Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[Diagro]

I simply dont understand people who think its all real..

After all we are simply Biological computers... When the energy is gone (Think of the body as a battery) then we shut down and that's the end of it.

There is no God, There is no Heaven.. and There is no hell.

Those things were made up by people who wanted to give life hope and meaning.

 

[manic_man]

But the goal of evolution is to care for your own. Why would you be concerned about someone else, as long as it wasn't directly affecting you? Why does someone being murdered and raped in another country concern you? If we just die and then are no more then it really doesn't matter. Afterall, none of us will remember anything. Ultimately the holocaust was meaningless and so was all the suffering. The dead and are no more. Never gonna be justice for all those dead people from the atheistic point of view is there?

There is no goal to evolution, that is putting meaning to a term which in fact is trying to describe a process that just happens.

The human ability to empathise is now a massive factor in future human evolution, it's just another variable in the process.

The Holocaust was not meaningless, neither was the suffering of the people who endured it, from a data-gathering perspective we now know the social signs of somebody like Hitler and as a result are far more aware when people with similar mental traits as him start to rise to power. From an empathetic point of view, I can (try at least) put myself in those peoples shoes and try and imagine the horror of the situation and make darned sure that future generations are aware that it actually happened and what the repercussions were, in the hope that they will take it on-board early and we can curb the growth of another mind such as Hitler and those around him.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

In short, what you suggest is inhumane, therefore I cannot deem it a suitable suggestion even if there are some potential logical benefits.

Potential logical benefits? We can erradict predisposed genetic conditions in the matter of a couple of generations. This entire list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders - poof, reduced to random mutations, rather than, 'my parents gave me a premature death'. For the greater good applies, no matter how squeamish we are of the consequence.

 

[manic_man]

Potential logical benefits? We can erradict predisposed genetic conditions in the matter of a couple of generations. This entire list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders - poof, reduced to random mutations, rather than, 'my parents gave me a premature death'. For the greater good applies, no matter how squeamish we are of the consequence.

Absolutely not.

What would the human race be without people like Prof. Hawking? Modern medicine could in fact tell us his parents may be pre-disposed to producing a child with Lou Gehrig's disease, so society forces them to not reproduce (the method is irrelevant for the argument) and we potentially lose a great mind. Not to mention the advancements in communication technology that his problems have presented scientists and engineers with over the past decades.

Human evolution is as successful as it is because we overcome problems by way of ingenuity, it would be extremely short sighted to try and eradicate genetic disorders at the source. By all means try and resolve them, but every single new life is unique and has the potential to massively contribute to human evolution, either positively or negatively, both are contributions and limiting the variation of human genes going forward is a very depressing thought.

 

[Jason2]

There is no goal to evolution, that is putting meaning to a term which in fact is trying to describe a process that just happens.

The human ability to empathise is now a massive factor in future human evolution, it's just another variable in the process.

The Holocaust was not meaningless, neither was the suffering of the people who endured it, from a data-gathering perspective we now know the social signs of somebody like Hitler and as a result are far more aware when people with similar mental traits as him start to rise to power. From an empathetic point of view, I can (try at least) put myself in those peoples shoes and try and imagine the horror of the situation and make darned sure that future generations are aware that it actually happened and what the repercussions were, in the hope that they will take it on-board early and we can curb the growth of another mind such as Hitler and those around him.

Of course it was meaningless if death is the end and there is no judgement. And as for teaching people about it, what good does that do? People will still commit such crimes regardless if they've been taught or not. Some people just prefer to do evil. You know there's something that seems to grasp human morality and make it difficult to make the right choice. We call that the evil one. The devil. The father of all lies.

 

[ringo747]

You seem to be completely unable to grasp the concept of arguing from a hypothetical despite doing it yourself, delightful. I am agnostic to the possibility of an objective morality, but if it does exist it could be argued from a basis of harm. Even if arguing from a basis of harm is subjective then I can say subjectively that rape is wrong and cannot conceive of a situation where rape would be right.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but jumping between stances would give me the impression that you want a foot in both sides to be honest.

