How would one live in godless world?

What is right? Is there right? Are you right?

Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Memphisis on Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 pm
([msg=20942]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:Hi Memphis,

i dont care if people believe or not. i posted my comment because its 20 years of research and is also a leading stastic so if your gonna slandered down my comments please do it with some respect and not sarcasticly because if i think your comment is the right one and my is wrong ill admit it.


I wasn't asking you to admit that you were wrong. If you look back at what I was saying, you'll see that I was actually leaving room for you to be right. However your number sounds quite high (i.e. 45% of the world not believing in God) so I wanted some clarification as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

"20 years of research" isn't much of an answer, btw. I hope you won't take that the wrong way as it's not meant to be personal, but if I told you that 67% of all people who expressed faith in a God of some kind lived much more happy and fulfilling lives than people who don't express any faith in a God, would you accept my statement as being correct simply because I told you there is a lot of "research" behind me to prove it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no i would not accept the statement but i would acknowledge it and find out if theres fact behind it
Memphisis
New User
New User
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Trace09 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:24 pm
([msg=20961]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:Hi Trace,

Thanks for responding and thanks for the compliment.

When I said "people who believe in god need to know what they are believing in" I am generally talking about people who call themselves a faith and yet don't understand what that faith entails or the history of such faith.


Thanks for clarifying this point of yours and I accept it as a very relevant point to make. I think I share your frustration in this area, though we may go about expressing that frustration in different ways, which is fine, too. This is why I had a problem with you using the Bush example, because he really does not represent what Christianity entails.

I have found that humanity, in of itself, is sustainable without religion. One thing Jesus did get right was "Do on to others as you wish to be done on to you". I believe that if this was used as law, or at least if everyone followed it, harmony would soon follow.


I think that "religion" in general has been heavily abused, which you touched on in your letter, and I'm sorry it is that way. In your previous post I was a bit worried that perhaps you had allowed your (understandable) frustration with the state of religion to prevent you from seeing any good in Christianity, but it's great to see that you are able to chew the meat and spit out the bones on at least some of Jesus' teachings, like the golden rule. You've really encouraged me with that comment. If you are promoting the Golden Rule then I'd say you've probably got a bit more salt in you than you realise. ;)

However, people who need God to reinforce that rule are, as I stated above, pathetic. Must humans use god as a parental figure? Why not grow up?


Actually, my understanding of Christianity is that God DOES want us to become spiritually mature, but I think there is a difference between "growing up" for the sake of gaining more maturity and "growing up" for the sake of saying "I don't need you anymore". It seems reasonable to me that if I were God and I created life, I would want that life to understand my role in it's creation and to respect that role. If you feel that is unreasonable, then maybe you can elaborate a bit more on that.

As for people needing God to reinforce a rule, I think that is a slight misunderstanding of what it means to have a healthy relationship with God. We all need guidance from time to time and we all need discipline MOST of the time. Discipline should not be a dirty word, but it seems to be a natural human instinct that we really do not like being told what to do and what not to do. I see it as a problem with US more than a problem with a higher intelligence because if it really IS a higher intelligence making demands of us then it seems a bit silly to ignore that. Common sense implies that we will bow to a higher intelligence than our own in these kinds of matters, if we can only get over our pride at being told what's good for us and what's not good for us.

The main point I was making about the bible is that religion is a business, a tax free one, and by altering the bible to suit ones needs, it can be a very profitable business, unlike map making.


Well, I'm not sure that a business angle was really the point of your comments about the Bible being edited, though I can see how it applies and I agree with you that there is far too much abuse. Just for clarity I'd like to list a few examples of What Jesus really did say about money. Believe it or not there really are people out there who honest to God apply these teachings.
"you can't work for God and money at the same time"
"forsake all you have if you want to follow me"
"Heaven belongs to the poor"
"Beware the deceitfulness of riches"

As for 3 out of 4, I was referring to the fact that one of Jesus' best buddies simply "forgot" to mention he was born from a virgin, which, although isn't that big of a deal, you would think it would be important to write about. If I'm not mistaken, the virgin birth WAS in fact an EDIT by king James. Am I not correct?(really not sure)
I do however feel that in a historical writing such as this, that a VIRGIN BIRTH would be important... you do make a point though.


Actually while I can appreciate what the virgin birth is meant to convey, personally I almost prefer if it had never even been mentioned, as it seems people always end up arguing over the "miraculous" stuff and they forget all about the actual teachings of Jesus, which is the point you were making earlier about people not even understanding what they get into when they decide to become a Christian. In fact, Jesus himself got a bit sick of people demanding miracles and told the people that an evil generation seeks a sign (as opposed to just listening to him). Pretty amazing considering how important miracles are to most people these days!

the Egyptian god Horus has almost the same exact life Jesus lived, just saying it disputes the life of Jesus... as if it was simply written... not lived. Follow link...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm


Hmmm, I still don't see how someone living a similar life to Jesus actually disputes the life of Jesus. Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

Haha! No, it is an actual number. It was an actual poll. I did a project on it for a philosophy class a couple years back. I was getting on to the bashing side, sorry if it sounded to harsh. I get to ranting sometimes.


