Does a God of ANY KIND exist?

[Music Dragon]

I don't believe that there is a god, but I do believe some things can be wrong,
like murder and such, and that other things are right.

That's pretty irrelevant, though. I think it's very sad how people tend to assume that atheists have no morals whatsoever.

 

[Caller]

I don't believe in God. Somehow I find the belief in a metaphysical transcendant being to be fairly difficult to follow.
Don't believe in morals. Religion made them, Religion made God, Religion therefore can't be trusted in my books - morals must follow.

 

[xxxbloodysoul666xxx]

That's pretty irrelevant, though. I think it's very sad how people tend to assume that atheists have no morals whatsoever.

Yes, it is very sad.
Just because you don't support whatever the church says
you're instantly vermin.

 

[Music Dragon]

I don't believe in God. Somehow I find the belief in a metaphysical transcendant being to be fairly difficult to follow.
Don't believe in morals. Religion made them, Religion made God, Religion therefore can't be trusted in my books - morals must follow.

Ah! That depends on how you define morals, though. Morals are subjective, but nonetheless existent!

 

[see ya]

Don't believe in morals. Religion made them, Religion made God, Religion therefore can't be trusted in my books - morals must follow.

Buh?

Religion didn't invent most morals (the common sense ones, at least, like "don't kill", "don't steal", etc.)

 

[Caller]

Ah! That depends on how you define morals, though. Morals are subjective, but nonetheless existent!

If we follow the path of evolution, morals must logically be manmade. Apes don't wake up and suddenly go "Killing this isn't that nice, you know.". Human intelligence evolved over time, reaching the point at which it can create organisation. What better way to keep a group in line than to create two sets of possibilities, one of which will invoke punishment, and the other praise? Simply increases the possibility of reaching one's goals.

 

[xxxbloodysoul666xxx]

Ah! That depends on how you define morals, though. Morals are subjective, but nonetheless existent!

Right. I meant the basic things, like not to kill, not to steal, because
if we go by religious morals I'm guessing I would be burning in hell by now!

 

[Caller]

Right. I meant the basic things, like not to kill, not to steal, because
if we go by religious morals I'm guessing I would be burning in hell by now!

Those aren't common sense. Commonc sense is what we identify as 'universally absolute'. They must have started somewhere - religion seems a plausable starting point, correct?

 

[xxxbloodysoul666xxx]

Those aren't common sense. Commonc sense is what we identify as 'universally absolute'. They must have started somewhere - religion seems a plausable starting point, correct?

I don't understand where you are getting at.

 

[Caller]

I don't understand where you are getting at.

They mustn't have always been common sense. If we had "do not murder" centuries ago, humans wouldn't have survived as long as they have. We only agree that murdering is universally wrong because it helps support the cause of a working society.
The concept of a working society is subject to debate, of course.

 

[xxxbloodysoul666xxx]

^ Ah, now I understand.

I still don't believe as you worded it.

 

[Music Dragon]

If we follow the path of evolution, morals must logically be manmade. Apes don't wake up and suddenly go "Killing this isn't that nice, you know.". Human intelligence evolved over time, reaching the point at which it can create organisation. What better way to keep a group in line than to create two sets of possibilities, one of which will invoke punishment, and the other praise? Simply increases the possibility of reaching one's goals.

Exactly. In other words - morals exist! That's what you're saying, isn't it? That we humans created morals?

Right. I meant the basic things, like not to kill, not to steal, because
if we go by religious morals I'm guessing I would be burning in hell by now!

Those aren't common sense. Commonc sense is what we identify as 'universally absolute'. They must have started somewhere - religion seems a plausable starting point, correct?

Well, no, not if you think about it.

I'm willing to bet that "don't kill" and "don't steal" are moral principles that were born from the ingeniousness and complexity of the human mind, rather than "religion".

I mean, religion, sure - but why would religion include those moral rules in the first place? Religion was invented by man, and man chose to incorporate "don't kill" and "don't steal" in his religious values. Why would man do this if man did not already have a notion of killing and stealing being bad things? Man...

