Would the world be better off if someone proved God didn't exist?

[kgraeme]

<< Would the world be better off if someone proved God didn't exist? >>



Yes.

 

[gopunk]

Whether or not you like it, God has given you a sense of right and wrong. For the tribesman in the jungle who has never heard of Jesus, he will not be judged on his accepting or denying Christ, but on what his own heart shows... if he acted during his life in accordance with what he new to be good, then God will judge them accordingly... if not, He will judge them according to that. The fact that you DON'T want to do whatever it takes to spread your DNA... the fact that you DON'T want to do what is best for you and your offspring no matter what... the fact that you DON'T really believe in the evolutionary "survival of the fittests" and would probably have mercy on the crippled.... show that something other than simple evolution is working on your heart.

of course something other than simple evolution is working on my heart - it's called being sentient. where you come up with the conclusion that this is god, and not just a byproduct of being aware of one's consciousness, is beyond me.

 

[Netopia]

<< I see what you're trying to say but in the case of rape, the laws of our society would quickly squash that theory. Morals are defined more by society than religion. Especially in this day and age. >>



But we wouldn't have societies like today without those morals. The morals had to come FIRST, or societies couldn't form. Who would want to be grouped with a bunch of other people if you thought that they were going to slit your throat the first time you were a hinderence to them? The morals had to come first... and they don't fit into a strict "survival of the fittest" pattern.... ESPECIALLY not mercy towards the sick, the infirm, the weak and the elderly. Even if one starts saying that evolution forced us into a societal agreement about not killing and stealing, keeping the deformed, the mentally handicapped, the infirm... those are crimes against nature if there is no God... keeping bad DNA, using resources to help beings which give nothing back... those are NOT qualities which are inherent in survival of the fittest.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

<< of course something other than simple evolution is working on my heart - it's called being sentient. where you come up with the conclusion that this is god, and not just a byproduct of being aware of one's consciousness, is beyond me. >>



Ok... let's say you are right. Why don't you rape and steal? I would bet that most people of any level of intelligence could get away with both for a long time... maybe forever if they kept their mouths shut and didn't follow a pattern... making things appear random. Why don't you do those two simple things that can make your survival and the continuing of your DNA more likely?

Joe

 

[ShallowHal]

<<

<< Would the world be better off if someone proved God didn't exist? >>



Yes. >>



Interesting. Any particular reason why? I'm not looking to flame. Just curious.

 

[gopunk]

But we wouldn't have societies like today without those morals. The morals had to come FIRST, or societies couldn't form. Who would want to be grouped with a bunch of other people if you thought that they were going to slit your throat the first time you were a hinderence to them? The morals had to come first... and they don't fit into a strict "survival of the fittest" pattern.... ESPECIALLY not mercy towards the sick, the infirm, the weak and the elderly. Even if one starts saying that evolution forced us into a societal agreement about not killing and stealing, keeping the deformed, the mentally handicapped, the infirm... those are crimes against nature if there is no God... keeping bad DNA, using resources to help beings which give nothing back... those are NOT qualities which are inherent in survival of the fittest.

evolution is about propagation of a species. the ability to form societies benefits the species. thus, one can infer that morality has been given to us by evolution, in order to allow us to form societies, and succeed, as a species. right? neuter ants. what is the purpose of them? clearly, they will not survive as the fittest, since they can't spread their seed. it's hypothesized that they exist to further the species.

 

[gopunk]

Ok... let's say you are right. Why don't you rape and steal? I would bet that most people of any level of intelligence could get away with both for a long time... maybe forever if they kept their mouths shut and didn't follow a pattern... making things appear random. Why don't you do those two simple things that can make your survival and the continuing of your DNA more likely?

because i would feel bad if i did. but this in no way, shape, or form, confirms the existance of a higher being. at most, it confirms the existance of a phenomenon that is either not well understood by us, or one that is not well understood at all.

btw, if you want to go the evolution route, you could hypothesize that it is because ultimately, raping and stealing damage a society.

 

[superfluousmonkeys]

I'm an atheist and I have plenty of morals. I don't go around eating babies or burning kittens. I think you are not a true virtuous person if you need a person or gorup to tell what is right or wrong!

"More blood was shed in the name of religions than in all the wars combined"

Samuel Clemmins.

 

[NovaTone]

<< i'll ask you one simple question then... why do i have morals and ethics? i do not believe in a supreme authority. unless i am a supreme authority, i have morals and ethics because i feel like it. >>



Don't most cultures seem to have the same general belief system in right versus wrong. Anthropologists have studied the origin and growth of religion in numerous cultures around the world. They have discovered that numerous cultures from primitive to advanced began with an original belief of a God who was a creator and moral law giver. Of course these cultures turned away and worshipped other things.