Thanks for that explanation, though I still feel a bit more clarification is necessary. 98% is a HUGE number but what kind of sample area are we talking about? Your town? A particular school or series of schools? Your country? An entire continent? Can you see how knowing that information makes a huge difference in how people will interpret your information? Just saying that 98% of scientists are atheists is a bit misleading, I feel.

As for me only putting 90% and you putting 99%, there were several wars fought over women, rights, and simply because one guy pissed off another. Not just money!


Of your right, you did say 90%. I misread it; sorry. However, I think that if you look deeply enough at women and rights you'll see some very strong connections to greed in general. I used the word money in my earlier post but a better word would be greed, which includes situations that may not directly involve money, but still represent the same general problem of fighting to get more in some way.

Take a step off the literal train... No, not all cults are not defined by the slaughtering of animals and drinking of Blood... yes I was referring to Catholicism... take a joke once in a while? In all technicality, humans are animals... if you want to take it that far.


Hmmm, perhaps you should try to make your jokes more funnier? :geek:

And that is where you are wrong... scientist hope for the SAME results when doing the same experiment.... are you retarded? Why would they hope for something different to happen? Use that literal brain of yours? =] Haha!


Yes occasionally I am retarded, but I think my point still applies in this situation. A scientist does NOT hope for the same failed results when attempting successful results for a particular experiment. Scientists have been repeating experiments for a cure to cancer for God knows how many years now always hoping for success, but never quite finding it exactly; yet they continue with the same quest over and over again...nukin futs, right?

It is done out of love, I want them to realize what they are going to church FOR, WHY they go, Why they SHOULD read and study the bible, not just go because "momma said"... does that make since?


It makes sense only to the extent that you actually do have something better to offer them. Obviously you think you do, ,but I don't think you've presented that case very well except for that part about the golden rule.

That is how Ive lived and Ive never felt better. I don't feel like I have this extra person to impress... That I don't have to have an imaginary person to take all my problems away. I learned to deal with them myself. I want others to know that feeling. Again, sorry for the unnecessary bashing, some I do feel was required though.


I don't believe you never try to impress people. Perhaps you are saying that your problem is in trying to impress someone you feel is not really there, you can't see, who does not talk back to you if you try to talk to him, etc. However, I don't see a problem with people trying to impress an invisible God. I think the problem comes in HOW people try to impress him, and to some extent I don't think it really matters to God whether you believe in him or not; I think he will be impressed REGARDLESS of your personal belief in his existence or lack of it because what he is most concerned about in life is our actions and our motivations for doing them.

For example, an atheist who does his best to love others will be more impressive to God than a supposed Christian who gives lots of tithes to the church, says his prayers, sings beautifully, prays beautifully, etc...Jesus said there will be some big surprises in the end, when the children are cast out of the kingdom and in their place they see strangers (like Gandhi) strutting in. :D

anyway, gotta go. late for my movie!!!

BTW, if you feel some bashing is necessary, then perhaps it's fair enough for that parental figure you mentioned earlier to also feel like some "bashing" is necessary at times too, right? Maybe the issues are a bit more gray than you give them credit for. ;)



Again, I have to say, you are a great debater! Not just the typical flamer that the internet has created over these last several years.

"It seems reasonable to me that if I were God and I created life, I would want that life to understand my role in it's creation and to respect that role. If you feel that is unreasonable, then maybe you can elaborate a bit more on that."
The simplest way I can explain it is I see that humans are using GOD as a crutch. As a way to say, even if my life is horrible, he will always be there sort of thing. I think that if we move out of DADs house and live on our own where WE have to pay the bills... life would be much different, we couldn't just mess up and expect GOD to fix it all when it gets bad, we will have to take responsibility for our own actions without HIM. I believe that for some people, still being in contact with DAD is a good thing, gives them something to live for, however, I feel that they need to stop basing their lives on HIM without regard to their own lives. When your out of DADs house though, HIS rules don't apply... and I think that that is where we need to be going... towards a Deists/Atheist/Agnostic sort of society... I feel that I wander between the three from time to time. For example, I can't explain how the universe began(deism) but I don't want to believe in one god (agnostic) and I fell that religion in general has gone to far(atheist).

As for Jesus and Horus, my point was the fact that Horus did the exact same things Jesus did and yet he is not praised nearly as much, if at all, anymore... they are so alike that they even share the same birth date(or close to it). And yet, very few people know Horus or HIS teachings, which, were parallel to Jesus' and a long time before Jesus was born. One could even speculate (with out evidence of course) that a single man simply copied the story of Horus, changed a few things around, and created his own story of fiction (the bible). I believe the main point however was the fact that people don't know any other religion... they are in a dark room and to them Christianity(or another religion) is the only source of light because they don't CARE to know about anything else... it was the way they were raised. Yet, I believe that if the general population was to see every religion, and giving a choice to follow any religion at an experienced age, most would(more than likely) probably just result to going towards Agnosticism or Atheism because of its freedom. And I hope that people will not be stuck in their ways and will allow their children to make IMPORTANT decisions such as these for themselves.

