Indeed. And ironically enough, all atheists fall into the same trap every time they open their mouths. The atheist loves to make logical arguments for why God cannot exist. Yet he makes himself a hypocrite the moment he voices the argument, because by taking the time and trouble to even debate the question he is acting as if there is purpose to his action, and as if he accepted that words have meaning. But for the atheist words cannot have meaning because they are issued forth from nothing. Man is a slightly more complex animal than a goat or a koala bear, that is all, and we make complex sounds to communicate so that our society can exist and we can copulate and reproduce. But we are an accident that proceeded from an accident, and since there is nothing but accidental matter, truth and logic cannot be real either, they are only constructs created to aid in the creation of a functional society so we can fulfill our animalistic urges. Unless truth exists eternally, which it cannot for the atheist, than logic is a ruse and words have no more meaning than waves crashing on a beach. I may as well be typing "ooga mooga bligblurg mekka lekka hi mekka hiney ho." "Ah yes," says the tired atheist, "but we create our own meaning. Tabula Rasa. Life itself is not endowed with meaning, but I create my own meaning. I choose to believe in a morality and assign meaning to things because that is how I wish to live my life." Nope, sorry pal, that line of argument doesn't work either. A monkey can splatter paint all over a sheet and you can call it Picasso or Rembrandt if you like, but it's still what it is. The idea that we don't have to accept meaning but we can live our lives as if there is meaning anyway is, in a word, dumb. But, these guys choose to live this way, with sheets over their heads, rather than face reality. Conserving their pride at the cost of intentional blindness. Why not just spend your days banging a pan with a big spoon and crapping in your diapers? Snowboarders have a saying, "go big or home." The philosophical equivalent would be "live your beliefs or go home." If words have no true meaning, why say them? If morality does not exist, why bother with it? If love isn't real, why not punch your mom in the face instead of kissing her on the cheek? If we are all wormfood in the end, why risk the possibility that you will have a net balance of pain rather than pleasure at the end of this life and just kill yourself now? Ahh, consistency. A rare thing in the modern world these days.
Darkhorse-- For me, there is separation between church and God. Maybe a better way of stating it would that I'm anti-religion, not anti-God. They are two separate issues although it could probably be said that my personal beliefs become my personal religion, but I digress. ..."If man is the highest measure of authority, it means that there is no true right and wrong, every man measures himself, and any attempt to condemn a man on moral grounds is hypocrisy." At this point in time, man IS the highest measure of authority. In Ayn Rands "The Fountainhead", mans ego (not to be confused with an egoist) is cause for celebration. It's because of his ego that he has accomplished what has never been done before and continues to strive forward. Religions charter throughout history has been to squelch this, for something that cannot be controlled is inherently dangerous. How else do you control the masses? #1-- fear #2-- self-depreciation = RELIGION I think you stand on the side of: Man is not above himself. And I stand on the side of: Man is above all.
If you believe man is above all then you have to accept all the other stuff that goes with it as I outlined in my post. If you can live with that while truly understanding the implications of accepting it, than I am in awe of you. Who said anything about religion? Am I the pope? Do you see a funny hat on my head? I'm just trying to get you people to think, I haven't told you who or what to believe in yet. Man is above all? Why? Why not say bugs bunny is above all? I stand on the side of: Bugs Bunny is above all. Woo-hoo, that had a lot of depth and reason behind it. p.s. Ayn Rand is one of the great promoters of capitalism, but ultimately what she had to offer was hollow because she focused on the finite world. If man's existence is finite (i.e. short) then it is ultimately meaningless. What did Galt's gulch mean in the end? Say that Rearden was able to build all the buildings in the world with his metal, and Taggart transcontinental was able to build a railroad to the moon. In the end, who cares? This encapsulates my point, man: if the here and now is all you've got, then all you've got is an inconsistent ultimately meaningless wasteland. Reality is like a big puzzle that we all have to put together. And reality will never make sense without God because He is the biggest piece of the puzzle. Add him to the equation and it all makes sense. Leave him out and nothing makes sense. Again, I am appealing to logic and observation alone here, not someone else's dogma or some moral imperative.