If you claim that rape is objectively wrong (wrong regardless of human opinion) then sorry to break it to you but you are not a moral relativist.

I believe that moral relativism is self defeating and dangerous - here is why...

As crinkleshoes eluded to in a previous post...

"Say for example all women suddenly decided to abstain from intercourse and the human race was dwindling... The only way to continue our species would be to rape... Would it continue to be wrong or immoral? No."

Your suggestion all along has been to base objective morality on limiting harm done or the flourishing of the species.

In this scenario that crinkleshoes mentions what way do you go? On one hand you would claim that rape is wrong, but on the other hand the basis for morality is continuing the species so what happens?

But we are also a society of thinking empathic animals which seems to make us somewhat unique, so therefore we may well indeed have moral obligations but it would be up to the individual in how they choose to meet them. Which would be identical to a God given situation.

Perhaps we are unique but that doesn't give us moral worth. If we don't have moral obligations why should we comply? Of course we don't have to comply but that isn't the question.

Limiting harm done may be very praiseworthy but what obligates me to do it?

The part that I quoted??

Objective morality is entirely human based due to the nature of humanity. You already accept that in that you do not think animals have a moral duty not to rape. So therefore morality is intrinsically related to humanity and that actions must be considered with that in mind.

Exactly, so if we do actually have moral worth and obligation where does it come from? Atheism says we have no importance or obligations are we are just animals.

On atheism our perception of purpose must therefore be illusory.

Because we are human? I am sure to a mouse the flourishing of mice is more important, but there is an important distinction, mice are not empathic social animals and so they would, if they could even consider the concept, only really be interested in the flourishing of their offspring. Human beings realise that the best chance for our offspring to flourish is for human society to flourish.

Sure, it might be beneficial but on what basis is flourishing objectively good/right?

More than likely, as no one has yet managed to come up with a more plausible method for humans to have developed.

I'm talking here about the evolution of morality not the evolution of humans.

Has morality has evolved due to a scientific process, which in itself is morally neutral? Don't get that I'm afraid.

Because unlike other animals we seem to be the only ones that are empathic and social and capable of communicating those traits and more importantly debating those traits. So yes, humans are quite unique as far as species found on earth so far.

Of course we are unique and I accept that, however being unique doesn't make us any more important. Being unique does obligate me in any way to do good things.

And you are going back to not answering questions directed at you, why should I continue to engage if you refuse to reciprocate?

In short though (because you were remarkably brief in explaining your subjective views on why homosexuality is wrong and have been completely unable to explain why objectively it is wrong) I have no issues with homosexuality because it does not harm the ability of the species to flourish, more than enough people are able to reproduce to continue society. In addition the harm done in forcing people to either deny, repress or ignore their sexuality is quite large on an individual scale.

If everyone was gay it wouldn't really do much for the continuation of the species. How you or I interpret morality is again the subject of moral epistemology and is completely separate from the question of moral ontology.

So if God doesn't exist how would it change the way you live your live? What would you do that you do not do now?

If God doesn't exist then we are just monkey like creatures with a false sense of importance. If God doesn't exist then I don't believe that objective moral values and duties exist.

 

[manic_man]

Of course it was meaningless if death is the end and there is no judgement. And as for teaching people about it, what good does that do? People will still commit such crimes regardless if they've been taught or not. Some people just prefer to do evil. You know there's something that seems to grasp human morality and make it difficult to make the right choice. We call that the evil one. The devil. The father of all lies.

Why does there have to be some kind of judgement for something to be meaningful?

If a tree falls and there is nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Of course any sane person knows the answer to this question is yes, therefore the tree has been involved in a meaningful (for all the things it squashed anyway!) event that nobody has judged. It's a silly little example but events that are not "judged" by a sentient consciousness are still meaningful, ergo events that occur due to a sentient consciousness that go un-judged by another sentient consciousness are also still meaningful.