As for 98%, it was a random survey I had found, nation wide (USA) on scientist mostly with physicist or similar backgrounds. However, this was a few years back, no clue if it is still accurate or even if another poll has ever been done.

"Scientists have been repeating experiments for a cure to cancer for God knows how many years now always hoping for success, but never quite finding it exactly; yet they continue with the same quest over and over again...nukin futs, right?"

My mother in law says nuking futs all the time HAHA! However, The Scientist do not perform the SAME experiment every time looking for DIFFERENT results. They may be looking for the cure for cancer but they don't want their failed experiment to all of a sudden start working the next time because it would discredit them as a scientist. No matter HOW bad they want the cure. However, they do repeat experiments looking for the SAME results to make sure they did it correct the first time. When searching for the Cure, they do different tests all looking for the Cure, but when they eliminate something as a cure, they expect it to stay that way... no matter how many times they do it.

Again, you are a very intelligent debater, and I am glad to see that you see two sides of an argument!
Trace09
New User
New User
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:44 am
([msg=20988]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

HI Memphis,

no i would not accept the statement but i would acknowledge it and find out if theres fact behind it


I think that's what I was doing when I said...

However your number sounds quite high (i.e. 45% of the world not believing in God) so I wanted some clarification as to how you arrived at that conclusion.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Trace,

The simplest way I can explain it is I see that humans are using GOD as a crutch.


I wouldn't say this is the simplest way to explain it, but I would say it is a simplistic way to explain it, if you get my meaning. It's another one of those extreme statements. I mean, I get what you probably mean by it, but it's still confusing as to what you actually mean. "Humans" would, of necessity, include yourself in this category of people who use God as a crutch. It would also almost certainly include people who do have some kind of faith in God but who do NOT use him as a crutch in the way you've explained. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by using God as a crutch.

As a way to say, even if my life is horrible, he will always be there sort of thing. I


This kind of thing is not limited to God. People habitually express similar feelings towards other people. Families are probably the biggest example of this, with friendships coming in a close second. It is common for people to assume that their family will always be there for them and that "blood is thicker than water". Do you feel the same kind of enmity when people express these kinds of feelings towards friends and family as you do when they express these kinds of feelings towards God?

we couldn't just mess up and expect GOD to fix it all when it gets bad, we will have to take responsibility for our own actions without HIM.


I think you are experiencing a genuine frustration, but that you are expressing it in ignorance, as though the only answer to fixing the problem of hypocrisy in the church is for people to just forget about God altogether, rather than expecting the hypocrites to change. The genuine article has no obligation to bow to the counterfeits just because some people are bugged with the counterfeits.

As for taking responsibility, it's interesting that you mention this because I think it relates back to the issue of morals. True Christianity is basically the same as true anarchy; if you are walking in all the light that you have then you should not need rules to force you into doing the right thing. The whole point of Christianity is to guide people to reaching the point where they don't even need the Bible or teachers or even a religion anymore, because they will be taking responsibility for themselves. This philosophy is reflected in the Golden rule. If we learn to habitually consider the needs and wants of others around us, and if we learn to judge ourselves with the same measure that we are prepared to judge others, then there will be no need for rules or correction. It's true that we don't necessarily NEED God, or the Bible, or rules in order to achieve that kind of lifestyle, but then again you don't really NEED a map of Nairobi if I was to tell you to come and find the internet shop where I am currently typing this post, but it sure would HELP, wouldn't it?

When your out of DADs house though, HIS rules don't apply...


That may be true, but first I'd need to know what rules you are talking about, and then I'd need to know why you feel such a strong need to get away from those rules. Are they unfair rules? Are they abusive rules? Are they stupid rules? Is it that the rules are too difficult to apply or are they too difficult to understand? If so, how and why? It seems a bit illogical to me that IF there really is this higher intelligence making rules, to turn against those rules without a VERY good reason.

As for Jesus and Horus, my point was the fact that Horus did the exact same things Jesus did and yet he is not praised nearly as much, if at all, anymore... they are so alike that they even share the same birth date(or close to it). And yet, very few people know Horus or HIS teachings, which, were parallel to Jesus' and a long time before Jesus was born.


Ok, so very few people know about Horus, and even fewer give him praise. I still don't see how that disputes the life of Jesus. I don't know who did the majority of work in making this website, but I don't see a need to make a contest between any two site developers just because one may be getting more acknowledgment than another. If Horus really was that similar to Jesus, then God bless him for it.

One could even speculate (with out evidence of course) that a single man simply copied the story of Horus, changed a few things around, and created his own story of fiction (the bible).


One could speculate such things, but then again, one would seriously wonder why such speculations (especially without evidence) are relevant in the first place.

I believe the main point however was the fact that people don't know any other religion... they are in a dark room and to them Christianity(or another religion) is the only source of light because they don't CARE to know about anything else... it was the way they were raised. Y


Yes and no. There will always be people who get stuck into a particular pattern and never really desire a change. You've applied this lesson to Christianity, but hopefully you can see that a)maybe such people don't look for change because they are satisfied with what they have and b)this lesson can easily ALSO apply to atheists. If you are making a point about ignorance or blind following, please don't believe Christians have a monopoly on something that really is a human characteristic in general.

