Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,489 comments
  • 1,142,032 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
Okay. You are saying that absolute truth can be found through science. Yes? If that is true, then I am seriously not understanding something here.

Science is the study of the natural world, you can gain knowledge through it. It can give you absolute truths of the smaller parts of nature like why the sky is blue or why you fall when unsupported for example, but the big question of why we are here or what started it all is something that science has so far failed to answer.
 
Why is the sky whatever colour it appears? (Blue, red, orange, grey and so on)

Rayleigh Scattering. It's also why 'red' arteries appear blue under the skin. Science worked that out.

To quote Bill O'Reilly, "You can't explain that."
 
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.


Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?


Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
 
I was jesting. In previous posts I have stated that I neither agree with nor participate in religion, but I have no objection to those who do.

I jest because it's people like O'Reilly, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann who do give theists a bad name. Which is a shame, because I know both pleasant theists and atheists.
 
That's suprising. I didn't expect 50% of people to openly admit to themselve not believing in God (me being one of them). Take a look at this clip from the O'Reilly Factor. This was so funny, especially because Bill O'Reilly thinks that there is no explanation for tides other than God. He completely got obliterated by David Silverman (an athiest) in this debate.

If you were wondering, tides occur because the gravitational pull of the moon. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/tide-cause.htm


"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.


Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?


Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
It's not just a few though.
It's pretty well summed up by Bill O'Reilly in that video, while Christians are quick to jump and shout the second they hear the words "I don't know", they're willing to say "I don't know" quite commonly, yet somehow when they say it it doesn't prove anything, but of course when someone else doesn't have an answer for every little thing, they take it as "proof" they're right, because if someone doesn't have every answer, they must be wrong.

There's not a Christian in the world that doesn't hold a double standard in that regard. To be a Christian, one must accept there are things they do not know nor understand, yet they won't believe anything else that asks them to accept that they may not understand everything.

To go further into your quote, you have to find a group of Christians that actually believe all the same things. That's hard to do when the views and beliefs have to change almost daily to keep from looking foolish. Evolution isn't considered a slight possibility by many Christians, because they believe it contradicts the Bible, yet then others claim evolution is simply God's system. Apparently some Christians think God causes the tide to happen, and know nothing of the moon's gravitational pull. Some believe God is, and I quote, "up above", but can never explain where exactly up above.

We've gone up above, and God's not there. Where is he? Christians don't accept alternate universes or additional dimensions, yet when forced with the obvious contradiction, suddenly the possibilities start to look very good, because it's pretty clear Christians were wrong when they said God lived in the sky. Wrong that he's "up above" at all in fact.

So it's easy to dump on Bill O'Reilly right now, but you already have or will run into the same problem, where you're clearly mistaken about something related to God and his existence, but much like him, you'll come up with a possibility, or say "I don't know" and consider it acceptable, but still not be willing to accept when someone else doesn't know something. Then it's just "proof" they're wrong.
 
About the universe having meaning:

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural', plan." -Arno Penzias

"I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate... We are truly meant to be here." -Paul Davies

The atheist view of the ultimate reality is the universe, and for the theist the ultimate reality is God. With the quotes I have provided above, where does this leave us?
 
It's not just a few though.
It's pretty well summed up by Bill O'Reilly in that video, while Christians are quick to jump and shout the second they hear the words "I don't know", they're willing to say "I don't know" quite commonly, yet somehow when they say it it doesn't prove anything, but of course when someone else doesn't have an answer for every little thing, they take it as "proof" they're right, because if someone doesn't have every answer, they must be wrong.

There's not a Christian in the world that doesn't hold a double standard in that regard. To be a Christian, one must accept there are things they do not know nor understand, yet they won't believe anything else that asks them to accept that they may not understand everything.


Pretty bold statement. Coincidentally, it's utter hogwash.
 