To say that some people prefer to do evil is also very defeatist in my opinion. There are plenty of examples where somebody who has always tried to do good commits one major bad act, are they inherently evil? Similarly there are many examples of people who commit mainly bad acts then choosing to also commit good acts, are they inherently evil? I think there is one thing I do take away from most religious definitions and that is that there is good and bad in all of us. Science has of course started to provide us with the factual reasons for this, but it remains true nonetheless.

Good and bad makes up us all, it is the individual consciousness that has a bias towards one or the other, most likely this is due to a variety of factors varying from genetics through to external influences such as a persons up-bringing and experiences as they are going through their formative years.

 

[crinkleshoes]

So our morality has evolved over thousands of years then. If you rewind the clock of evolution and run the whole process again then people with a different set of moral values could result. Perhaps even a society where rape is normal. Do you believe that rape is wrong regardless of socio-biological conditioning?

Additionally, how do you know if a something is really wrong, given the fact that evolution aims for survival rather than truth?

Additionally, I thought evolution was a scientific process? Science is morally neutral.

Nothing is ultimately right or wrong, there is no fact to a definition of right or wrong. Right and wrong are subjective, as demonstrated throughout history and around the world this very day.

So you are essentially redefining morality to mean that which is beneficial for society. Does right and wrong not exist in your world then?

You have it the wrong way round... society defines morality.

An example of a terrible act to show that some things are really wrong regardless of human opinion.

Then I'm afraid you failed to illustrate your point.

So we have here a relativist society where nobody is really right or wrong. We just make it up as we go. If humans decided rape was right would that have made rape really right?

From our current viewpoint, no - of course not.

In an alternate universe where that had somehow developed then yes, to them they would seemingly have developed morals that define it as the right thing to do. Of course I'm glad that didn't happen... but it's clearly relative as if I existed in that timeline, then I wouldn't have a problem with it!

In the animal kingdom do you think a white shark forcibly copulating with a female is really rape?

I tried alluding to this in my explanation...

I'm sorry, what? You said above that "rape is wrong". How can you suddenly say that "er actually, if we are in danger of becoming exist, rape is fine".

I said that I "believe" rape to be wrong... not that it ultimately is.

Morality has no finite definition, it has been defined by society and engrained back into it.

Clearly in such a scenario (albeit highly unlikely), yes - rape would be necessary - making it acceptable.

 

[crinkleshoes]

And RDM, I never said I only stay within the law because I'm scared of the consequences. Far from it. If that was the case then we really wouldn't have any murderers, rapists ect ect. I said that we all have a moral conscience, yet no matter how hard one tries, he can never abide by it. We've all felt guilt, so we've all gone against this unseen moral law at one time or another. And just because your wrongdoings may not be as bad as murder or rape, they still deserve judgement and punishment nonetheless.

Not everybody feels guilt... sociopaths/psychopaths

 

[crinkleshoes]

But the goal of evolution is to care for your own. Why would you be concerned about someone else, as long as it wasn't directly affecting you? Why does someone being murdered and raped in another country concern you? If we just die and then are no more then it really doesn't matter. Afterall, none of us will remember anything. Ultimately the holocaust was meaningless and so was all the suffering. The dead and are no more. Never gonna be justice for all those dead people from the atheistic point of view is there?

Because laws/conditions that affect others... also affect you

 

[manic_man]

Not everybody feels guilt... sociopaths/psychopaths

You cannot say that a sociopath doesn't feel guilt, you can only say that we believe somebody we label as a sociopath probably experiences the effects of guilt less than the majority of people.

It's a subtle but important difference and highlights one of the issues people have with those who say they follow a scientific and logical existence, absolutely nothing is black and white; definite, sure things can be probably correct, but there is always the chance that they are not.

And yes, that also includes the possibility that everything we see was created and is overseen by an omnipresent consciousness and that existence is in fact timeless.

 

[Jason2]

Good and bad makes up us all, it is the individual consciousness that has a bias towards one or the other, most likely this is due to a variety of factors varying from genetics through to external influences such as a persons up-bringing and experiences as they are going through their formative years.

So a person who kills another person had no choice? That's pretty insulting to the both the victim and his family. Consider that kid who went into that school and murdered all those innocent little children. Did he have no choice?