In this day and age there is a HUGE opportunity for experiencing new and different things. Books, movies, the internet, schools, marketing on the streets, magazines, word of mouth, etc all present opportunities for people to hear about something new.

Yet, I believe that if the general population was to see every religion, and giving a choice to follow any religion at an experienced age, most would(more than likely) probably just result to going towards Agnosticism or Atheism because of its freedom.


Hmmmm, can you explain this freedom, and how it is different from Christianity (I won't ask you to explain how it is different to every other religion out there, even though I COULD rightly ask you to do so since you made the comparison...)
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Trace09 on Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:32 pm
([msg=20997]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:
Hi Trace,

The simplest way I can explain it is I see that humans are using GOD as a crutch.


I wouldn't say this is the simplest way to explain it, but I would say it is a simplistic way to explain it, if you get my meaning. It's another one of those extreme statements. I mean, I get what you probably mean by it, but it's still confusing as to what you actually mean. "Humans" would, of necessity, include yourself in this category of people who use God as a crutch. It would also almost certainly include people who do have some kind of faith in God but who do NOT use him as a crutch in the way you've explained. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by using God as a crutch.

As a way to say, even if my life is horrible, he will always be there sort of thing. I


This kind of thing is not limited to God. People habitually express similar feelings towards other people. Families are probably the biggest example of this, with friendships coming in a close second. It is common for people to assume that their family will always be there for them and that "blood is thicker than water". Do you feel the same kind of enmity when people express these kinds of feelings towards friends and family as you do when they express these kinds of feelings towards God?

we couldn't just mess up and expect GOD to fix it all when it gets bad, we will have to take responsibility for our own actions without HIM.


I think you are experiencing a genuine frustration, but that you are expressing it in ignorance, as though the only answer to fixing the problem of hypocrisy in the church is for people to just forget about God altogether, rather than expecting the hypocrites to change. The genuine article has no obligation to bow to the counterfeits just because some people are bugged with the counterfeits.

As for taking responsibility, it's interesting that you mention this because I think it relates back to the issue of morals. True Christianity is basically the same as true anarchy; if you are walking in all the light that you have then you should not need rules to force you into doing the right thing. The whole point of Christianity is to guide people to reaching the point where they don't even need the Bible or teachers or even a religion anymore, because they will be taking responsibility for themselves. This philosophy is reflected in the Golden rule. If we learn to habitually consider the needs and wants of others around us, and if we learn to judge ourselves with the same measure that we are prepared to judge others, then there will be no need for rules or correction. It's true that we don't necessarily NEED God, or the Bible, or rules in order to achieve that kind of lifestyle, but then again you don't really NEED a map of Nairobi if I was to tell you to come and find the internet shop where I am currently typing this post, but it sure would HELP, wouldn't it?

When your out of DADs house though, HIS rules don't apply...


That may be true, but first I'd need to know what rules you are talking about, and then I'd need to know why you feel such a strong need to get away from those rules. Are they unfair rules? Are they abusive rules? Are they stupid rules? Is it that the rules are too difficult to apply or are they too difficult to understand? If so, how and why? It seems a bit illogical to me that IF there really is this higher intelligence making rules, to turn against those rules without a VERY good reason.

As for Jesus and Horus, my point was the fact that Horus did the exact same things Jesus did and yet he is not praised nearly as much, if at all, anymore... they are so alike that they even share the same birth date(or close to it). And yet, very few people know Horus or HIS teachings, which, were parallel to Jesus' and a long time before Jesus was born.


Ok, so very few people know about Horus, and even fewer give him praise. I still don't see how that disputes the life of Jesus. I don't know who did the majority of work in making this website, but I don't see a need to make a contest between any two site developers just because one may be getting more acknowledgment than another. If Horus really was that similar to Jesus, then God bless him for it.

One could even speculate (with out evidence of course) that a single man simply copied the story of Horus, changed a few things around, and created his own story of fiction (the bible).


One could speculate such things, but then again, one would seriously wonder why such speculations (especially without evidence) are relevant in the first place.

I believe the main point however was the fact that people don't know any other religion... they are in a dark room and to them Christianity(or another religion) is the only source of light because they don't CARE to know about anything else... it was the way they were raised. Y


Yes and no. There will always be people who get stuck into a particular pattern and never really desire a change. You've applied this lesson to Christianity, but hopefully you can see that a)maybe such people don't look for change because they are satisfied with what they have and b)this lesson can easily ALSO apply to atheists. If you are making a point about ignorance or blind following, please don't believe Christians have a monopoly on something that really is a human characteristic in general.

In this day and age there is a HUGE opportunity for experiencing new and different things. Books, movies, the internet, schools, marketing on the streets, magazines, word of mouth, etc all present opportunities for people to hear about something new.

Yet, I believe that if the general population was to see every religion, and giving a choice to follow any religion at an experienced age, most would(more than likely) probably just result to going towards Agnosticism or Atheism because of its freedom.