About the universe having meaning:

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural', plan." -Arno Penzias

One might also say it's completely random. This has been said before many times, but in an infinite universe, everything possible must occur/exist somewhere. So no matter how improbable it seems that all the necessary ingredients for life can come together, they will come together, without a shadow of a doubt. One needn't go beyond the simple mathematical implications of infinity to explain it. The inner need of the theist to ascribe greater meaning to it than that doesn't prove that there is a greater meaning.

"I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate... We are truly meant to be here." -Paul Davies

Good for him. But I can believe it, and so can many others. I'm sure you would agree that my ability to believe that doesn't prove my views correct. By the same token, Mr. Davies' inability to believe it doesn't prove a thing either.

The atheist view of the ultimate reality is the universe, and for the theist the ultimate reality is God. With the quotes I have provided above, where does this leave us?

It leaves us in the exact same place we've been, you haven't proven a thing.
 
CSLACR
It's not just a few though.
It's pretty well summed up by Bill O'Reilly in that video, while Christians are quick to jump and shout the second they hear the words "I don't know", they're willing to say "I don't know" quite commonly, yet somehow when they say it it doesn't prove anything, but of course when someone else doesn't have an answer for every little thing, they take it as "proof" they're right, because if someone doesn't have every answer, they must be wrong.

There's not a Christian in the world that doesn't hold a double standard in that regard. To be a Christian, one must accept there are things they do not know nor understand, yet they won't believe anything else that asks them to accept that they may not understand everything.

To go further into your quote, you have to find a group of Christians that actually believe all the same things. That's hard to do when the views and beliefs have to change almost daily to keep from looking foolish. Evolution isn't considered a slight possibility by many Christians, because they believe it contradicts the Bible, yet then others claim evolution is simply God's system. Apparently some Christians think God causes the tide to happen, and know nothing of the moon's gravitational pull. Some believe God is, and I quote, "up above", but can never explain where exactly up above.

We've gone up above, and God's not there. Where is he? Christians don't accept alternate universes or additional dimensions, yet when forced with the obvious contradiction, suddenly the possibilities start to look very good, because it's pretty clear Christians were wrong when they said God lived in the sky. Wrong that he's "up above" at all in fact.

So it's easy to dump on Bill O'Reilly right now, but you already have or will run into the same problem, where you're clearly mistaken about something related to God and his existence, but much like him, you'll come up with a possibility, or say "I don't know" and consider it acceptable, but still not be willing to accept when someone else doesn't know something. Then it's just "proof" they're wrong.

We can't explain God the same way you can't explain energy. You believe it is real because it's effects can be observed, but you don't actually know what it actually is.

To us, God is like light. A man can understand far more when surrounded in light rather in darkness. By accepting Jesus into our hearts, we can become enlightened. It is for this reason that we can have confidence in the Christian message - it brings illumination, authenticating itself in human experience. It also authenticates itself intellectually, as C. S. Lewis pointed out: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen:not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else".

"For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" - (2 Cor. 4:5-6)

To us, God is the ultimate reality. I also recommend you study the properties of God before you discuss him in such way, your view is highly distorted.
 
To us, God is the ultimate reality. I also recommend you study the properties of God before you discuss him in such way, your view is highly distorted.

What are those properties exactly? You've said yourself that god can't be measured by any possible methods. So please enlighten us ill-informed souls as to the correct properties of god.

EDIT: I'd also love to hear how you determined these properties.
 
huskeR32
What are those properties exactly? You've said yourself that god can't be measured by any possible methods. So please enlighten us ill-informed souls as to the correct properties of god.

EDIT: I'd also love to hear how you determined these properties.

I hope I don't seem to come across as one who believes he is superior in any way to non-believers. I don't want to be recognised in such way, as it is not what I believe and certainly is not the style in which I want my argument to be presented as.

God has many properties which is presented in the Bible. Discussing these individual properties is very time consuming, but you can highlight any concerns if you so wish, and I'll attempt to provide explanation.

