CDZ A Question For Atheists

[WinterBorn]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Whose Scriptures? Christians from less than 2,000 years ago? Jews from 3,500 years ago. Hindus from 5,000? Chinese ethical dissertations from 8,000?

Morality didn't start with the invention of writing. 'Do good because doing good is good' isn't a religious concept.

 

[sealybobo]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Are you saying the Greeks who lived during the greek gods didn't know right from wrong?

Are you saying people didn't know thou should not kill before moses?

Nobody has said that - not a single person. Yet, you, and your compatriots, immediately leap to an us-vs-them mentality. Recognizing the superiority of my God is no different than believing the God of Sun controls your life. In fact, many of us believe that they are one in the same God - only called by different names, whether it be Lord, Mohammed, Buddha, Ra, or whatever.

Thunder wasn't Zeus mad.

 

[there4eyeM]

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

'F-ing' brilliant!
Sure glad I didn't spend eight years and $200,000 studying math or philosophy; I already realized this.

 

[sealybobo]

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

'F-ing' brilliant!
Sure glad I didn't spend eight years and $200,000 studying math or philosophy; I already realized this.

Thank it for your life because it made no heaven for you.

 

[there4eyeM]

"It"?
Did "it" make one for others?

 

[sealybobo]

"It"?
Did "it" make one for others?

No heaven or hell. Its indifferent.

 

[there4eyeM]

"It"?
What is "it"?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

I read it. Math is always right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

I read it. Math is always right.

They proved the theorem, but that really doesn't offer any proof in the existence of God. Especially not of the God referred to in the OP.

 

[Liminal]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Whose Scriptures? Christians from less than 2,000 years ago? Jews from 3,500 years ago. Hindus from 5,000? Chinese ethical dissertations from 8,000?

Morality didn't start with the invention of writing. 'Do good because doing good is good' isn't a religious concept.

Oh really? Feel free to explain the origins of formalized societal morality. Not a religious concept? Says who?

 

[there4eyeM]

Chicken 'n egg.

 

[orogenicman]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

 

[sealybobo]

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

I read it. Math is always right.

So you worship math? Math is your god?

Show me the math community consensus showing they agree math proves a god. And toss out the theistical mathamaticians. Theyre like creation scientists.

 

[sealybobo]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

I read it. Math is always right.

So you worship math? Math is your god?

Show me the math community consensus showing they agree math proves a god. And toss out the theistical mathamaticians. Theyre like creation scientists.

I live my life without a god really. I think something created us in the beginning but it really has no effect on my life. People who feel an overwhelming need to convert others to their belief of the start of the world bother me.

 

[Spare_change]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

We all recognize that humans are fallible, to include both of us.

But, then, I ask you the key question ... given your fallibility, how can you be the arbiter of right and wrong? Doesn't your very fallibility disqualify you as being the moral judge of your own actions? Doesn't your own invested self-interest remove you from contention?

 

[Spare_change]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

 

[WinterBorn]

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

 

[Spare_change]

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

'F-ing' brilliant!
Sure glad I didn't spend eight years and $200,000 studying math or philosophy; I already realized this.

I knew it, too .... but I invested a lot of hours on those hard pews figuring it out (well, when I wasn't trying to sneak a peek up Mary Kay's dress in the pew in front of me. All those up-downs shoulda worked, but sadly, never did.)