 

[Caller]

Exactly. In other words - morals exist! That's what you're saying, isn't it? That we humans created morals?


Well, no, not if you think about it.

I'm willing to bet that "don't kill" and "don't steal" are moral principles that were born from the ingeniousness and complexity of the human mind, rather than "religion".

I mean, religion, sure - but why would religion include those moral rules in the first place? Religion was invented by man, and man chose to incorporate "don't kill" and "don't steal" in his religious values. Why would man do this if man did not already have a notion of killing and stealing being bad things? Man...

Yeah morals exist. They're manmade though, why follow something that is something that wouldn't be perfect in the universe? Human perception is pretty shallow and narrow.

You have a point, but a cause to progress to a goal seems significantly more likely, as religion stretches further back than we can remember. To get people to organize something to fall into entire and absolute power in a single person seems likely. Control became something more desirable as our intelligence lead us to find a concept of what one could do with it, not what we shouldn't do or do with it.

I've already told you why Religion would include the morals. To aspire to a single goal of absolute control.

 

[Caller]

^ Ah, now I understand.

I still don't believe as you worded it.

Why not?
It's pretty logical, and as far as I can tell there's little reason to turn from it other than the desire to cling to the organization of religion.

edit: excuse double post.

 

[Music Dragon]

Yeah morals exist. They're manmade though, why follow something that is something that wouldn't be perfect in the universe? Human perception is pretty shallow and narrow.

Ah! But, believe it or not, you - yes, you - will often find that the "perfect" course of action is frequently one that most people would consider morally right...

You have a point, but a cause to progress to a goal seems significantly more likely, as religion stretches further back than we can remember. To get people to organize something to fall into entire and absolute power in a single person seems likely. Control became something more desirable as our intelligence lead us to find a concept of what one could do with it, not what we shouldn't do or do with it.

I do agree that religion is a dangerous tool with which to control and influence people for personal gain... but this is not the reason why religion came to be in the first place, and neither is it the reason why we have morals.

Morals are more or less necessary, if we want society to function properly - the intellect alone isn't always enough to make people act in everyone's best interests.

Psychopathy is an excellent example. Psychopaths do have a few advantages over ordinary people, but on the whole, their lack of morality gives them more problems than benefits - especially when it comes to interpersonal relationships and human interaction... which I might add is an important part of, you know, life.

I've already told you why Religion would include the morals. To aspire to a single goal of absolute control.

Most of the moral values you'll find in the major religions of the world are actually quite sensible, and were - most likely - invented before religion itself. And anyway, I don't think "aspiring to a single goal of absolute control" would involve telling people never to kill, steal, lie...

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, though! You have every reason to be critical of religion... but being equally critical of morality is a bit of an association fallacy.

 

[Caller]

Ah! But, believe it or not, you - yes, you - will often find that the "perfect" course of action is frequently one that most people would consider morally right...

How can you say that? As far as I'm aware, you aren't aware of perfect. You, along with every other human, do not know what perfect is. You're still talking with the narrow "This is right, this is wrong" absolutism that I've shown is simply shallow perception.

I do agree that religion is a dangerous tool with which to control and influence people for personal gain... but this is not the reason why religion came to be in the first place, and neither is it the reason why we have morals.

You weren't there for the creation of the first religion, were you? How can you 100% say it isn't?

Morals are more or less necessary, if we want society to function properly - the intellect alone isn't always enough to make people act in everyone's best interests.

I always considered a working society to be one where the guilty recieved what we'd consider to be 'justice', and the innocents to recieve freedom. As far as I'm aware, that isn't totally true today. Our society does not work because the guilty walk away freely, and the innocent are observed constantly.

Psychopathy is an excellent example. Psychopaths do have a few advantages over ordinary people, but on the whole, their lack of morality gives them more problems than benefits - especially when it comes to interpersonal relationships and human interaction...

Interpersonal relationships and human interaction are created by morals, admittedly. However, psychopathy is a mental illness. You confuse a lack of morals with total disregard and or sentience.