God is unique

God is personal

God is plural (Trinity)

God is spiritual

God is eternally self-existent

God is transcendent

God is immanent

God is omniscient

God is immutable

God is holy

God is loving

God is creator

God is ruler

God is judge

If any Christian wishes to correct or revise these properties then they can so wish, as it is done to the best of my interpretation from the Bible. As previously I have said, I'm a new Christian, so relatively un-knowledgable of the teachings of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
I hope I don't seem to come across as one who believes he is superior in any way to non-believers. I don't want to be recognised in such way, as it is not what I believe and certainly is not the style in which I want my argument to be presented as.

Not at all, at least not to me :)

God has many properties which is presented in the Bible. Discussing these individual properties is very time consuming, but you can highlight any concerns if you so wish, and I'll attempt to provide explanation.
...

I was strictly thinking physical/observable properties, should have realized you could have been referring to non-physical properties as well. Thanks for the reply 👍
 
Very bold statement to make.

Just as bold as these :

God is unique

God is personal

God is plural (Trinity)

God is spiritual

God is eternally self-existent

God is transcendent

God is immanent

God is omniscient

God is immutable

God is holy

God is loving

God is creator

God is ruler

God is judge

..
 
Pretty bold statement. Coincidentally, it's utter hogwash.
Name one thing you believe in without any proof that's not religion related.

About the universe having meaning:

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural', plan." -Arno Penzias
Wrong. That's based on the assumption that a specific balance is needed to sustain life.
People who believe the world was created for us tend to believe everything is perfectly lined up for us, so it obviously appears as though the world suits us.
Evolution says it's the other way around. The world is not perfect for us, we are perfect for the world, it's how we evolved the way we did, and why we prosper and even exist here.
A perfect example would be a Penguin in Africa. Clearly that part of this world is the opposite of a perfect and delicate balance to sustain their life.

"I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate... We are truly meant to be here." -Paul Davies
Exact same misconception, based on the belief that everything is lined up for us, rather then us evolving for the earth.

The atheist view of the ultimate reality is the universe, and for the theist the ultimate reality is God. With the quotes I have provided above, where does this leave us?
You believe red carpet was rolled out for you, despite the evidence in front of you. Your entire belief is based on everything being set up for humans to exist on earth, and even though there's quite a bit of evidence that suggest that's nowhere close to true, you'd have to re-think everything you "know" about our existence to ever accept that.
We don't breath oxygen because we were built to breath oxygen, but rather because that's what was available.
 
Dennisch
Just as bold as these :

God is unique

God is personal

God is plural (Trinity)

God is spiritual

God is eternally self-existent

God is transcendent

God is immanent

God is omniscient

God is immutable

God is holy

God is loving

God is creator

God is ruler

God is judge

..

Well, first of all, because we can sense a difference between right and wrong (morality), points towards an absolute law giver.
A creator is what most of this discussion is based upon.
Everything else has been explained through the life and death of Christ (basically).
I cannot give a full explanation as to why I believe in God in a paragraph, but it is based in many things. These are mainly found through Christ and the Bible.
 
Hey TankAss...

Let's suppose for a second that there are God(s), a pretty big supposition might I add. So there are God(s)... what makes you so sure that your religion's God(s) are the real God(s)? What if there are God(s) but all of mankind's religions describing them and what they want from us are all a bunch of bull****?
 
Well, first of all, because we can sense a difference between right and wrong (morality), points towards an absolute law giver.
Wrong again, based on more assumption.
We get our "sense" of what's right and wrong the same way we get our "sense" of what the alphabet is. We're told.

I don't think it's wrong for a 21 year old to date a 17 year old, others (including the law) disagree. God can't really be handing out that determination then can he?
 
yaywalter
Hey TankAss...

Let's suppose for a second that there are God(s), a pretty big supposition might I add. So there are God(s)... what makes you so sure that your religion's God(s) are the real God(s)? What if there are God(s) but all of mankind's religions describing them and what they want from us are all a bunch of bull****?

