Does a God of ANY KIND exist?

[Caller]

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

Um.
Yes.
Middle Eastern religions specifically were created much further back than any christian or jew could remember, even if they were there for their own religion's birth.
Organised religion is ridiculously old, I can assure you.

 

[opaltiger]

Organised religion is ridiculously old, I can assure you.

I'm finding it hard to imagine organised anything before written records.

 

[Caller]

I'm finding it hard to imagine organised anything before written records.

Paper, or whatever they used, is not immune to the forces of time, humans, nature or neglect. Unless, of course, you know of an immortal paper-esque material and a liquid which never wears away.

I'm finding it difficult to think of immortal paper.

 

[opaltiger]

Paper, or whatever they used, is not immune to the forces of time, humans, nature or neglect. Unless, of course, you know of an immortal paper-esque material and a liquid which never wears away.

I'm finding it difficult to think of immortal paper.

Burden of proof's on you. It seems to me quite logical that the foundations of organised religion would approximately coincide with the beginnings of civilisation as we know it, and we quite clearly do have records of those times.

 

[Caller]

Burden of proof's on you. It seems to me quite logical that the foundations of organised religion would approximately coincide with the beginnings of civilisation as we know it, and we quite clearly do have records of those times.

Maybe so. I doubt that we have in depth records that detail every single occurence and happening at the time though, unless of course we do.
Ever still, this doesn't prove that morals began before religion.

 

[opaltiger]

Maybe so. I doubt that we have in depth records that detail every single occurence and happening at the time though, unless of course we do.

Of course we don't have in-depth records, but neither is it lost in the mists of time.

Ever still, this doesn't prove that morals began before religion.

Animals that live in social groups somehow manage to restrain from killing each other/stealing each other's food/etc. I don't see why human ancestors wouldn't have acted the same way.

 

[Caller]

Of course we don't have in-depth records, but neither is it lost in the mists of time.

So neither is it particularly useful.

Animals that live in social groups somehow manage to restrain from killing each other/stealing each other's food/etc. I don't see why human ancestors wouldn't have acted the same way.

Yes, they do. This is because they act and depend on each other for their own survival. I wouldn't call it a moral, simply a survival instinct. Some travel in packs and live together, some live alone. It's not hard to say that humans were either, though I believe the pack is more likely if we believe we evolved from apes.
Morals don't affect animals, they'll kill indiscriminately if they need to.

 

[see ya]

Yes, they do. This is because they act and depend on each other for their own survival. I wouldn't call it a moral, simply a survival instinct. Some travel in packs and live together, some live alone. It's not hard to say that humans were either, though I believe the pack is more likely if we believe we evolved from apes.
Morals don't affect animals, they'll kill indiscriminately if they need to.

Wouldn't those instincts have been the seeds of morality, if not them directly? It only seems logical that they would have evolved into a pretty much universal code of ethics about the best way to carry out a society.

 

[Caller]

Wouldn't those instincts have been the seeds of morality, if not them directly? It only seems logical that they would have evolved into a pretty much universal code of ethics about the best way to carry out a society.

It's quite possible. However, it's quite possible to say that because we're the only ones who're actually sentient beings that those packs will simply stay packs. I believe it to have been the basic building ground for society however, rather than ethics or morals. As we evolved, we would have begun to see the world differently, so our mental aspects and priorities would have changed, even done a total backflip.

 

[Music Dragon]

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

One-sided... perhaps. I tend to think pretty highly of myself; you'll have to excuse that.

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.

Ah. But here's the thing: you cannot entirely separate the individual from society as a whole! Morals are there not for the benefit of governments, councils and religious icons, but for the benefit of everyone.

If you wrong someone, they want to see you punished, either by them or by someone else. Am I right? Morality acts as a psychological deterrent; it prevents people from causing harm to others because if we harm others, we will be harmed ourselves. This has very little to do with the government and the Pope; this is how humans work.

If morality tells you that you shouldn't beat someone up simply because you feel like it, it's probably doing you more of a favour than it's doing the Pope one. Your sense of right and wrong is trying to tell you what would be a good decision. And it's not perfect, no - but it's usually not entirely off the mark, either.

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.

You misunderstood my post. Do note that I wrote "its", in the genitive. I never said that religion is a natural phenomenon, because it isn't. I'll be very interested in seeing how you're going to respond after you actually understand what I'm saying.

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.

Ah! This time, I'm the one who doesn't quite understand, I have to admit...! You're evidently referring back to something you said earlier, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by "we're humans"...

As for morality not creating a perfect system - you're right. Our system is flawed, and so is the concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what a perfect society would look like?

As for the last part, about chargers, innocence and guilt, correctness and justice... That just went over my head. Sorry - I tend to have trouble following people's trains of thought.

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.

Indeed, and that's how the average psychopath thinks. "I don't kill people, because it's not going to benefit me. But if it did benefit me, I'd do it any day...!"

Still - pure intellectual self-restraint isn't always enough. A sense of morality makes humans more likely to act in a manner which would be beneficial to them. (Naturally, this isn't foolproof.)

