So, here’s another scenario for you: what if the person doesn’t care if something happens to himself or not, and so goes out and does it to someone else? Would you still consider it wrong?