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelming. The evidence for Jesus is strong. The fact that Christianity spread so rapidly after the death of Jesus Christ, even when it was so strongly opposed.

Maybe you should study the Bible yourself, and see the evidence firsthand.

Above all though, personal experience.
 
Wrong again, based on more assumption.
We get our "sense" of what's right and wrong the same way we get our "sense" of what the alphabet is. We're told.

I don't think it's wrong for a 21 year old to date a 17 year old, others (including the law) disagree. God can't really be handing out that determination then can he?
What about a 21 year old dating a 7 year old?
 
Given that a seven year old typically has no interest in sex, cannot possibly safely have a baby or be expected to care for one... no.

In some cultures, you have pregnancy and motherhood at a very early age (12... or less), but this is not ideal in our culture, where the life skills needed to manage and care for your own family are not attained till much later (say: 18). I'd argue that the maturity level needed to properly care for a child aren't even reached till your mid-20s to early 30s... but then, there are people who mature earlier and people who never mature, so setting an absolute number to it is very problematic.

We do know that it's dangerous for first cousins to marry and have a child (due to the increased chance of passing on recessive genetic abnormalities, but God didn't exactly ban that in the Bible, now, did he? In fact, there's nothing in the Bible banning the marriage of first cousins, and plenty of evidence in it of such marriages being acceptable.

But times change, and society has come to frown upon it for both "moral" and health reasons. In the end.. the age of marriage and who you can or can't marry isn't a universal ethical law, but something that has changed over time.

The only universal truth in regards to human relations is the rights of all people to life, and the right to be treated as free and dignified human beings. In cases of pedophilia, it is a case of an adult imposing their will on a child, which is what specifically makes it unethical.


God has many properties which is presented in the Bible. Discussing these individual properties is very time consuming, but you can highlight any concerns if you so wish, and I'll attempt to provide explanation.

Are we going by the Bible?

God is vengeful.

God is petty. (pillar of salt... come on... just for looking? And yet the unjust and unbelievers can get away with anything later on...)

God is racist. ("chosen" people... grants permission to his people to usurp lands from others)

Yet... God accepts all races to his fold. (Christian times)

God sometimes allows his people to suffer when they are faithful, but sometimes allows them to prosper when they are not.

^all of the above = God is inconsistent.

God kills innocent babies (firstborn of every house of Egypt).

God plays jokes on his chosen ones: (No, really, you don't have to kill your son for me... gotcha!)

Shall we go on?
 
Last edited:
Are we going by the Bible?

God is vengeful.

God is petty. (pillar of salt... come on... just for looking? And yet the unjust and unbelievers can get away with anything later on...)

God is racist. ("chosen" people... grants permission to his people to usurp lands from others)

Yet... God accepts all races to his fold. (Christian times)

God sometimes allows his people to suffer when they are faithful, but sometimes allows them to prosper when they are not.

^all of the above = God is inconsistent.

God kills innocent babies (firstborn of every house of Egypt).

God plays jokes on his chosen ones: (No, really, you don't have to kill your son for me... gotcha!)

Shall we go on?
And this is how you can tell "God" was created by people, people with agendas no different then any others on earth.


What about a 21 year old dating a 7 year old?
So suddenly that's instilled by God, because you used an extreme example?

Still waiting to hear why you hold men to higher standards the God. ;)
 
So suddenly that's instilled by God, because you used an extreme example?

Still waiting to hear why you hold men to higher standards the God. ;)

I asked since you probably only disagree where to draw the line. No doubt 21 vs 7 is an extreme example. The law simply pick the age 18 as the age of accountability (time to graduate from high school) even though we know in reality some mature quicker than others.
As far as Job again the only thing God did was to put a hedge around Job and his family. If that was the end of the story then you might have a point yet even Job spoke during his trials he would meet God face to face. God rewarded Job with twice as much including children than before.
This is like condemning a man for cutting on a child without knowing the end results ... that is a doctor saving a child's life.
 