<< In order to perceive the evil in our world, we must first have some innate sense of right versus wrong which must come from a supreme being (or something higher than our society). Without some supreme being defining right versus wrong, how are we to know the difference? If it is just some arbitrary human standard, then why obey it? Why are these common morals able to be seen in cultures around the world? The evil in this world is the consequence of our imperfections(sin) residing in all human beings. You know that no one here is perfect. We all have made mistakes in our lives. It's not so much God who brings evil upon the world, it is the reality that all human beings are not perfect and we all make mistakes (sin). Bin laden and his goons let their anger turn into rage and the result is 9/11. This is a clear example of the evil in the world. But also see how our nation (and perhaps the world to a small extent) have taken a small step towards uniting together (United We Stand). Almost all people in the world agree the events of 9/11 were tragic and terrorism is evil, and this has led to a small step towards making the world a better place to live in. >>

 

[Netopia]

<< ...because i would feel bad if i did... >>



Why? If you have a hard core necessity to do what is best for society, do you never speed? Never lie? Never cheat on taxes? Never download an MP3? Society has set up laws for the betterment of society. Do you feel totally compelled by these laws, or do you have the ability to simply shug some off and defy those laws (legislated morals) while unable to do so for other things, like murder.

BTW... what benefit to society is a child born as a mongoloid? Unlike the worker ant, they don't provide anything to society or produce anything. Do you think they should be done away with at birth? (Elledan, we already know what you think, so don't bother)

BTW... Elledan's reasoning IS the most congruant fit I find for evolution theory. Kill the weak and promote the strong.... 'course Hitler felt that way too.....

Joe

 

[gopunk]

Why? If you have a hard core necessity to do what is best for society, do you never speed? Never lie? Never cheat on taxes? Never download an MP3? Society has set up laws for the betterment of society. Do you feel totally compelled by these laws, or do you have the ability to simply shug some off and defy those laws (legislated morals) while unable to do so for other things, like murder.
BTW... what benefit to society is a child born as a mongoloid? Unlike the worker ant, they don't provide anything to society or produce anything. Do you think they should be done away with at birth? (Elledan, we already know what you think, so don't bother)

i don't speed, and i don't cheat on my taxes, but assuming i did, i don't feel as bad about those crimes, because they are nowhere near the gravity of taking a human life.

get to the point, lets just assume that i can't explain why i don't feel like killing people. how does this confirm the existance of a higher being? all this shows is that we're clueless.

 

[Netopia]

<< get to the point, lets just assume that i can't explain why i don't feel like killing people. how does this confirm the existance of a higher being? all this shows is that we're clueless. >>



You are right that this doesn't "prove" the existance of a supreme power. It only proves that without one, there really aren't such things as morals and ethics... not real, substancial morals and ethics anyway... just whatever suits the power of the day. If we carry it to the logical conclusion (assuming no God) then even any evidence supporting survival of society is futile... we all know that the universe is running down and that entropy will eventually win. All life will cease to exist. It will be very, very near to absolute zero everywhere.

At the other end of the equation, it won't matter if (there is no God), because you and I and everyone else are just temporarily animate particles with no more or no less value than a rock or a tomato or a drop of water. If that is the case (that we are just random chemical occurances in nature) then you should see that all morals are superfluous and a waste of time. Why should I care if I smash a rock... or someone's head... they are both just particles collected together until they get seperated and recollected. If I should "hurt" them... what does that matter? "Hurt" is only a grouping of chemicals in a temporarily animate group of particles. Their pain, my pleasure... none of it has any meaning because it's all just a fluke of the universe and it's all going to end anyway... so why add artificial importance to life and society and kindness?

You talked about being a thinking being. You talked about societal evolution. Carry it all out to the extreme and to a thinking being, it's obvious that life has NO meaning and that nothing matters... any importance we put on ANYTHING is an illusion that we set up for ourselves in our own mind and in our societies. Unless.... unless there is God. Unless we were created and we have a life outside of this universe. Unless we don't just cease to exist. But if that isn't the case... why would a totally logical person cared what happened to anyone but themselves? And the only reason to care about ourselves is that for this breif lifetime, we want to have whatever pleasure we can.....

Did I prove God? 'Course not. But what other choice does a logical person have?

Joe

 

[Netopia]

BTW... why do you bold instead of quoting?
Joe

 

[gopunk]

You are right that this doesn't "prove" the existance of a supreme power. It only proves that without one, there really aren't such things as morals and ethics... not real, substancial morals and ethics anyway... just whatever suits the power of the day.

no, it doesn't, it shows that there are some morals held common by nearly everybody... nothing more.

