A
atheistgirl
Guest
But, that’s OK. There are way more than enough of us to take up the slack left in your wake.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Sarah x
- Status
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Yes. In your opinion. And that’s my point.
Yes that’s what you would say. But it doesn’t make it any more or less true. To the person who says Zeus exists, or the person who says Allah exists, or the person who says Buddah or whatever other deity you want to add in exists, to them, it’s true. Not talking here about believing in these, but just that they exist.
Not to someone who says Shiva, Buddah, Allah, or Zeus exist. Not that they believe in them, but that they exist. In that case, then Allah or Zeus is by definition the greatest conceivable being…
So you saying ‘‘by definition’’ is meaningless. It’s only your and fellow believers definition. It’s not an absolute definition agreed by all.
We can just as easily say, If, by definition, Allah exists, then all live is meaningfull, valued and purposeful.
Then he hasn’t been brought up properly, or to believe in his own self worth and self esteem. My children were told from the get go they are beautiful, intelligent and the most precious things on earth, regardless of what anyone ever says. Their self esteem and sense of personal value worth and pricelessness (?is that even a word!) was drilled into them from the day they were born. They don’t rely on anyone to feel valuable but do have their worth reinforced by all of us, family, friends, etc. If this was withdrawn for whatever reason, they would still stand tall and proud on their own two feet.
Sarah x
L
Ladervijd
Guest
Yeah, i do agree that while personal and/or collective (centered) interpretation of everything may make a lot of sense, it does not necessarily mean that any interpretation would be (completly) valid even on such personal and/or collective level, and with various (partial) interpretations not necessarily being completly/comprehensive (not only) logical*, besides the issue of interpreted feed-back thereto (by others). Nor does it mean that it would be universally applicable and/or true.
*not meaning that everything is necessarily logical, but in the view of environment being bound to logical laws (meaning physical laws and arguably by some psyché bound similarly in a more or less mathematical sense), it could be argued that a proper comprehensive interpretation thereof ought to be all-inclusivly logical
Reading it, an example of e.g. wolves’ pack’s so-called alpha male and female comes to mind, that is from what i know/read/heard, that both have the privilege of eating first and reproducing only, which arguably has pack-environment reasons particularly regarding (long-term) survival of the pack, tho within the pack it makes it seem as a very authoritarian system with the alpha couple maintaining their position of “power” as long as possible. But yes, (within the circumstances,) arguably alpha male and/or female nor any member of the pack is evil, nor any of their action, that is the cause thereof is not (and even not when “trained” by human to harm and/or kill on command tho such not applying to the human who abused such) tho result may be (in a moral sense, albeit again, human interaction being relevant where present, such as a pack having hunted an animal for food may be considered morally neutral from a human point of view, tho humans having hunted sources of food and not left anything to the pack who goes to human settlement and kills a human, the “responsibility” therefore being rather on human side, similarly to situation of cornering a wolf and being killed thereby, and also regarding kill of any e,g. wolf not in self-defense). Which brings us further, in relevance to previous comments here in this thread and especially in context of humans and morality, to whether morality is absolute or relative, and furthermore to whether evil is only in deed (and/or lack thereof) or also in other condition/s. Tho i think that views vary on that noticably, such as that it could be argued, besides definitions thereof, that good and evil are both from God, respectivly (accuratly) from G-d (regardless of the pondering and understanding, or lack thereof, about why). And furthermore views regarding whether every-thing/-one is either good or evil, OR whether there is also a middle e.g. neutral (by some: “lukewarm”) in this context, and also regarding that not everything in result evil has to have cause of evil and similarly that not everything in cause evil has to have in direct or further result evil - meaning here as views/interpretations thereof, not as factual statement nor as personal view nor meaning to uphold moral relativism especially the application thereof. And in relation to that, here surely worth pointing out that, in my view, when the result of a human action (and/or lack thereof within possibility) is evil (in the sense here of causing harm and/or death) then within the cause is evil (particularly in the moral sense), as humans being aware should be and are aware of consequences of their action/s (and/or lack thereof) - meaning e.g. a person shooting with gun into a peaceful crowd does evil regardless of whether hitting anyone or not, especially due to intention of wanting to hit and therefore harm and/or kill.