So you see, that's what morality is for. It acts as an incentive (and conversely, like I mentioned earlier, a deterrent). It makes us want to do things that help us, and help our society, or even help our entire race. Because knowing and understanding is one thing; wanting is another. Morality makes it possible for us to act in someone else's interests as well as our own - without morality, we would probably not even want to reproduce (caring for a child is time- and resource-consuming, frustrating, and provides us with few foreseeable benefits...). This is not the only example - many of the interactions between humans which further the development of our race are dependent on morality.

If that was true all animals would be extinct.

Animals have an ability to cooperate, to care for each other, and so on... Our sense of morality is simply a more complex and in-depth version of this basic ability to cooperate and interact. And do note that we humans are this planet's dominant race, and the most intelligent!

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.

Ah, you brought up the issue of power-hungry leaders again! Like I said - moral values and rules found in those religions helped societies thrive and survive. How do totalitarian rulers enter into this?

What I believe: Humans who live together in a group eventually learn that certain things benefit them, and certain things don't. Based on these experiences, they create rules that tell people not to act in ways that would harm the group.

What I don't believe: Humans who live together in a group are as stupid as sheep and need to be guided; a megalomaniacal leader arises, and invents moral rules so that he can manipulate the rest of the group into serving him.


EDIT: Oh, and learn the meaning of "sentient".

 

[opaltiger]

So neither is it particularly useful.

Why? Do there exist only two levels of historical information, "completely in-depth" and "useless"?

Yes, they do. This is because they act and depend on each other for their own survival. I wouldn't call it a moral, simply a survival instinct. Some travel in packs and live together, some live alone. It's not hard to say that humans were either, though I believe the pack is more likely if we believe we evolved from apes.

Of course it's a survival instinct - I scratch your back, you scratch mine - but like Skymin said, it is perfectly logical to assume that, as we evolved (not from apes, but from a common ancestor) those survival instincts changed into the basic morals we hold today. If you're interested in the topic, I recommend The Selfish Gene which talks about this in quite a bit of detail (including a particularly fascinating chapter in which social actions are compared to a game of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma).

 

[Caller]

One-sided... perhaps. I tend to think pretty highly of myself; you'll have to excuse that.

Fair enough, I can understand pride.

Ah. But here's the thing: you cannot entirely separate the individual from society as a whole! Morals are there not for the benefit of governments, councils and religious icons, but for the benefit of everyone.

That's what you assume. Those in power seem to be the only ones benefitting from these morals. We can't defend ourselves from people who attack us anymore, all due to the distorion of the obsessiveness over morality.

If you wrong someone, they want to see you punished, either by them or by someone else. Am I right? Morality acts as a psychological deterrent; it prevents people from causing harm to others because if we harm others, we will be harmed ourselves. This has very little to do with the government and the Pope; this is how humans work.

I've said this already in that an organization would create and or utilize right and wrong to create deterrents and order to reach a personal goal.

If morality tells you that you shouldn't beat someone up simply because you feel like it, it's probably doing you more of a favour than it's doing the Pope one. Your sense of right and wrong is trying to tell you what would be a good decision. And it's not perfect, no - but it's usually not entirely off the mark, either.

It's only not entirely off the mark due to morality being the alleged mark in the first place. To judge morality's purpose by morality is idiocy. As for it doing you more of a favour than someone else, you can't really tell - not unless you can redo the past so you can explore both consequences.

You misunderstood my post. Do note that I wrote "its", in the genitive. I never said that religion is a natural phenomenon, because it isn't. I'll be very interested in seeing how you're going to respond after you actually understand what I'm saying.

Would have helped if you'd reposted the post we both used, the quoting system is rather awkward in that it posts only one quote to prevent quote chains. I'll reply when I reread it.

Ah! This time, I'm the one who doesn't quite understand, I have to admit...! You're evidently referring back to something you said earlier, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by "we're humans"...

Will reply when I figure out what I said xD;

As for morality not creating a perfect system - you're right. Our system is flawed, and so is the concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what a perfect society would look like?

I wouldn't know. Allegory of the cave and all. I've been born and raised in philadelphia an imperfect society and that is all I've known. I cannot even begin to comprehend a perfect society unless it was in my personal opinion, which, to be fair, would vary greatly from the point I'm trying to make.

As for the last part, about chargers, innocence and guilt, correctness and justice... That just went over my head. Sorry - I tend to have trouble following people's trains of thought.

I was trying to say that if morality was perfect, so would prosecution and justice. You've already said it was faulty so this is basically saying that because of it's faults, it creates more of them.

Indeed, and that's how the average psychopath thinks. "I don't kill people, because it's not going to benefit me. But if it did benefit me, I'd do it any day...!"

Still - pure intellectual self-restraint isn't always enough. A sense of morality makes humans more likely to act in a manner which would be beneficial to them. (Naturally, this isn't foolproof.)