Hmmmm, can you explain this freedom, and how it is different from Christianity (I won't ask you to explain how it is different to every other religion out there, even though I COULD rightly ask you to do so since you made the comparison...)



"This kind of thing is not limited to God. People habitually express similar feelings towards other people. Families are probably the biggest example of this, with friendships coming in a close second. It is common for people to assume that their family will always be there for them and that "blood is thicker than water". Do you feel the same kind of enmity when people express these kinds of feelings towards friends and family as you do when they express these kinds of feelings towards God? "

I think we are past God, I think that society has grown out of its imaginary friend. We are using God for things he was not intended for and we need to stop. Without God, I honestly think things would go much smoother. We need to see the reality and get our heads out of the sand thinking that God will fix it!


"As for taking responsibility, it's interesting that you mention this because I think it relates back to the issue of morals. True Christianity is basically the same as true anarchy; if you are walking in all the light that you have then you should not need rules to force you into doing the right thing. The whole point of Christianity is to guide people to reaching the point where they don't even need the Bible or teachers or even a religion anymore, because they will be taking responsibility for themselves. This philosophy is reflected in the Golden rule. If we learn to habitually consider the needs and wants of others around us, and if we learn to judge ourselves with the same measure that we are prepared to judge others, then there will be no need for rules or correction. It's true that we don't necessarily NEED God, or the Bible, or rules in order to achieve that kind of lifestyle, but then again you don't really NEED a map of Nairobi if I was to tell you to come and find the internet shop where I am currently typing this post, but it sure would HELP, wouldn't it?"

This is my point! We don't NEED god anymore, if god wasn't a factor today, I doubt anything would change except for the fact that it wouldn't be used to win elections or a reason to go to war. As for the map, I think we have BEEN there enough times that we know how to get there... don't you? Don't you think society(with an exception of a select few killers) has the golden rule down... don't you think we know how to get there without the map?


"That may be true, but first I'd need to know what rules you are talking about, and then I'd need to know why you feel such a strong need to get away from those rules. Are they unfair rules? Are they abusive rules? Are they stupid rules? Is it that the rules are too difficult to apply or are they too difficult to understand? If so, how and why? It seems a bit illogical to me that IF there really is this higher intelligence making rules, to turn against those rules without a VERY good reason. "

Do I have to explain this one? Religious rules are put in place so that uncivilized people behave, I believe in a godless world, like the one I live in, people could actually get along. Most religions were "created" in simpler times where killing was perfectly fine, rape and stealing were perfectly fine. In our world today, I doubt there would be a need for religious laws simply because most national laws have the same effects, except for the fact that our nations are not jealous of each other like God is. Also, we are not FORCED to go to church or praise our nations. In fact, in the united states, it is perfectly fine to not stand or pledge to the flag if you so choose(which you shouldn't anyways because a pledge is suppose to be a life long commitment anyways and pledging your allegiance everyday simply means that you didn't mean it the last time you did it... but that is another topic) because of freedom of speech. In our lives now, church shouldn't be a factor, it simply takes time out of our day. Why waste time praising God when you can spend time with your family?


" I still don't see how that disputes the life of Jesus"
Not so much saying it does.... Its more along the lines of the fact that people don't see their choices when it come to religion... they don't care to.

Freedom... The typical "Religion" has a set of rules that people follow out of faith to be right and just. I see Atheism as free because there are no commandments or laws etc. Instead, one must do what he/she feels is the Right thing to do, not just follow your parents rules because they said so... It shows maturity to make such decisions without a deity threatening damnation on you.
Trace09
New User
New User
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:33 am
([msg=21056]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

I think we are past God, I think that society has grown out of its imaginary friend. We are using God for things he was not intended for and we need to stop. Without God, I honestly think things would go much smoother. We need to see the reality and get our heads out of the sand thinking that God will fix it!


Don't look now, Trace, but you just side stepped my question.

if god wasn't a factor today, I doubt anything would change except for the fact that it wouldn't be used to win elections or a reason to go to war.


I totally agree with you about all the evil that has come about as a result of abuse of religion but I think you are still making the same mistake that I mentioned in my previous post. For example, if several random hackers went around to other sites distributing viruses, hacking destructively, bragging about how hacking is all about doing anything and every illegal thing that can be done with a computer, and just generally screwing things up, should the admin of Hackthissite.org feel compelled to shut the site down in an attempt to convince people that life would be so much better without hacking?

What is the difference between that example, and what you are asking of God?

As for the map, I think we have BEEN there enough times that we know how to get there... don't you?


Ok, so come find me in Nairobi. I'm at a chat shop called Golden cyber on Mama Ngina street. I look forward to you standing by your word! Remember, no maps!

Don't you think society(with an exception of a select few killers) has the golden rule down...


You've got to be kidding me, right? BTW, I am of the opinion that it is misleading to one's self to take the attitude that we've ever got any of these really important issues "down". I look at it like a journey where there is always more to learn on how to better apply things like the Golden Rule.

don't you think we know how to get there without the map?