As pointed out not only by myself, a premise and/or conclusion of a “school or way of thought” does not necessarily mean that it is fully or even partially true, respectivly that it is (within given boundaries) logically comprehensive. Nevertheless, not merely by comparison, but by properly looking at various interpretations (which arguably is bound to a considerable effort) we can have a look at what makes more sense, is more logical, and what seems as fallacy/ies. Not that i would want to nit-pick, nor that i would have a problem with e.g. here educated Catholic interpretation - on the contrary, because when various scholars meet (or present their “case” collectivly-individually for that matter) they should be able to stand their interpretation without killing each other over disagreements or wanting to be “true” by system of only one left or anysuch.
L
Ladervijd
Guest
Similarly, e.g. shooting blindfolded, respectivly so-called randomly, sure is not a good thing neither, and it could be argued that any shooting is not good, and rather evil, tho that is a bit overcomplicating things. A point being that anything from human negligence that causes harm and/or death, and/or could lead thereto, is surely not good, and it could easily be argued that in fact it is evil, particularly when the person being negligent is aware of possible consequences, respectivly when the person who enticed anyhow e.g. a child thereto, the enticement (and enticer) being evil besides possible consequence/s, especially harm and/or death, whether or not harm and/or death is actually caused or not.
B
Balian
Guest
It is sort of a moot point since if there was no God we wouldn’t be here to worry about it anyway.
PAX
PAX
A
atheistgirl
Guest
For that to be true, you would have to be able to prove either God made us literally, or kicked off the processes by which we came to be.It is sort of a moot point since if there was no God we wouldn’t be here to worry about it anyway.
No one has ever done that, to my knowledge.
Sarah x
T
tonyrey
Guest
You wrote:
and
How do you know? Don’t you mean “believe”?
know! Your dogmatism is irrational and totally unjustified - unless you have privileged insight into the nature of reality.
You mean “**material **reality”!
To be very impressed by reality suggests that life is not a purposeless, irrational accident which leads to precisely nothing.
D
danserr
Guest
But this is not a blind assertion as you seem to think. Rather, it is the result of logical reasoning. Think of what we know about Zeus, the concept of him, his actions etc. It is easy to argue that he does not provide an objective basis for meaning, value, or purpose.
What do you mean “it’s true to whoever says they exist?” When you rationally analyze the concept of God, I can’t think of a concept of God other than the Judeo-Christian that provides a basis for objective meaning, purpose, and value. Not based on personal belief, but based on rational analysis of the concept of that God. If you can think of another, though, I would be curious.
Suppose, you could for the sake of argument. Then, since the Judeo-Christian God obviously does provide a basis for the existence of objective value, meaning, and purpose, the question would be, “which concept of God is true.” Then we would have to consider the evidence.
Zeus is not a Greatest Conceivable Being, since it is easy to conceive a greater one (one who did not rape so many human women for instance). The GCB is not the greatest being that a person believes exists, but the greatest being that is philosophically (metaphsically) conceivable.
Anyway, so what about people who say that Zeus or Shiva exist. That doesn’t mean that they exist, only that they believe they do. Which means that we are back to my point, the issue is not mere belief, but existence.
Remember, I am not here giving an argument that God exists. I can, there are many good ones. But that is a discussion for another thread.
My point here is simply the counterfactual: if God (the Judeo-Christian God) did not exist, life would have no objective meaning, value, or purpose. Bringing up other gods is simply a red herring.
Do you see how hard it is for your to stop talking about belief and talk about actual existence. Again, the issue is not mere belief, but if the Judeo-Christian God exists (the concept of God held by Christians), then life has objective meaning, purpose, and value.
“Regardless of what anyone says?” Now I agree, because I think that Christianity is true, but remember, you think that moral values are subjective. That means they moral values are dependant on what people think! So if you are right, then it matters completely “what anyone says”! ! !Sarah x
In fact, if you are claiming that your children do have moral worth independant of what anyone says or thinks, then you are actually agreeing with me that objective moral values exist! But you also realize that this is impossible if God does not exist, so in other parts of your post you contradict yourself here and claim that without God, everything is just subjective and relative!
If God does not exist and everything is subjective and relative, then how can someone be wrong when they tell your children they are worthless? There is nothing for them to be wrong about, it would be like telling me that my drawing of the fairlyland Macadamia was “wrong.”