If we carry it to the logical conclusion (assuming no God) then even any evidence supporting survival of society is futile... we all know that the universe is running down and that entropy will eventually win. All life will cease to exist. It will be very, very near to absolute zero everywhere.

afaik, evolution does not work based on anticipation. it will adapt to the current environment, not the future one.

At the other end of the equation, it won't matter if (there is no God), because you and I and everyone else are just temporarily animate particles with no more or no less value than a rock or a tomato or a drop of water. If that is the case (that we are just random chemical occurances in nature) then you should see that all morals are superfluous and a waste of time. Why should I care if I smash a rock... or someone's head... they are both just particles collected together until they get seperated and recollected. If I should "hurt" them... what does that matter? "Hurt" is only a grouping of chemicals in a temporarily animate group of particles. Their pain, my pleasure... none of it has any meaning because it's all just a fluke of the universe and it's all going to end anyway... so why add artificial importance to life and society and kindness?

because there is no meaning to life if we disassociate ourselves to that extreme. i personally believe that it is natural instinct not to disassociate like that, in order that the species go on, society function, etc. i think you will find that people will always view whatever they are involved in as important, regardless of it's overall importance to the universe.

You talked about being a thinking being. You talked about societal evolution. Carry it all out to the extreme and to a thinking being, it's obvious that life has NO meaning and that nothing matters... any importance we put on ANYTHING is an illusion that we set up for ourselves in our own mind and in our societies. Unless.... unless there is God. Unless we were created and we have a life outside of this universe. Unless we don't just cease to exist. But if that isn't the case... why would a totally logical person cared what happened to anyone but themselves? And the only reason to care about ourselves is that for this breif lifetime, we want to have whatever pleasure we can.....

you've hit it on the nail, humans are most definitely NOT logical to the point where they disassociate. it's just like the fact that you can't suffocate yourself by holding your breath.

Did I prove God? 'Course not. But what other choice does a logical person have?

the choices a logical person has:

a.) acceptance of uncertainty
b.) acceptance of human nature

 

[Netopia]

<<
a.) acceptance of uncertainty
b.) acceptance of human nature >>



Please explain. I'm not getting your meaning (at least I don't think I am).

Joe

 

[gopunk]

<<

<<
a.) acceptance of uncertainty
b.) acceptance of human nature >>



Please explain. I'm not getting your meaning (at least I don't think I am). >>



what i mean, is that a logical person has the choice of accepting the fact that there are things in life that they can't explain, and that might very well be unexplainable, and that it is not human nature to disassociate to the point where they just view themselves, and the rest of the world as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

well "logical" is a bit of a misnomer i suppose, what i mean is as logical as a human can get.

 

[Netopia]

well "logical" is a bit of a misnomer i suppose, what i mean is as logical as a human can get.

Ok... that's what I was missing. It would appear to me that the only choices a person has are these:

A) I am an irrational being, willing to believe that which makes me comfortable and willing to NOT look at the absolute so that I am not forced to deal with the outcome.

B) I am a rational being who looks at the whole picture and realizes that life is meaningless and live my life accordingly.

C) I am a rational being who looks at the whole picture and realizes that life without a Creator is meaningless. I therefore accept the belief of a Creator in order to balance my own "rational" equation.

Or something like that... my wording I'm sure is not the best.

Joe

 

[AMDJunkie]

<< People would come to realize that life is only what you make of it, they would want to keep their standards of living high, if not higher than before, and above all they would want to make something of themselves. Something that would last beyond death. >>

Marx is totally incorrect in assuming the man of religion tolerates the harshness of their lives any more than a man who does not hold a religion or God. Look around you, look at people living like you. They're not all atheists or agnostics, and the religion that supposedly limits their potential, that keeps them from making everything from their lives are doing just tat, and probably just like you. You think all of the bourgeoisie trying to get into the nobility are atheists while the peasants trying to make it are religious? Bunch of BS. Hypocritical of the religious, but still full of BS.

What did the Christian Jesus teach? Sell you posessions and go out and put God and your brother before yourself. I know very few who do that, and I'm part of the huge majority that doesn't. Imagine a society that said we forfeit our needs for the sake of others. Quite the utopian dream, and yet it's not really happening. We are all taking care of ourselves, religious or not, we're all "making the most of our lives", and yet many are still disenchanted. We've all heard parables and stories of wealth and power and the hollowness of the satisfaction it brings so I'm not going to spam it to you here. Why not change? Because we are either too afraid, or we don't believe that service could be more enjoyable, or we're just plain hypocritical (like me). I doubt man could come up with something so selfless on his own, it goes against his very nature.