Most of the moral values you'll find in the major religions of the world are actually quite sensible, and were - most likely - invented before religion itself.

Plenty of Religions go so far back into time and the obscurity of man's existence that we don't know when it was created or why it came to be. The major religions are simply veils so we cannot progress, or to be ironic, evolve.
Due to the lack of documentation of religion's time on Earth and in our societies, I find it hard to believe that you would know that morals were created before religion, unless you by me saying religion, you automatically think 'Christianity' or 'Judaism' and the like. I mean religion on a whole.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, though! You have every reason to be critical of religion... but being equally critical of morality is a bit of an association fallacy.

I fail to see why, so far you've shown me example of things you can't exactly prove and used them as 'proof'. You weren't there before, or for the creation of all religion and nobody knows what happened beyond plenty of religions - Hinduism and Islam for one - so you can't say morals occured before it. It's just as possible, if not more likely, for morals to have occured during religion's birth. This would explain the differences in morals between other religions, such as Christianity and Hinduism, though they both preach the same basic thing - good shall be rewarded, bad shall be punished.
The fact that most, if not all, mainstream religions preach this basic teaching might work in my favour that it helped it upon it's birth the reach a particular goal of control, which shows with their 'success' and survival to the present day. Of course, I can see why you'd still believe the opposite.

 

[Mir]

I have been raised on the belief that there is a God, and I do believe. But sometimes, I ask myself if there was a God, then why would He do these things to me and my family? But then something wonderful happens and my faith is restored again.

 

[Music Dragon]

How can you say that? As far as I'm aware, you aren't aware of perfect. You, along with every other human, do not know what perfect is. You're still talking with the narrow "This is right, this is wrong" absolutism that I've shown is simply shallow perception.

I am not a moral absolutist - far from it! In fact, people tend to frown at me for even suggesting that murder and stealing may, in fact, be rational courses of action under the right circumstances... Morals serve a purpose - forgetting that purpose makes you blind and stupid.

Still, answer me this: the majority of the choices you make every day do not contradict society's current moral standards, am I right? Most of the things that we consider "immoral" are those things that would cause some sort of damage to other people. This is why morals exist - they prevent people from acting in a manner that is not beneficial to us.

You weren't there for the creation of the first religion, were you? How can you 100% say it isn't?

You're right; I have no proof. Nobody does. But, personally, I don't think religion came to be as a result of someone's wish to manipulate other people. Rather, I think it was invented because we humans needed to explain the world around us, and its natural phenomena... But like I said - I might be wrong. Who knows?

I always considered a working society to be one where the guilty recieved what we'd consider to be 'justice', and the innocents to recieve freedom. As far as I'm aware, that isn't totally true today. Our society does not work because the guilty walk away freely, and the innocent are observed constantly.

Ah! See, this is where it starts to get interesting.

How can someone be "guilty" or "innocent" without morality?

Interpersonal relationships and human interaction are created by morals, admittedly. However, psychopathy is a mental illness. You confuse a lack of morals with total disregard and or sentience.

Psychopaths are most certainly sentient. Sapient, in fact.

As for total disregard - that's true, psychopaths are reckless. But much of that recklessness lies in their inability to feel guilt and have morals.

Plenty of Religions go so far back into time and the obscurity of man's existence that we don't know when it was created or why it came to be. The major religions are simply veils so we cannot progress, or to be ironic, evolve.
Due to the lack of documentation of religion's time on Earth and in our societies, I find it hard to believe that you would know that morals were created before religion, unless you by me saying religion, you automatically think 'Christianity' or 'Judaism' and the like. I mean religion on a whole.

Like I said previously - I don't know these things for a fact. But something tells me that if we humans never had any morals to begin with, our race wouldn't have survived long enough to even be capable of creating such a thing as religion.