You see the position that you are in? You deny that God exists and so realize that if this is true then “everything is subjective and relative,” but on the other hand, want to affirm that people (here your children) have moral worth independent of what people say, ie, that they have objective moral worth. But this is precisely what you are forced to deny because you deny God!
This is one of the main points of the article I pointed out, that in order to live happily, you have to live in an inconsistent fashion. You deny objective moral value, meaning, and purpose since you deny that God exists, but you can’t live happily with the consequences of this, so you still try to keep those things even though you have no basis for doing so and it contradicts your own views.
On the other hand, if God exists, then we can live both consistently and happiness because we have a basis for the existence of objective value, meaning, and purpose.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Denserr, I do get it, what you’re saying regarding existence and belief. But you don’t seem to be gettin what I’m saying. For me, it makes no difference whether you use the exact same argument using the existence of God, (not belief, existence) or using Allah, or using Buddah.
I dont think I or my family live in an inconsistent fashion what so ever.
If you think I do, so be it.
We know we don’t Sarah x
A
A_G
Guest
In my opinion, this question doesn’t make sense. It is not logical to have life without God. But let’s say through some crazy way there were to be “life,” and to answer the question " *Would life be worth living if there was no God? *" My answer is “no.” We can enjoy life, have many goals, accomplishments, and so on. However, we must remember that our #1 goal is to get to Heaven. What would the point of life be without God? What would the meaning be?
God, is the source of everything. He is the Creator of the whole universe - all that we can and can’t see. Therefore, I believe life without God is impossible.
God, is the source of everything. He is the Creator of the whole universe - all that we can and can’t see. Therefore, I believe life without God is impossible.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I think it’s interesting that these ‘‘objective moral values’’ line up nicely with our own subjective moral values.
Sarah x
D
danserr
Guest
I know the point you are trying to make about other gods. You are trying to find a way to say that you believe no more in God than in any other gods. Or that they are all on the same level to you. That would be totally legitimate if we were discussing God’s existence and you were challenging me to tell you which God exists (which I can do).Denserr, I do get it, what you’re saying regarding existence and belief. But you don’t seem to be gettin what I’m saying. For me, it makes no difference whether you use the exact same argument using the existence of God, (not belief, existence) or using Allah, or using Buddah.
I dont think I or my family live in an inconsistent fashion what so ever.
If you think I do, so be it.
Sarah x
Here, I am just arguing that If God (the Judeo-Christian God) exists, then life has objective meaning, purpose, and value. Either you agree or not. If you agree, (and you alternate between agreeing and disagreeing like when you agree that without God objective moral values don’t exist), then my argument has succeeded. In this case, we have established that whether God exists or not, He certainly matters enormously.
If you disagree, then you will be arguing that we can have objective moral values, meaning, and purpose without the Judeo-Christian God. In this case, how would bringing up other gods help your case? You would simply be trying to argue that atheism provides a basis for objective meaning, value, and purpose in life. So you see that if you agree or disagree with my contention, other gods have nothing to do with it.
The inconsistency is in that you agree that objective moral values do not exist, but you live and act as if they do. You say that objective moral values don’t exist, but you tell your children that they have moral value “no matter what anyone thinks” (ie, that they have objective moral value) How is this not inconsistent?
Why should that be surprising? Obviously, If objective moral values exist, grounded in the nature of a loving and impartial God, then it is hardly surprising that we should be aware of them.
W
wcknight
Guest
IF there was no God, we would not be here anyway.
To live your 100 or so years and then to just vanish back into the cosmic oooze would be a real bummer.
Life would still be ‘worth living’ as opposed to just ending it all right away, BUT living would be virtually meaningless.
To live your 100 or so years and then to just vanish back into the cosmic oooze would be a real bummer.
Life would still be ‘worth living’ as opposed to just ending it all right away, BUT living would be virtually meaningless.
M
MLP67
Guest
Well i suppose if there was going to be “nothing” forever…then what the heck eh. You wouldn’t know anything anyway. Everything might as well be null and void.
Live life now and don’t worry about the morrow, for who gives a hoot attitude.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Atheism doesnt provide anything. It certainly doesnt provide me with anything. It’s simply a position, in my case, of saying there is not enough evidence for me to believe in the existence of any God or gods. That’s all.