Last edited:
CSLACR
Wrong again, based on more assumption.
We get our "sense" of what's right and wrong the same way we get our "sense" of what the alphabet is. We're told.

I don't think it's wrong for a 21 year old to date a 17 year old, others (including the law) disagree. God can't really be handing out that determination then can he?

There is such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. Two people may argue over what punishment a criminal may be given, but they do so in believing there is such a thing as an absolute right. Imagine we have both never been to Greenland. We may argue over topics such as the climate, or civilisation on the land of such country, but we do so believing that it is actually there.

It would surprise you how similar the sense of right and wrong is between different cultures. Just say I stole your chocolate bar without your permission. You would naturally say that such a thing is wrong, or against being nice. I, myself would deep down know what I have done was wrong, but I may begin to try and justify my actions. I may say things like, "you owed me", or "you never share". Although we are arguing, we both have the same sense that there is such a thing as absolute morality, only that I have done wrong, and you are innocent.

Wether it was taught or not, this sense of absolute morality is given. How can we argue with what is wrong or not, if we do not trust that there is an absolute law? A man might say, "Why does God let bad things happen?" but in doing so he is supporting the fact that there is in fact an absolute law giver.

In conclusion, the very fact that we can argue with what is right or wrong is pointing towards an absolute law giver.

Can an atheist tell me what a purely atheistic state would base their law upon, after not accepting that there is such a thing as God?
 
Human rights. Those being life, liberty, property. You know, the same stuff the US constitution is based on.
 
I asked since you probably only disagree where to draw the line. No doubt 21 vs 7 is an extreme example. The law simply pick the age 18 as the age of accountability (time to graduate from high school) even though we know in reality some mature quicker than others.
Ok, but people call it rape , if we can't agree what constitutes rape, what can we agree on with these "God given morals instilled in us all from birth"?

Or try this.
I think it's ok to shoot a burglar in the back once he's entered my home. I think it's ok to chase him down in the car, and put a bullet in his head long after me and my family are no longer in danger.
Many people call that murder, including the law.
I do not.
As far as Job again the only thing God did was to put a hedge around Job and his family. If that was the end of the story then you might have a point yet even Job spoke during his trials he would meet God face to face. God rewarded Job with twice as much including children than before.
This is like condemning a man for cutting on a child without knowing the end results ... that is a doctor saving a child's life.
So if I kill your family, or simply know it will happen and intentionally decide to not stop it, so long as you meet a new woman and make more children, all is well, right?
I sure wouldn't forgive someone for intentionally stepping aside to allow something like that, so why would I forgive a "God" that did the same?

There is such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. Two people may argue over what punishment a criminal may be given, but they do so in believing there is such a thing as an absolute right. Imagine we have both never been to Greenland. We may argue over topics such as the climate, or civilisation on the land of such country, but we do so believing that it is actually there.

It would surprise you how similar the sense of right and wrong is between different cultures. Just say I stole your chocolate bar without your permission. You would naturally say that such a thing is wrong, or against being nice. I, myself would deep down know what I have done was wrong, but I may begin to try and justify my actions. I may say things like, "you owed me", or "you never share". Although we are arguing, we both have the same sense that there is such a thing as absolute morality, only that I have done wrong, and you are innocent.

Wether it was taught or not, this sense of absolute morality is given. How can we argue with what is wrong or not, if we do not trust that there is an absolute law? A man might say, "Why does God let bad things happen?" but in doing so he is supporting the fact that there is in fact an absolute law giver.

In conclusion, the very fact that we can argue with what is right or wrong is pointing towards an absolute law giver.

Can an atheist tell me what a purely atheistic state would base their law upon, after not accepting that there is such a thing as God?
Again, you're still assuming everything is instilled by a God. Of course you think it'd be different without one, because you think the only reason things are the way they are is because of a God.
I'm telling you it's just things we agree on in general.