Well, the proof is in the pudding. The most practical way to get the answer for yourself is to pick a spot in the world that you've never been to and try to get to that place without any kind of map or asking directions (since that would still fall under the same general category of help as a map would). When you're done being proud about the fact that you don't need anyone's help let me know.

I believe in a godless world, like the one I live in, people could actually get along.


Yes, "could" is a very convenient word in this context.

Most religions were "created" in simpler times where killing was perfectly fine, rape and stealing were perfectly fine. In our world today, I doubt there would be a need for religious laws simply because most national laws have the same effects,


It sounds like you are admitting that some of the religious rules actually had a positive effect on people. Is that right? What is the problem with making national AND religious rules about the same things? For example, you mention rape. Is it really necessary to say that you don't want a God who says not to rape, because you've got a government that says not to rape? If the same end is achieved, why make such a fuss?

except for the fact that our nations are not jealous of each other like God is.


My goodness, but what planet are you living on? Our nations are not jealous of each other? Seeing as how I don't have any nations I probably find it difficult to relate to you on this one, but based on what I've seen of the world around me, I think I need a bit more explanation as to what you mean by this as I simply cannot see your logic.

In fact, in the united states, it is perfectly fine to not stand or pledge to the flag if you so choose(which you shouldn't anyways because a pledge is suppose to be a life long commitment anyways and pledging your allegiance everyday simply means that you didn't mean it the last time you did it... but that is another topic


I agree with you about the futility of saying the pledge, but probably for different reasons. Personally I think it's silly to pledge one's allegiance to any government. Far better to pledge one's allegiance to an ideal and stick with it. For example, if you live in America, England, or France and you've said the allegiance even once, then you are pledging yourself to all the actions of Bush and his regime.

Why waste time praising God when you can spend time with your family?


I think you are very good at seeing things from your own point of view and that is probably why you find it hard to consider that some people do NOT see praising what they view as a higher intelligence as a waste of time. It is interesting that you mention this idea of wasting time and religion together, because there are some people out there who view wage slaves in the same way.

A wage slave is someone who believes that money is the source of life. He believes that if he does not work to get more of these little bits of paper and metal then he will die. In fact, he believes it so strongly that he finds it extremely uncomfortable to admit to himself that if all the money in the world disappeared then all the food and other resources would still be around. He goes off to work everyday safe and secure in his illusion that a piece of paper with the number 5 written on it is worth more than a gallon of milk because of his faith in the government that tells him it is so. I guess we all have faith of some kind.

However, Jesus told his followers to stop working for money, and to start working for love. In other words, don't let money be the motivation for why you do what you do. I think part of your frustration with the religion of today comes because his followers have NOT been doing that. Instead they've all been playing in the same old greed game as most other organizations out there. If you want a revolution that will bring freedom then I suggest trying this radical method to tackling greed head on.

I see Atheism as free because there are no commandments or laws etc.


This is a bit like the anarchy thing I mentioned earlier. There are two kinds of anarchy, and perhaps two kinds of atheism. One is the kind where people say that they don't need to be told what to do because they are already busy doing what they should be doing anyway. The other kind is where people say that they don't want to be told what to do simply because they don't like be told what to do.

One is based on the actions of the person and the other is based on pride. Correction is a natural part of life, especially for people as imperfect as us. Sure it would be nice if we all judged ourselves and others fairly and did what we are supposed to do, but the fact is that we don't. I think this leads back to an earlier question (several, actually) about the rules of God that you don't like and why you don't like them. I asked you to list some of these rules that you have so much trouble with accepting; so much so that you feel the world would be better off without them. Can you explain why you think the world would be better off without a rule that says to help orphans and widows? Can you explain why you think the world would be better off without a rule that says to share what we have with one another? Can you explain why you think the world would be better off with a rule that says people should help each other because they want to and not just because they expect to get something in return?

It shows maturity to make such decisions without a deity threatening damnation on you.


Actually, I think a better example of maturity would be to except that there are consequences to our actions in this life, whether you see those consequences as coming from a God or not. If you don't work, you don't eat. If you don't eat, you die. That is a consequence of laziness. Who do you blame for that threatening action?

As for eternal damnation, well, I don't really have an opinion on it. I've actually got insurance that covers both scenarios. If there is no such thing then nothing I've done with my life matters anyway; whether good or bad it was all meaningless and I choof off to some kind of eternal blackness or whatever happens.

If there is such a thing I certainly don't plan to be there as I am making a conscious effort to walk in all the light that I have, which I've been told is good enough to pass. The more goodness I attempt to do beyond that minimum requirement counts towards eternal rewards, (ahem), so I've been told.

Can you explain a bit more why you have a problem with consequences?
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by NightStalker111 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:24 am
([msg=21303]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:[...]everyone makes their own rules about what is "right" or "wrong", which I think is a very slippery slope.



I guess that's we're our beliefs differ. You believe in an inherent (or objective) "Right and Wrong". I do not. I believe that "right and wrong" is completely and utterly subjective.

To me, there is only action and reaction. If god hates me for what I have done in life, that doesn't mean what I did was 'wrong'. It just means that god disagreed with me.
NightStalker111
New User
New User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:58 pm
([msg=21306]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

You believe in an inherent (or objective) "Right and Wrong".