I don't care what you or anyone says, you always have a choice. ALWAYS.

 

[ringo747]

Nothing is ultimately right or wrong, there is no fact to a definition of right or wrong. Right and wrong are subjective, as demonstrated throughout history and around the world this very day.

So if I was to come over and murder all your family it wouldn't be wrong, it would instead be socially unacceptable?

You have it the wrong way round... society defines morality.

OK... so if society says it's fine to murder then it must be right?

Then I'm afraid you failed to illustrate your point.

Given you defend rape in certain scenarios then I don't think any illustration would suffice for you.

I said that I "believe" rape to be wrong... not that it ultimately is.

Morality has no finite definition, it has been defined by society and engrained back into it.

Clearly in such a scenario (albeit highly unlikely), yes - rape would be necessary - making it acceptable.

In your moral relativist view, if someone in our society today believes rape is fine then that is fine in your view? You wouldn't go so far as to suggest rape is wrong regardless of human opinion?

 

[crinkleshoes]

You cannot say that a sociopath doesn't feel guilt, you can only say that we believe somebody we label as a sociopath probably experiences the effects of guilt less than the majority of people.

It's a subtle but important difference and highlights one of the issues people have with those who say they follow a scientific and logical existence, absolutely nothing is black and white; definite, sure things can be probably correct, but there is always the chance that they are not.

And yes, that also includes the possibility that everything we see was created and is overseen by an omnipresent consciousness and that existence is in fact timeless.

I agree, but it also means there could be people who don't experience it at all or even like the feeling!

It certainly is an option... in fact logical thinking following our own existance shows there's the possibility for multi-dimensional beings... we exist as 3-dimensional beings in a universe with (at the very least) 4 dimensions... albeit likely 10 or more.

There is no law of physics that restricts the existence of higher dimensional beings that sit above the 4th dimension, seemingly outside of time as we experience it.

Think of a 2D being travelling on a mobius strip, it twists and turns as it progresses through 3D space, all the while appearing to only be travelling in a straight line.

That analogy could be used to describe our progression through the fourth dimension... albeit the twisting/turning/folding would be a heck of a lot more complicated!

Our bodies experience time as a relatively linear dimension, our experience is a construct of our brains (within reason).

This leaves open a lot of possibilities or what the fourth dimension really is.

The main point I used to make my mind up as to whether I believe a truly omnipotent/omnipresent god exists as per the varying definitions of organised religions was the complexity of DNA vs an estimate of the number of stars in this version of our universe. Given the gigantic area, content and alternate timelines/universes... it's a statistical likelihood that life would develop somewhere.

Although a lot of things that seem improbably have likely happened somewhere.

It also leaves the option open for more advanced beings to have seeded life on this planet, I just see that as a less likely option. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I can only think in probabilities... so yes, there is no black or white with me



Looping that back to the original question... any being intelligent enough to seed life on this planet and perhaps offer an afterlife to it's children - would never punish anyone for questioning its existence or not following a specific religious affiliation... such a being would never be so petty.

The childishness depicted in the old testement is laughable.

 

[manic_man]

So a person who kills another person had no choice? That's pretty insulting to the both the victim and his family. Consider that kid who went into that school and murdered all those innocent little children. Did he have no choice?

I don't care what you or anyone says, you always have a choice. ALWAYS.

Come now, that is not what I have been saying. Don't pick the parts of my posts that suit your argument, take them in as a whole.

Everybody has a choice in everything they do. Some people are clearly pre-disposed to making good or bad choices, probably as a result of their own personal development due to controlling factors such as genetics or external influences.

The murderer always has the choice to not kill, however the fact that they ARE a murderer precludes the possibility that, when presented with that internal choice, they made the right one. I am suggesting that these people made the wrong choice, probably due to a variety of reasons, culminating in the fact that their psyche was one that chose to kill rather than not.

 

[RDM]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but jumping between stances would give me the impression that you want a foot in both sides to be honest.

Which is why I said I was agnostic to the position of objective morality. It will depend on how you define objective morality. If it does exist then I could see it being defined by harm.

If you claim that rape is objectively wrong (wrong regardless of human opinion) then sorry to break it to you but you are not a moral relativist.

Not really sure if I have ever claimed that I am?

I believe that moral relativism is self defeating and dangerous - here is why...

As crinkleshoes eluded to in a previous post...

"Say for example all women suddenly decided to abstain from intercourse and the human race was dwindling... The only way to continue our species would be to rape... Would it continue to be wrong or immoral? No."

So argue that with him, rather than with me, I am in no way responsible for crinkleshoes posts just because we share the same lack of faith in God. Much like you are not responsible for Jason2's utterances.

Your suggestion all along has been to base objective morality on limiting harm done or the flourishing of the species.

In this scenario that crinkleshoes mentions what way do you go? On one hand you would claim that rape is wrong, but on the other hand the basis for morality is continuing the species so what happens?

It seems such an unlikely situation that I am struggling to see its worth. The moral approach would be to find out why women have decided to abstain from intercourse and change that rather than just rape them.

Perhaps we are unique but that doesn't give us moral worth. If we don't have moral obligations why should we comply? Of course we don't have to comply but that isn't the question.

Limiting harm done may be very praiseworthy but what obligates me to do it?

Nothing obligates you to do it. Is that really such a scary concept?

Exactly, so if we do actually have moral worth and obligation where does it come from? Atheism says we have no importance or obligations are we are just animals.

On atheism our perception of purpose must therefore be illusory.

Since when does atheism say we have no importance? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God not an overarching philosophy. Atheism has nothing to say on our importance or lack thereof.

Sure, it might be beneficial but on what basis is flourishing objectively good/right?

By being beneficial it is good? Not sure about you but I would quite like to continue living and also like my daughter to continue living. Contrary to popular religious beliefs atheists are not, on the whole nihilists.

I'm talking here about the evolution of morality not the evolution of humans.

You would first need to convince me that they are not connected.

Has morality has evolved due to a scientific process, which in itself is morally neutral? Don't get that I'm afraid.

It is no surprise that you don't get nonsensical statements, but then as I haven't made such a statement I am not sure why I would need to answer for it.

Of course we are unique and I accept that, however being unique doesn't make us any more important. Being unique does obligate me in any way to do good things.

You seem to be really keen on obligation. It isn't obligatory to do good things, but it is certainly beneficial.

If everyone was gay it wouldn't really do much for the continuation of the species.

But not everyone is, so it isn't a problem.

How you or I interpret morality is again the subject of moral epistemology and is completely separate from the question of moral ontology.

Which seems to me that you actually have no objective reason for thinking homosexuality immoral as you seem to be unable to describe it. Which then makes me think that you have very little way of actually determining if there is an objective morality and if there is what it actually is.

If God doesn't exist then we are just monkey like creatures with a false sense of importance. If God doesn't exist then I don't believe that objective moral values and duties exist.

That didn't answer the question. (PS we aren't monkey like, we lack a tail, we are however apes).

 

[Jason2]

That didn't answer the question. (PS we aren't monkey like, we lack a tail, we are however apes).

We're apes yet we can get into trouble for calling a black person an ape.

 

[RDM]

We're apes yet we can get into trouble for calling a black person an ape.

Do you honestly expect an answer to this or does your particular interpretation of Christianity also think racism is a good thing too?

 

[manic_man]

We're apes yet we can get into trouble for calling a black person an ape.

Ah, I now understand why my arguments are being twisted.

I'm going to leave this thread alone, I don't want to start any form of argument with somebody who is unable to see the difference between referring to somebodies race by way of name calling that has negative connotations and a statement of fact based on tangible evidence.

It's a shame, discussions like this one can be really interesting.

 

[Gilly]

We're apes yet we can get into trouble for calling a black person an ape.

Who are apes?

A white man is not an ape. A black man is not an ape. An ape is an ape.

So yes, you can (and should) get into trouble for calling a black man an ape.

That's pretty simple.