I fail to see why, so far you've shown me example of things you can't exactly prove and used them as 'proof'. You weren't there before, or for the creation of all religion and nobody knows what happened beyond plenty of religions - Hinduism and Islam for one - so you can't say morals occured before it. It's just as possible, if not more likely, for morals to have occured during religion's birth. This would explain the differences in morals between other religions, such as Christianity and Hinduism, though they both preach the same basic thing - good shall be rewarded, bad shall be punished.
The fact that most, if not all, mainstream religions preach this basic teaching might work in my favour that it helped it upon it's birth the reach a particular goal of control, which shows with their 'success' and survival to the present day. Of course, I can see why you'd still believe the opposite.

Different religions have different views on morality, just as different individuals do. But many of the core moral values we find in these "mainstream religions" are - or, at the very least, were - relevant to the survival of the societies in which they first came into being.

 

[Caller]

I am not a moral absolutist - far from it! In fact, people tend to frown at me for even suggesting that murder and stealing may, in fact, be rational courses of action under the right circumstances... Morals serve a purpose - forgetting that purpose makes you blind and stupid.

You seem to be fairly one sided, though. However, suggestions that murder and stealing are ration actions are not something I would deem surprising.

Still, answer me this: the majority of the choices you make every day do not contradict society's current moral standards, am I right? Most of the things that we consider "immoral" are those things that would cause some sort of damage to other people. This is why morals exist - they prevent people from acting in a manner that is not beneficial to us.

Which is the same thing I have been saying - morals are there to keep order and for certain people to reach total control. I don't believe that morals prevent us from acting in ways that aren't beneficial to us, but for other people. The Governments, the councils, the religious icons like the Pope. People whose control can be greatly dented if our morals were shaken.

You're right; I have no proof. Nobody does. But, personally, I don't think religion came to be as a result of someone's wish to manipulate other people. Rather, I think it was invented because we humans needed to explain the world around us, and its natural phenomena... But like I said - I might be wrong. Who knows?

True, religion could be a total natural phenemenon. However, I doubt that the grouping of several large groups of people came to believe in some metaphysical God because of natural phenomena - if I did, it wouldn't be a far cry to say I believe in a God, which I don't. To say I believe that religion came because of nature, which is essentially the force of 'God', is to basically say I believe in God. Nature does not create similar, powerful forces in one single species by chance. Plus, if it was natural phenomena, we'd all be under the influence of a belief in God. Science would not exist.

Ah! See, this is where it starts to get interesting.

How can someone be "guilty" or "innocent" without morality?

Exactly, but I've said before - we're humans. Plus I was on about a working society in this paragraph I stated. Morals have created this society, which clearly does not work totally, therefore morals have created something that does not work in it's own sense. If there is an innocent and guilty, there must be a charger, and if there are morals, the charger must be correct and just. This is not always so.

Psychopaths are most certainly sentient. Sapient, in fact.

As for total disregard - that's true, psychopaths are reckless. But much of that recklessness lies in their inability to feel guilt and have morals.

I don't feel guilt openly and knowingly. If I've felt guilt, it's subconcious and where I don't know it, and morals aren't exactly something I consider worthwhile. However, I do have a sense of survival - I'm not about to go around killing people purely because I don't care if they live or die, I have to put my own survival first. Even in an anarchistic society (I suppose one without morals would be considered this), people would not mindlessly murder purely for the sake that if you killed someone, a person who felt that they fit the point of their own goal may kill you in revenge. To keep ourselves alive, we wouldn't mindlessly slaughter. A lack of morals does not constitute idiocy.

Like I said previously - I don't know these things for a fact. But something tells me that if we humans never had any morals to begin with, our race wouldn't have survived long enough to even be capable of creating such a thing as religion.

If that was true all animals would be extinct.

Different religions have different views on morality, just as different individuals do. But many of the core moral values we find in these "mainstream religions" are - or, at the very least, were - relevant to the survival of the societies in which they first came into being.

Exactly what I've been saying. To keep a person from losing total control, morals were made. It stood a society strong and kept people in power.

 

[opaltiger]

as religion stretches further back than we can remember.

Um, not really? At least, not organised religion.