 

[gopunk]

<< well "logical" is a bit of a misnomer i suppose, what i mean is as logical as a human can get.
Ok... that's what I was missing. It would appear to me that the only choices a person has are these:
A) I am an irrational being, willing to believe that which makes me comfortable and willing to NOT look at the absolute so that I am not forced to deal with the outcome.
B) I am a rational being who looks at the whole picture and realizes that life is meaningless and live my life accordingly.
C) I am a rational being who looks at the whole picture and realizes that life without a Creator is meaningless. I therefore accept the belief of a Creator in order to balance my own "rational" equation.
Or something like that... my wording I'm sure is not the best. >>



i think i see what you mean now... i would add a fourth:

d) i am a rational being who looks at the whole picture, realizes that *ultimately* life is meaningless, but that for my purposes, my meaning in life is to make myself comfortable.

i don't think this entails killing, raping, etc, as the vast majority of these actions will result in the opposite of comfortableness, whether it be at the hands of society, or through your own conscience. in short, while the meaning for a single person is to be comfortable, he is still contrained by his innate sense of morality, since he will be uncomfortable if he violates it.

 

[EDoG2K]

netopia-

I like! random chemical particles. I'll buy that. Maybe it doesn't matter what any of us do, or if you smash a rock or someones head. That doesn't lead me to a supernatural power by logic. Maybe it doesnt matter, but what are we going to do about it? How sad would it be to live life knowing it was all for naught? Unbearable! Maybe I should just kill myself right now. I'm just a random assortment of proteins, but I actually like living, so i'd appreciate no head-smashing at this point. Maybe all our lives are meaningless- in the long run they probably are- look at the billions who lived before us- how many can you remember? Who pumped gas on the corner back in 1950? Who was George Washington's mailman? Who was that NEF on ATOT?

Not me though. I'm going to matter! I'm going to be remembered!!!!

Well, we'll see. 😉

 

[bluemax]

Once again the athiests feel it is their duty to tell the world God does not exist. They'll do so by any means necessary, the favorite being blatant lies with a grain of truth to make it palpable. Add a few big words to make it seem knowledgable. A quote from some famous person to make it seem credible. It's all the same, and hasn't changed for 2000+ years.
To cap it all, the Bible even tells of how after Jesus rose again, the Jewish leaders PAID people to tell people that Jesus was a fraud, he didn't die on the cross, he merely escaped. That version of the story is what appears in the Muslim Koran. The stories are nothing new - just anything to make people look away.

Why that's almost as good as getting people to go to Church (of whatever faith) and have them think they're "good" people while the snooze away on the pews only to go back to their selfish little lives.


I know God/Jesus exists for the one reason that makes it believable to me - He's DONE STUFF for me. Answers to prayers, such as: mysterious cheques that come right in the nick of time (to the dollar, such as a cheque from an old employer that came to amount of rent I still owed), the miraculous curing of my wife's beyond-migrane headaches that no doctor could cure for years, and lots of other things in my life that can only be attributed to one "thing".
But a skeptic would try to explain it all away... maybe this and maybe that... The odds of several miraculous things happening in my life for no particular reason are stacked. About the same kind of odds of life "just mysteriously happening for no apparent reason" on one particular ball of dirt.

But then there will always, always be those who don't believe, in face of all evidence - even with miracles in their own lives, first hand knowledge of God's power - they'll still doubt and disbelieve. What can you do? Nothing, and it's not our "job" to MAKE anyone believe - much as some particular churches may think otherwise.

I'm not here to convert anyone or say big, profound things that noone's ever heard before - you guys would never listen anyway. I'm only saying He's very real to me because He DOES STUFF in my life. The things He does for me is very real. What else is important?

 

[CSoup]

I think it would be worse off. I'm not a religious person myself, but do hold myself to a personal moral standard. Humans would not have created (and the majority follow) religions if there was no benefit. Most religions also depend on the existence of one or more gods. It keeps people with weak self regulation in line, so I think overall it is probably a good thing.

 

[Ornery]

Praise the Lord, the mods didn't delete this topic! :Q

I read over 50% of the replies, but not all, sorry. Just want to add that it's religion causing all the fuss in the world, not God.

What is YOUR definition of God? Personally, I believe that God is life itself. Even YOUR Bible says as much, in so many words. And those who don't believe anything from the Bible can't deny life exists. They have NO idea where life came from. No amount of logic or science can explain the origin of life. I believe life IS the manifestation of God...