The Bible says any woman raped should be cast from the community. God certainly failed to instill the mind-boggling logic into my brain, how about you?
 
Noob616
Human rights. Those being life, liberty, property. You know, the same stuff the US constitution is based on.

Assuming you were answering my question, where do you base our individual rights on?

There are two world views (to my knowledge) that explain the existence of everything. The materialistic view, in which the universe somehow created itself through natural processes that just seemed to be there, and we are here just by probability or chance. The other view is a religious view, in which there is a mind behind it.
I am not going to attack the materialistic view just yet. Just imagine there is a mind behind it all. If science was perfect, and knew everything of the universe by observation, it would still not answer the question as to whether there is a mind behind it all. That mind could communicate through is by giving us the sense of what is right and wrong.

So in the atheistic society, what do you decide your human rights upon?
 
There are two world views (to my knowledge) that explain the existence of everything. The materialistic view, in which the universe somehow created itself through natural processes that just seemed to be there, and we are here just by probability or chance. The other view is a religious view, in which there is a mind behind it.
I am not going to attack the materialistic view just yet. Just imagine there is a mind behind it all. If science was perfect, and knew everything of the universe by observation, it would still not answer the question as to whether there is a mind behind it all. That mind could communicate through is by giving us the sense of what is right and wrong.

You are generalizing. And attacking. What is a "materialistic" view? A "materialistic" view holds material wealth and possessions over all others.

You have not left any room in your two-sided view of the world for the humanistic view, which holds humanity above both material wealth and religion. And this is where your lack of knowledge comes to loggerheads with those who don't share your faith. Because you can't even conceive of morality and ethics without an outside authority imposing it on you.


TankAss95
It would surprise you how similar the sense of right and wrong is between different cultures

Only in the sense that they believe it is wrong to kill without just cause or to go against the good of the community/culture. Of course, there are tribes in which killing and eating other human beings is not only allowed, but valued.

In Asian cultures, physical punishment is accepted more than in Western culture. To the point where whipping or even dismemberment or death are acceptable punishments for minor violations of property rights.

On the other hand, there are cultures that don't believe in property rights. Tribes where the property of one member of the tribe or community is shared by all. Part of the downfall of native American culture in North America was that the tribal nomads had no concept of land ownership, mind you, and were perfectly willing to share the land with Westerners who did have a concept of land ownership, and who would fiercely defend those "rights" once they'd duped some poor schlub into selling those "rights" to them.

Some cultures allow polygamy. Some allow free love between same sex partners. Some cultures are very open about the use of drugs and opiates... though harsh proscription against mind-altering substances in Western society is a very recent thing.

And yet, despite these differences, members of each culture will agree that their way is best, is the most moral and is the most ethical.


Assuming you were answering my question, where do you base our individual rights on?

Philosophy. Confucius cited no Gods when he came up with:

“Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”

...centuries before Christ. You would do well to study Confucian thought as a purely Godless form of belief system based on Humanism. In fact, you would do well to study Humanism in general.

Humanism. Humans. No greater ethical law is needed than that of basic decency and respect towards other humans, whatever their belief system. From this you can derive the rights to life, to freedom, to property (and the choice of what to do with this property).

From these rights, you formulate laws to protect life and property, and laws to punish those who would contravene these rights. Once you try to remove the rights of another person to life, freedom and property, you give up those rights yourself.

Right to freedom implies the rights to freely marry or to not be coerced into marriage. This is where you start to formulate limitations on marriage and the marriage contract. Marriage is either necessary or not, depending on the culture, as a means of protecting the rights of the children to life while they are too young to fend for themselves. Some cultures still manage to care for children without formal marriage, mind you.

Expand your definition of humans to humanity, and you start to look at the effects of humans on the environment, and how this endangers humanity as a whole... from here you start to formulate laws meant to protect and extend the useful life of our resources... management of natural resources for the use of future generations.

No other laws are necessary.
 

Latest Posts

Back