Hmmm, I know I'm supposed to understand my own beliefs, I'm just not sure if I understand your interpretation of my beliefs. Can you clarify what you mean by inherent? Like, how do you understand that to work?

I believe that "right and wrong" is completely and utterly subjective.


I think I may know what you mean by this, but could you give an example or two to make it more clear?

If god hates me for what I have done in life, that doesn't mean what I did was 'wrong'. It just means that god disagreed with me.


I get the feeling that you probably don't believe in a God, but I hope you can understand that, even so, in the context of this statement, it really does sound a bit absurd. In the context of your statement there IS a God whom you claim disagrees with YOU, rather than you disagreeing with HIM. The obvious question is,(in the context of there being a God who even exists to hate you in the first place for disagreeing with you, remember) Who has more authority to be right about what is right and wrong?

Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption that you believe there is no God, but even then I think my point about who has more authority to dictate right and wrong still applies.
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by NightStalker111 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:23 pm
([msg=21324]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

Hmmm, I know I'm supposed to understand my own beliefs, I'm just not sure if I understand your interpretation of my beliefs. Can you clarify what you mean by inherent? Like, how do you understand that to work?


What I meant when I used the word "Inherent" was that you seem to believe that there is a "universal" right and wrong. Actions that are deemed as "right" are always right. That people cannot choose what is right and wrong, only what they think is right and wrong. No?

I believe that "right and wrong" is completely and utterly subjective.


I think I may know what you mean by this, but could you give an example or two to make it more clear?


I'm saying that people choose what "right" is and what "wrong" is. That there is no "universal" right and wrong. For example: If I found an old beer can on the side of the road, I'd pick it up and recycle it. Not because it was the 'right' thing to do, but because I like helping support society.

If god hates me for what I have done in life, that doesn't mean what I did was 'wrong'. It just means that god disagreed with me.


I get the feeling that you probably don't believe in a God, but I hope you can understand that, even so, in the context of this statement, it really does sound a bit absurd. In the context of your statement there IS a God whom you claim disagrees with YOU, rather than you disagreeing with HIM. The obvious question is,(in the context of there being a God who even exists to hate you in the first place for disagreeing with you, remember) Who has more authority to be right about what is right and wrong?

Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption that you believe there is no God, but even then I think my point about who has more authority to dictate right and wrong still applies.


I was using it as an example. I was assuming god existed for the purpose of the argument. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was trying to help explain my point that "There is no right and wrong". Poor example I suppose.

You seem surprised though, at the fact I said god would've disagreed with me instead of the other way 'round. If I did something God did not like, wouldn't he be the one who was upset with my actions? I'm not disagreeing with his way of life, I'm merely living my own way. If he were upset by or to punish me for living my own way, would that not be a sign of HIS disagreement?

To answer your question, Who has more authority to be right about what is right and wrong?: neither of us. He feels his way and I feel my way. He's not right and neither am I. He's not wrong and neither am I. We both feel differently that's all. He has power over me, sure. That doesn't mean he's right (or wrong for that matter).
NightStalker111
New User
New User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by radicool_systemite on Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:29 am
([msg=21618]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

What I meant when I used the word "Inherent" was that you seem to believe that there is a "universal" right and wrong


HAHAHA can you explain what you mean by universal? :P

Actions that are deemed as "right" are always right.


Definitely NOT.

That people cannot choose what is right and wrong, only what they think is right and wrong. No?


You've worded this in a funny way. The way I see it is, there probably IS an absolute right and wrong, but it is in the APPLICATION of that principle that people usually fuck things up. In other words, this absolute "right" is so absolutely perfect that it takes into account each individual situation while at the same time it is also able to apply itself to the overall situation of life in general. It is not the "absolute right" that is in question so much as it is people's fallible and, sometimes gross, understanding of that "absolute right".

I'm saying that people choose what "right" is and what "wrong" is. That there is no "universal" right and wrong.


There is an absolutely HUGE leap of logic here. It sounds like a nice theory in that everyone takes responsibility for themselves, but I believe this idea is an illusion of the kind of freedom that it pretends to represent because it simply does not work in real life.

Perhaps the terminology of "universal right and wrong" is what's making this discussion confusion. I prefer the phrase "the Golden rule". If I may be so bold as to contradict myself for a moment here, I do believe the Golden rule is very similar, if not the same as, that "absolute right" that I mentioned in my first paragraph which is able to take into account each individual situation as well as the over all picture.

With your theory, someone could break into your house, steal all your stuff, and possibly harm you in the attempt, and you couldn't say anything. You could not try to stop the thief or call the police or whatever without impinging on that thief's right to define his own right and wrong. You could argue that, according to your OWN definition of right and wrong, it would be right for your to protect yourself, but can you see where that is leading? We end up with a world full of people only thinking about themselves and convincing themselves that they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Well, technically they are within their rights to think that way, but the end result is one gigantic traffic jam of human arrogance and greed. Because people are naturally greedy, selfish, proud, stubborn, dishonest, and fearful, we need something bigger than our own personal standards of judgment when deciding what is a "right" or "wrong" course of action, and yet, at the same time a measurement based on our own personal standards are exactly what we need!