Self restraint isn't a perfectly foolproof ideal, I'm well aware of the difficulty of keeping an iron will. However, I can say that morals are simply another flip of the coin. I'm not saying that NOBODY would kill in anarchy, but looking at society at the moment and through time, I can say that same thing about moral societies.

So you see, that's what morality is for. It acts as an incentive. It makes us want to do things that help us, and help our society, or even help our entire race. Because knowing and understanding is one thing; wanting is another. Morality makes it possible for us to act in someone else's interests as well as our own - without morality, we would probably not even want to reproduce (caring for a child is time- and resource-consuming, frustrating, and provides us with few foreseeable benefits...). This is not the only example - many of the interactions between humans, which further the development of our race, are dependent on morality.

Of course morality exists to supposedly protect us (or, as I believe, keep power. Whichever.), but animals do not use morality in their mating. Most females have a maternal instinct. If they had a child, they would look after it. It's not such a big thing to assume that because of our 'domestication', we've lost the ability to have large amounts of offspring.
I can't use a comeback for your other points as, obviously, you haven't stated them :P

Animals have an ability to cooperate, to care for each other, and so on... Our sense of morality is simply a more complex and in-depth version of this basic ability to cooperate and interact. And do note that we humans are this planet's dominant race, and the most intelligent!

It could be said that this is true, however animals probably care for each other purely for their own survival. A lone animal is not as powerful as a pack, is it not? Humans are quite possibly the exact same, we just don't like to admit it.

Ah, you brought up the issue of power-hungry leaders again! Like I said - moral values and rules found in those religions helped societies thrive and survive. How do totalitarian rulers enter into this?

Corruption is a common occurence in empowered leaders. Every society has someone to lead them, lest the group become confused. Totalitarians come into the fray because they're suited to rule, if people become elected or are an heir to great power they tend to become slightly obsessed. Roman Emperors, though this is going back a fair bit, lived for the good of their people, yet they still would not give up their dictatorship, it's the foundation for building a society built entirely on your own views.
You see where I'm going with this? A society must have a leader, a leader must want / have power, power leads to recklessness or greed. It's not difficult to say morals began with our leaders to keep their societies under their rule.

What I believe: Humans who live together in a group eventually learn that certain things benefit them, and certain things don't. Based on these experiences, they create rules that tell people not to act in ways that would harm the group.

Entirely possible.

What I don't believe: Humans who live together in a group are as stupid as sheep and need to be guided; a megalomaniacal leader arises, and invents moral rules so that he can manipulate the rest of the group into serving him.

Entirely possible. However, I think the megalomaniacal part is unneeded. A leader does not need to be megalomaniacal to recieve power, but that is the destiny of all leaders.

EDIT: Oh, and learn the meaning of "sentient".

I now realize I've used it wrongly /fail

 

[Harlequin]

god isn't real, get over it please

 

[Caller]

Why? Do there exist only two levels of historical information, "completely in-depth" and "useless"?

Useless was a bit of an exaggeration. I can't believe it gives us an accurate depiction of how we can live, should live and did live. Even the smallest bit of information can change everything.

Of course it's a survival instinct - I scratch your back, you scratch mine - but like Skymin said, it is perfectly logical to assume that, as we evolved (not from apes, but from a common ancestor) those survival instincts changed into the basic morals we hold today. If you're interested in the topic, I recommend The Selfish Gene which talks about this in quite a bit of detail (including a particularly fascinating chapter in which social actions are compared to a game of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma).

I'll look it up some time :0

 

[Caller]

Just for the sake staying on topic, shouldn't there be another topic for morals & ethics? This is a topic for the existence of God, not his wills.

 

[Philly]

god isn't real, get over it please

Again, Devil's Advocate says why not? What is your proof it isn't real? What leads you to this conclusion?

 

[Caller]

Again, Devil's Advocate says why not? What is your proof it isn't real? What leads you to this conclusion?

Haha.
Why not.
That's the universal ace in the hole.

 

[Harlequin]

Again, Devil's Advocate says why not? What is your proof it isn't real? What leads you to this conclusion?

burden of proof lies with those who present the theory. By default every single human is an atheist - theists are the ones with the theory and thus the burden of proof is placed upon them.

 

[opaltiger]

Again, Devil's Advocate says why not? What is your proof it isn't real? What leads you to this conclusion?

playing devil's advocate only works when you've got thought-provoking arguments.

In a debate, it is necessary to prove your statements - while false statements do not necessarily make an argument invalid, they do make the conclusion invalid. The burden of proof is on the person who is making a statement that is not part of the status quo. Clearly, the status quo before religion came around was "there is no deity". Thus, the burden of proof is on the people who believe in a god or gods to prove their existence.

There is no such proof. Thus, a god or gods do not exist.

 

[Philly]

burden of proof lies with those who present the theory. By default every single human is an atheist - theists are the ones with the theory and thus the burden of proof is placed upon them.

And that is a satisfactory answer. Thank you, and have a nice day. I agree with Harlequin, though, theists are the ones that should explain their reason for believing, due to atheism being supported by scientific belief.