Lets get real here. You are obviously an intelligent person, but your statement flies in the face of reality (even though you are being facetious). When my dog craps on the carpet maybe I'll just leave it there and hope he picks it up... No, I'm gonna pick it up then smack his ass so hopefully he won't do it again. There is a natural order that must be abided by being the most intelligent species on earth. "This encapsulates my point, man: if the here and now is all you've got, then all you've got is an inconsistent ultimately meaningless wasteland" Which brings the point: If you are living the here and now for later, why live now?? No matter what happens after you die, you will never know the outcome. I'm sorry, I can't live my life as an excuse for what might happen after I die. Then again, if I was promised 70 virgins I might change my attitude
Originally posted by Bronks When my dog craps on the carpet maybe I'll just leave it there and hope he picks it up... No, I'm gonna pick it up then smack his ass so hopefully he won't do it again. Now this is where I have to disagree with you. First of all you shouldn't allow your dog to crap on the carpet. Secondly smacking him will only encourage him to do it again because it is the attention whether in a form of a smack or a kick he wants. He may be in need of attention which he feels is lacking in your relationship. Try taking him out for walks so he doesn't use your carpet as a toilet bowl.
so you are basically saying that god represents this backbone that we must hang our minute lives on to keep the cumulative impact of our species in harmony with the universe? i must admit that this discussion goes well beyond my level of preparedness, so don't expect strong opposition from me. however, my intuition always starts yelling "occam's razor! use the occam's razor!" at me every time somebody starts to use artificial constructs (excuse my profanity) to explain things that i've never felt need extra explanation. so if somebody says that an apple fell from a tree because it was god's will, i say, well, i think the apple did not have much choice than to obey the laws of nature. if you want to draw an equation mark between god and laws of nature then be my guest. however, if you insist that the god is something above the laws of nature, then i must disagree, because i'm a believer in occam's razor -- one should always throw out the ballast. now, i'm also a firm believer in natural evolution. i believe that the evolution from space dust to amino acids to bacteria to animals to homo sapiens to whatever will come next, is just how things happen in this universe, not necessarily part of a greater plan. this belief is rubbed in by increasing scientific evidence that life is much less picky about the initial conditions than we have previously thought. so, finally, here's my question to you: would you accept that what the people perceive as god might possibly be just some mental mechanism developed by nature to give our species some competitive advantage in the form of "coherence with the universe while carrying the curse of conciousness"? or would you say one should never use the word god and something as mundane as natural evolution in the same sentence? - jaan p.s. i'm well aware that i might have grossly missed your point here -- if so, then i'm sorry. i can see that you've put much more effort into thinking about this subject than i ever have.
Jaan: Look forward to giving a reply to your thoughtful question, just have other fish to fry this afternoon, will post it w/in next 24 hrs....
are the commandments of a god "good" for the simple reason the god had commanded them, or because the god recognized what was good and commanded accordingly? If good is whatever the god wishes it to be, then anything could be considered good as there would be no way of knowing what the god might desire next. Also, it would follow that the assertion "god is good" is meaningless. murder would be just a likely to be "good" as would "loving your neighbor". However, if there is an inherent "good" and god's commandments are based on this independent standard, then he cannot be the source of morality. We no longer need this god for our moral standards, we can simply go right to the source. we do not need to depend on the moral whims of a god for a standard of ethical behaviour, we can develop a humanistic natural standard based on reason, compassion, utility, and pragmatism. is it not more reasonable to reason the consequences of a particular action or behaviour than to try to inculcate by mindless repetition a list of do's & dont's from some dubious source? of course it is. :-/ ps jaan, i wholeheartedly agree with you. there is a god because man needs one. however, "he" has now outlived his usefulness and whatever advantage (if any) he imparted.