That is where the Golden rule comes in. In essence it says "do to others what you would want them to do to you." I believe this rule is perfect simply because it is based on the individual. If you don't want people stealing from you, then by your OWN standard, it becomes wrong for you to steal from others. If people would learn to follow this rule habitually then so many of the world's problems, (if not all) would simply go away.

For example: If I found an old beer can on the side of the road, I'd pick it up and recycle it. Not because it was the 'right' thing to do, but because I like helping support society.


Actually, the golden rule applies to this example too, and ironically is something that some friends of mine and I are dealing with on a much larger scale right now. Have you heard of "freeganism"?

Anyway, the issue here is much bigger than a can on the side of the road and a right and wrong most definitely applies because of that. The world's resources are finite. That means there can only be so many cans tossed away to be wasted before we reach a point where there are no more cans. This example can apply to ANY resource. So is it fair for a small percentage of the world to waste the world's resources on the basis that they are free to make their own right and wrongs?

Capitalism declares that it is fair if you have the money, but I don't think that makes it fair or loving.

You seem surprised though, at the fact I said god would've disagreed with me instead of the other way 'round. If I did something God did not like, wouldn't he be the one who was upset with my actions? I'm not disagreeing with his way of life, I'm merely living my own way. If he were upset by or to punish me for living my own way, would that not be a sign of HIS disagreement?


If I was a manager at McDonalds and I hired you to make burgers, would it be a case of me disagreeing with you or you disagreeing with me if I asked you to make the big macs with cheese on both sides of the patty and but you decided to leave the cheese out altogether?

You see you use "God" in your example. Automatically you have included a being who created the universe and all life in it (which I am assuming is a similar definition to what you would use when referencing "God"). Can you see how, according to your example, it really does sound silly for you to ask if it is not the creator of everything who happens to disagree with YOUR superior understanding, rather than you disagreeing with HIS superior understanding?

I once watched a chat in which two people were arguing about the existence of God. One was obviously a Christian and the other obviously an atheist. The Christian, in what appeared to think was the killing stroke in the argument asked the atheist if he could see air, and if not, did that mean air does not exist. The atheist responding by saying something like "no I can't see air, but I can put it in a bottle and perform tests on it". At the time I thought that was a good answer because it was true, but over time I considered it more and came to the conclusion that the atheist sounded more like an arrogant bastard than anything else.

The reason is because, IF there really was a God, this man would not acknowledge that God until he was able to put that God in a bottle and perform tests on him to his satisfaction. Can you see how this atheist put himself in an impossible situation? I think you are doing something similar with this thing about whether it is God disagreeing with you or you disagreeing with God.

To answer your question, Who has more authority to be right about what is right and wrong?: neither of us. He feels his way and I feel my way. He's not right and neither am I. He's not wrong and neither am I. We both feel differently that's all. He has power over me, sure. That doesn't mean he's right (or wrong for that matter).


Perhaps I am still wrongly assuming that we have the same understanding of certain issues. Can you explain what it is about this God that classifies him as a God, in your example?
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: How would one live in godless world?

Post by Warweredeclared on Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:30 pm
([msg=21709]see Re: How would one live in godless world?[/msg])

That is where the Golden rule comes in. In essence it says "do to others what you would want them to do to you." I believe this rule is perfect simply because it is based on the individual. If you don't want people stealing from you, then by your OWN standard, it becomes wrong for you to steal from others. If people would learn to follow this rule habitually then so many of the world's problems, (if not all) would simply go away.


While i agree wholeheartedly with the overall idea of your argument, i feel inclined to point out that this philosophy can and has caused as many issues as it solves. Weather due to cultural inclination, religious reasons, or personal taste, what seems the appropriate response too one person can seem rude or even cruel to another. Take for example the American/Japanese conflict during World War Two. To the Americans, the Japanese seem like fanatic lunatics who kept fighting long after they should have, and were cruel to prisoners, while the Japanese saw the Americans as cowards who surrendered way before they should, and seem to expect not to be killed when they did so. All because of there views on death. What people raised in one culture would want too happen is not the same as what someone from another culture would. A more current example might be the use of the death penalty, while too some people seems death seems like the worst possible outcome, and killing them is the worst thing you can do to them, to others, the idea of spending the erst of their lives in a 6'-12' box is the most horrifiying thing they can think of.

You see you use "God" in your example. Automatically you have included a being who created the universe and all life in it (which I am assuming is a similar definition to what you would use when referencing "God").


While it is true that most religions or even myth or legend based faith systems claim their deity shaped the world and at least people to some extent, the idea of an all powerful, eternal, omnipresent deity is almost unique to the abrihamic religions.

the truth is, radicool, i agree with your argument for the most part, i just felt things needed to be said for fairness sake.
All things that are, are ours. But we must care. For if we do not care, we do not exist. If we do not exist, than there is nothing but blind oblivion...
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man? -Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man
Warweredeclared
New User
New User
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests