Do you believe in God?

[Encyclopedia]

Logic? Now this is getting interesting! I wouldn't say you are an immoral person if you don't believe in god(s), you learn most of the morals from god(s) or what people tell you is moral. I, in one second, without a doubt don't believe morals come from logic.

They do though. But there's already a thread about that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

That still doesn't explain most of the "moral" laws that are created by God(s). There was a reason why everything was explained through God(s).

Proof of such creation please.

By that logic our president should be institutionalized.

You lost me.

 

[Scaff]

I'll make my claim since there isn't much interest by now. What's wrong with believing in God? Even if there are different types of Gods which other cultures believe, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't impact on the lives and rights of anyone else. The rather big problem is that religion has a really regular habit of doing just that (oh and then shouting to the rooftops that they are the ones whom are having their rights infringed on).

On the whole religion has done far more to hold back mankind and to kill each other based on who's imaginary friend is best that benefits its given us.

So I personally see rather a lot wrong with it and little to no chance of it wanting to reform itself to undo these dangerous traits.

You lost me.

He believes in God.

 

[skoSko9]

Proof of such creation please.

I believe I said that in my post, PEOPLE.

They do though. But there's already a thread about that.

Where is that thread called? I seriously doubt that it does come from logic....

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Logic? Now this is getting interesting! I wouldn't say you are an immoral person if you don't believe in god(s), you learn most of the morals from god(s) or what people tell you is moral. I, in one second, without a doubt don't believe morals come from logic.

Part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.


Tell me these videos use don't logic for morals.

Oh and I don't learn my morals from god(s), or I would be murdering, raping, etc.

It's the human rights thread that he is talking about I believe, but as you are saying morals come from god(s) I think it should be fine to discuss that here?

 

[CodeRedR51]

He believes in God.

Ah, yeah. *facepalm*

I believe I said that in my post, PEOPLE.

You said:

That still doesn't explain most of the "moral" laws that are created by God(s).

And I want to know if you have proof.

 

[Tesla]

The Human Rights thread.

EDIT: tree'd

 

[Encyclopedia]

Where is that thread called? I seriously doubt that it does come from logic....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77925

 

[sik180sx]

On the whole religion has done far more to hold back mankind and to kill each other based on who's imaginary friend is best that benefits its given us.

So I personally see rather a lot wrong with it and little to no chance of it wanting to reform itself to undo these dangerous traits.

Could not have said it better,nice post scaff.

 

[skoSko9]

You said:

And I want to know if you have proof.

It's sarcasm, why did you think I said "moral" laws. And I am going to assume you believe that.

Though I don't know why human rights have to do with just morals? I understand the logic, Human rights teach what is morally right, but being morally right doesn't mean it is a human right.

Believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't impact on the lives and rights of anyone else. The rather big problem is that religion has a really regular habit of doing just that (oh and then shouting to the rooftops that they are the ones whom are having their rights infringed on).

I think that issue of believing whatever as long as it doesn't impact the lives of others is impractical. I almost want to say impossible, what one believes will impact other lives. I wonder if it is possible if there can be a pluralistic world of many beliefs coexisting.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I think that issue of believing whatever as long as it doesn't impact the lives of others is impractical. I almost want to say impossible, what one believes will impact other lives. I wonder if it is possible if there can be a pluralistic world of many beliefs coexisting.

It's actually quite easy. Leave religion out of laws.

 

[skoSko9]

It's actually quite easy. Leave religion out of laws.

Then all that's left is personal opinions trying to justify which is the better option? I'm okay with that, I just don't see how removing religion gets rid of that... Maybe a better way of coexisting, but for what?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Then all that's left is personal opinions trying to justify which is the better option? I'm okay with that, I just don't see how removing religion gets rid of that... Maybe a better way of coexisting, but for what?

You could base laws on rationality and logic though. I'm not saying people do, but they should.

 

[skoSko9]

Ehh I'm bored, I give up. I could continue but I get the feeling it's going to end in some deadlock. Something about setting rationality and logic through laws seems pretty much convenient. But I think that convenience would lead to issues that are much greater than the law we set up. A bit of Aristotle's governing state helps in understanding this issue

 

[arora]

John Locke comes to mind 👍

I think the truth lies in discovering the inherent flaws in man as a whole, not blaming a man's right to define himself.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Something about setting rationality and logic through laws seems pretty much convenient. But I think that convenience would lead to issues that are much greater than the law we set up.

What? Encyclopedia isn't saying base logic on laws, he is saying to create laws using logic. Basing laws on religion (which has been done in the states multiple times) seems to me the more "convenient" thing to do (but also the wrong thing to do).

If you don't understand how just and moral laws could come about from logic, then the human rights thread is a good place to read.

 

[Super Novi]

This topic should be renamed to "War of the Opinions"

 

[alfiD]

This topic should be renamed to "War of the Opinions"

I agree. Truer words have yet to be typed.

 

[Super Novi]

I agree. Truer words have yet to be typed.

Glad to see someone agrees with me. Luckily this isn't the Blockland forums, otherwise this topic would be a furious, never-ending sewage hurricane with napalm and thermite.

 

[niky]

Opinions? In an Opinion forum? Don't be absurd.

-

Of course, you have one opinion backed by a book whose final form was codified over a thousand years ago versus an opinion backed by a mountain of physical evidence going back over thirteen billion years.

-

Laws must be founded upon the principle that a state's duty is to defend the rights of its citizens.

Laws based on religious beliefs will often violate the rights of those of differing religious beliefs.

The only fair laws are those which do not favor one religion over another. And those laws can only come about via rational discourse.

Not that difficult to understand, really. (Though any discussion of rights should go in the "Human Rights" thread).

 

[arora]

Can someone make a list of successful societies where religion was/is abolished?

It's important to understand what freedom entails and what it inspires. Separation of church and state etc. is a good thing, a very good thing, understanding science is a good thing, science and religion don't need to be at odds, understanding that people have rights is an important thing, so important in fact that removing those rights is detrimental to any group of people over a dozen or so.

Here in the U.S. we have a set of laws, a most adequate set in fact, written many years ago and no one should care so much how the constructors came to the construction, it's sound and should be left alone.

It really goes without saying that no one of faith should trample the rights of one without anymore then vice versa. Unfortunately rights are violated all the time, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with greed of man, simple as it gets.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Can someone make a list of societies where people became too reasonable and waged war upon one another & their neighbours?

 

[arora]

Nope, that list does not exist, the reason is simple, greed.

 

[XoravaX]

I strongly suggest you watch that video again, because simply put your wrong (its once again shifting the burden of proof).

Based on all the currently available evidence for God (i.e. none) its a logical conclusion to state that God doesn't exist. That's not to say that should the evidence change I would re-evaluate that, but that's doesn't make me agnostic.

The only logical conclusion is that the world doesn't need God's existence to exist, as far as we know based on the laws of physics and scientific research. Science tries to explain things the way they are the simplest and most probable, so we don't need another link in the chain (God) in science. But, you can only say that you don't know.

Let me quote Socrates again, who I think really hit the nail in wisdom:
"I know that I know nothing".
Think it a bit and you'll understand it.

Laws must be founded upon the principle that a state's duty is to defend the rights of its citizens.

What are those rights? Aren't they subjective too: if some capitalist thinks he has the ultimate right to control his own property as a fundamental right, but the other is a communist who thinks the people as a whole have access to anything they own as a fundamental right, doesn't a law either way violate the other's rights?

Rights are like religious views, subjective and based on the surrounding culture and society. The laws are bound to favour some people's views on rights over the others'. Like laws based on religion are bound to favour a religion over the others. Taking religion out of laws does nothing: the only way to not violate any views, be they religious or on rights, is to form a realm out of completely identical people. Which is an absurd idea, but close to which the nation-state ideology goes, as a homogenous nation and culture makes the people often have similar opinions - eg. take a Russian, Chinese and American instead of just three white Brits and try to reach a consensus without violating the views of the other two, you'll see it's harder.

 

[Scaff]

The only logical conclusion is that the world doesn't need God's existence to exist, as far as we know based on the laws of physics and scientific research. Science tries to explain things the way they are the simplest and most probable, so we don't need another link in the chain (God) in science. But, you can only say that you don't know.

No I can say quite clearly that no evidence can be found to prove the existence of any God (and the any is the key bit here that monotheists forget), therefore based on the current evidence it is logical to conclude that God doesn't exist. As such no burden of proof is required at all.

Your argument...

However, there is the burden of proof for those who deny the possibility of God's existence too (the part of atheists that are non-agnostics).

...makes for a wonderful dilemma for yourself. You see as a Christian you have to renounce all other Gods and worship "the one true God", as such you have just given yourself the burden of proof in regard to every god that has ever been claimed to exist.

I await either your proof of this or your renunciation of Christianity.

I hope that makes it quite clear just how ridiculous your attempt to shift the burden of proof is in this regard (oh can you do Unicorns and Santa while you are at it).

Let me quote Socrates again, who I think really hit the nail in wisdom:
"I know that I know nothing".
Think it a bit and you'll understand it.

Except a very good chance exists that he didn't say that at all, its not in any of his works.

 

[MatskiMonk]

No I can say quite clearly that no evidence can be found to prove the existence of any God (and the all is the key bit here that monotheists forget), therefore based on the current evidence it is logical to conclude that God doesn't exist. As such no burden of proof is required at all.

I think the difference here is you are saying there is no evidence to prove the existence of God - that is different to saying I have evidence that God does not exist - which I think is how XorovaX is seeing it.

Just my two cents not trying to speak for anybody.

 

[Scaff]

I think the difference here is you are saying there is no evidence to prove the existence of God - that is different to saying I have evidence that God does not exist - which I think is how XorovaX is seeing it.

Just my two cents not trying to speak for anybody.

It may well be the root of the confusion, however proof of non-existence is simply not possible, which is exactly why the burden of proof works in the manner it does.

I simply hope that XorovaX can now see the absurdity of trying to demand proof of non-existence, and the requirements such a stance would place on any religion.

 

[Dennisch]

Maybe we all (atheists) should take pictures of the sky to proof the non-existence? Unless someone actually snaps a picture of a bearded fellow in the clouds.

 

[niky]

What are those rights? Aren't they subjective too: if some capitalist thinks he has the ultimate right to control his own property as a fundamental right, but the other is a communist who thinks the people as a whole have access to anything they own as a fundamental right, doesn't a law either way violate the other's rights?

Rights are like religious views, subjective and based on the surrounding culture and society. The laws are bound to favour some people's views on rights over the others'. Like laws based on religion are bound to favour a religion over the others. Taking religion out of laws does nothing: the only way to not violate any views, be they religious or on rights, is to form a realm out of completely identical people. Which is an absurd idea, but close to which the nation-state ideology goes, as a homogenous nation and culture makes the people often have similar opinions - eg. take a Russian, Chinese and American instead of just three white Brits and try to reach a consensus without violating the views of the other two, you'll see it's harder.

There are some excellent arguments and analyses in the "Human Rights" thread for a way of formulating a rational set of human rights.

But basically this: You have the right to life. If you recognize your right to life, then you must recognize other people's right to life. Any action you perform that infringes upon the right to life of others (unless they do so before you) should be punishable by law. Any action you do that does not: (making porno videos of yourself, kinky sex, homosexuality, eating unhealthy foods, swearing a blue streak) should not be. Arbitrarily removing the freedom of choice which allows a person to live their life is immoral.

Granted, this leaves some leeway in interpretation, but viewed this way, it becomes apparent which historical laws are unjust.

The only time you see friction due to inclusive laws (laws which do not force people to conform, but which are truly inclusive and allow people to do what they want) are when some group objects because they want everyone else to do things their way and their way only.

 

[DK]

Maybe we all (atheists) should take pictures of the sky to proof the non-existence? Unless someone actually snaps a picture of a bearded fellow in the clouds.

That reminds me, when I was about 7 I was on a plane to England. I heard all of the stories about God being in the clouds, so I looked out of the window, and saw just clouds and an endless expanse of blue, and no angels with harps and haloes nor did I see Morgan Freeman in a white suit.