In terms of your philosophising, Im sure it is. To me, and my children, we don’t sit around discussing objective or subjective moral value worth of purpose.
I raized my kids to believe in themselves regardless of what any one else thinks. When they’re just born, and to a certain age, they get this worth from a feeling of being loved, accepted and valued by those closest to them. After a while, they are able to understand they, as themselves, have an intrinsic value and worth by virtue of the fact they are human beings. This has no bearing on what anyone else thinks of them. Its their self esteem and self worth. This of course is augmented by those around who love them, but when they’re told they are x y z by those that don’t, it’s water off a duck’s back to them because their self esteem can’t be damaged in this way. It’s how we brought them up.
Why should that be surprising? Obviously, If objective moral values exist, grounded in the nature of a loving and impartial God, then it is hardly surprising that we should be aware of them.
Or, subjective moral values exist, that we superimpose on the god of our chosing?
D
danserr
Guest
It’s not just “my” philosophizing. It is not “my” philosophy, it is simply reason and logic.
You have agreed with me that if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values (moral values that exist independent of what people think), but then you claimed that your children have intrinsic moral value “no matter what anyone thinks.”
This is saying that: moral values do not exist independent from what people think, but that your children have moral value, no matter what anyone thinks. That is just a contradiction.
You could solve this by becoming a theist which would allow you to hold with logical consistency that objective moral values exist and hence that people have objective moral value, but you are concerned by what you think is a lack of evidence. But there is a possible solution to this:
- If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist.
- You agree this this, and have said repeatedly that since God does not exist that everything is just relative and subjective.
- At least one objective moral value exists
- You also agree with this as you say that your kids “have an intrinsic value and worth by virtue of the fact they are human beings. This has no bearing on what anyone else thinks of them.”
- So you do think that at least one objective moral value exists; you think that your kids have moral worth no matter what anyone else thinks of them.
- Therefore, God exists.
Since objective moral values would not exist if God did not, and yet your children have objective moral worth (moral worth independent of what anyone else thinks), then it logically follows that God exists.
1). In this way, you have a solid basis for affirming that human beings do have moral value no matter what anyone thinks.
2). You can hold this view with rational consistency.
3). You are able to have evidence that God actually exists, which answers your concern that there is no such evidence.
- Since you know (I agree), that people do have intrinsic moral value no matter what anyone thinks, then this knowledge constitutes important evidence that God, and hence a basis for human moral value, exists.
B
buffalo
Guest
It would be a hopeless existence. There would be much despair and little joy.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I can’t do that.
It would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.
Your arguments sound very much like stuff Willam Lane Craig puts out, and I find him very unconvincing.
I’ll just have to be happy in my inconsistency as you see it.
For me, my life, and my family, it makes perfect sense to us.
Sarah x
B
buffalo
Guest
Have you quit searching for the truth?I can’t do that.
It would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.
Your arguments sound very much like stuff Willam Lane Craig puts out, and I find him very unconvincing.
I’ll just have to be happy in my inconsistency as you see it.
For me, my life, and my family, it makes perfect sense to us.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I can’t do the fancy philosophical argumentations. It’s a bit like chemistry. My brain just doesn’t do chemistry. I could spend the next 10 years locked in a library and I would still not be able to tell you the first thing about chemistry.
Oh the irony of running a business where chemistry is losely connected to a particular process!!! But I just pay people that know now
Relative, subjective, objective - it’s all the same to me, because at the end of the day, I draw my ‘‘objectivity’’ from a deep sense of intrinsic pride, worth and value, family history, societal norms, community cohesion, love, work and co-operation. All the things that help us survive and grow and develop.
You draw it from the belief in the existence of some Deity.
For me, it makes no difference what so ever whatever you want to call it.
I know how much I love my husband, children and family, and how much they love me, and I know how well balanced, happy and healthy they are. I know how we fit into our local community, and the wider society. I know what I and they mean to others, and what others mean to us.
That knowledge won’t change one iota if someone proved beyond any doubt what so ever that there was a God.
It also won’t change one iota if someone proved beyond any doubt what to ever that there was not a God.
Sarah x
- Status