"Would the world be better off if someone proved God didn't exist?"

The fact that religion is the root of MANY of the world's problems is without a doubt! :frown:

If God is life, we'd be pretty well screwed if it didn't exist, eh? Oh, and good luck proving life doesn't exist. My theory that God is life itself, is as good as any! 😉

 

[Netopia]

<< d) i am a rational being who looks at the whole picture, realizes that *ultimately* life is meaningless, but that for my purposes, my meaning in life is to make myself comfortable. >>



GREAT WORDING! That is a fourth for sure. But to use this, one must be willing to admit that life is meaningless and therefore nothing ultimately matters. From that point of view though, no one should ever try to say that anything is "right" or "wrong" but merely "that makes me uncomfortable" or "I like that". This means that there are no morals or ethics, but really only likes and dislikes. From a strictly logical point of view, it would be relatively impossible for anyone to defend any law, since there is no right or wrong. The law could be enforced in the majority of people were willing to back it up with power, but then we are back in a "might makes right", law of the jungle mode... just as a group.... and if that's ok, we shouldn't condemn Nazi Germany or similar groups because they would have been acting within the bounds of this "might makes right" model.

Again, and I think we are in agreement here, the TOTALLY logical person would either believe in a supreme authority and do their best to live under the rules of that authority or would believe that there is no absolute and that since nothing matters, they can do whatever they can get away with and it's ok.

From this point of view and the fact that I "try" to be logical (I know I fail daily), the former is a much easier choice. When I add things like mercy to the weak, the old, the deformed, the infirm.... then I see things that the law of the jungle cannot account for and my choice is made more sure (at least to me).



<< ...you've hit it on the nail, humans are most definitely NOT logical to the point where they disassociate... >>

j

No, they aren't... but the fact that you are willing to think about it and carry it out to the logical conclusion is admirable. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to have this same conversation with athiests who stand firm that life is not meaningless no matter what and we never get any further. I really appreciate your open honesty with "...for my purposes, my meaning in life is to make myself comfortable." My boss, who is an "almost athiest" (he believes that an assured atheism takes as much faith as theism... but he says he's as close as you can get to being atheist without closing the door all of the way) is the only other person who has basically come to the same conclusion in our conversations. He will readily admit that there is no absolute right or wrong, but only what people decide... and that this can change.... and that ultimately, it is might makes right which is why Hitler or Milosovitch can be held accountable for things in their own country, because if there are enought foreigners who feel differently, their might makes them "right".

Anyway... I've often contemplated what if God doesn't exist. Have the people reading this thread REALLY, REALLY considered what the consequenses will be for them if the God of the Bible is indeed the truth?

Joe

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I understand argument starting with "what if". It can open a dialogue, but this "what if" makes no sense to me. Logically, how does one prove a negative? You might prove a positive, but does the fact that you havent seen god mean there is no god? I don't know either way, but these posts, however banal or eloquent are faith based (which is ok with me. You are entitled to your opinion). Notice I did not say that god has been proven by science, but you can NEVER disprove it.


I didn't answer the question. Things would be much worse off. If I am morally equal to everyone else, why should I give your arbitrary standard consideration? Everything is relative now. And I am free to pursue what I wish through any means. The concept of morals is silly. Why are you right and I wrong if I want to steal or kill. Because I hurt someone? Objectively, what does that matter? Do you think it matters in 500 years what I do today? Even if it did, what does that matter? These laws are cumbersome to me and right and wrong are as invalid a principle as asking what red smells like. It is silly to even bring the question up.

Kinda spooky huh. Don't like it? Well then, convince me that this notion of my is incorrect.

Arguments that wont work:


1. It's just wrong- So YOU say.
2. Society says it is so- Well, look at law and the 10 Commandments. Seems a lot of "right and wrong" are derived from a non-existent being. The premise was in error, so the law is invalid. Society depends on law for order. Law is based on fallacies. Seems like a collective of individuals putting restraints on my behavior for their own ends. Well that is as valid a perspective as any, so you can try. But you haven't convinced me that numbers make right. Remember Dreyfus? They imprisoned him because "30 million Frenchmen can't be wrong." They were, well maybe not wrong, but incorrect.
3. Your attitude is in the long run self defeating- Ok, if I go along with the crowd, my life will be easier. Best argument so far. But if something comes along, I may go for it. Risk vs. benefit, and your pain is nothing to me. Or you a thousand years from now.


Well I could go on, but the purpose of the above is to illustrate a potential behavior based on the above premise of no god. Notice it is not based on fear, but a lack of convincing evidence that any set of standards should apply to the individual in an absolute sense.

Have fun!!!