Do YOU believe in God?

[FuBai]

i have a question for atheists:

 

how does it feel to believe your going to die and thats it? how does it feel believing you will eventually perish for good? and never be anything again for all infinity?

 

just asking, i was curious.

 

To simply fade away into the infinite gulf, and the eternal blackness, without another thought, without senses, without shape or form. TO never have to care or think. It is not scary at all - why do I not kill myself now? I may as well experience all life has to offer, everything i can get out of it that pleases me, before i no longer exist. The world was created at my birth, and when i die, it shall never have existed.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Yes but my personal beliefs are based on logic.

 

 

 

No, they aren't. Eventually, you have to make the decision as to whether or not something is right or wrong. Eventually, you have to step out of the realm of logic and go on what you believe. For instance - try and logically explain to me why murder is wrong - using nothing but logic.

[Screechingmu]

No, I believe that religion is a primitive way of making excuses for how things work for things that someone does not understand.

[Not]

I'm agnostic. To me it is illogical to devot much thought or give much credence to something that does not effect my day to day life at all.

 

 

 

My motto is to be objective. I am certainly not my own god.

[Godzira]

Yes but my personal beliefs are based on logic.

 

 

 

No, they aren't. Eventually, you have to make the decision as to whether or not something is right or wrong. Eventually, you have to step out of the realm of logic and go on what you believe. For instance - try and logically explain to me why murder is wrong - using nothing but logic.

 

 

 

Human beings are a clan based society. As a member of this society I am subject to the common law and the common good. First letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about the law. If I kill someone I go to jail. But beyond that, murder creates mayhem and violence begets violence. Since our society is based on interactions with fellow human beings for mutual success, murder is counter productive. I also realize that each person has something to contribute to the world and by ending that life you take away those contributions. Thus murder is wrong.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Yes but my personal beliefs are based on logic.

 

 

 

No, they aren't. Eventually, you have to make the decision as to whether or not something is right or wrong. Eventually, you have to step out of the realm of logic and go on what you believe. For instance - try and logically explain to me why murder is wrong - using nothing but logic.

 

 

 

Human beings are a clan based society. As a member of this society I am subject to the common law and the common good. First letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about the law. If I kill someone I go to jail. But beyond that, murder creates mayhem and violence begets violence. Since our society is based on interactions with fellow human beings for mutual success, murder is counter productive. I also realize that each person has something to contribute to the world and by ending that life you take away those contributions. Thus murder is wrong.

 

 

 

It's counter productive. It takes away contributions. But why is being counter productive and taking away contributions wrong?

[Godzira]

Because, the point of life is survival and prosperity. What I would like to know is, why is it so unfathomable to you that a person could have their own morals without god?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Because, the point of life is survival and prosperity. What I would like to know is, why is it so unfathomable to you that a person could have their own morals without god?

 

 

 

First, let me say it again. I never said anything about god. I'm talking purely about you saying you use just logic to determine right and wrong. That is a false statement.

 

 

 

You still didn't say how those things are wrong. They might hinder chances at survival and prosperity - but why is that wrong? What defines wrong? Your own personal belief in what right and wrong is ultimately decides what right and wrong is. Not logic. Your own belief about right and wrong does.

[Godzira]

right is the outcome that will further my position, and wrong is the one that will hinder it. BTW this started because you said that a god had to be involved to have right and wrong, be it an external or internal god. I said that this was not the case.

[Guest GhostRanger]

right is the outcome that will further my position, and wrong is the one that will hinder it. BTW this started because you said that a god had to be involved to have right and wrong, be it an external or internal god. I said that this was not the case.

 

 

 

@your btw: pianofreak said that. I didn't. All I said was that logic doesn't define right and wrong for you - YOU define right and wrong based on your beliefs.

 

 

 

Thank you. YOU defined right and wrong based on your beliefs. Logic might be a part of determing if some actions are right and wrong (deciding if they will further your position) - but ultimately, your beliefs determine right and wrong.

[Godzira]

Um no. It is logical to want to further your position is it not?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Um no. It is logical to want to further your position is it not?

 

 

 

Yes that's logical. But what says that that means furthering your position is good? Just because you might want to - doesn't mean it's "good" or "right." You move past logic and into your own personal belief once you define right and wrong.

[Evilperson]

Godzira, I think the point Ghost Ranger is trying to make is how do you know what your standards for Good and Bad are absolute?

 

 

 

It is sad to me, but everything in the world is subjective and people will always have different views than you. Trying to convince them that comm(o?)n sense, which is your beliefs, is the best, is wrong because their common sense is differant.

 

 

 

Atleast thats what i think you were talking about.

 

 

 

Also, Pianofreak, i would love to discuss the topic of homosexuality with you

[Guest GhostRanger]

Godzira, I think the point Ghost Ranger is trying to make is how do you know what your standards for Good and Bad are absolute?

 

 

 

It is sad to me, but everything in the world is subjective and people will always have different views than you. Trying to convince them that comm(o?)n sense, which is your beliefs, is the best, is wrong because their common sense is differant.

 

 

 

Atleast thats what i think you were talking about.

 

 

 

Also, Pianofreak, i would love to discuss the topic of homosexuality with you

 

 

 

Hmm..I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. Basically what I'm trying to say is that eventually you have to define good or bad. I define it based on my religion - Godriza defines it based on what he believes. It's not based on logic, it's based on his beliefs.

[Astralinre]

Godzira, I've got another question for you. How do you know that logic is a good thing? Can you prove that logic is a good thing? Can you do so without bringing your personal beliefs into it?

[moose585]

i believe in god, and no because it is pushed on us at a young age, but actually because i believe that this earth was created by the all powerfull

[Ultralord]

i was raised a christian, but just because of that doesn't mean that it's not my choice whether i believe in god or not.. which i do.. but anyway, god isnt physical, he's spiritual, he's something to give people hope, to help people who have faith in him etc. in fact, in the bible i believe it says that humans were made in god's form, but neither more selfless nor less sinfull. and i have one question for you non believers... if evolution is real... why is there still monkies? on this point i actually got detention because i argued with my science teacher on this point.

[Death_By_Pod]

if evolution is real... why is there still monkies? on this point i actually got detention because i argued with my science teacher on this point.

 

 

 

Because humans didn't evolve from monkeys :wall:

 

(I wish thereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s an emoticon of someone hammering a nail into their brain via the nose, because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how I feel when I see comments like these)

[Godzira]

Godzira, I've got another question for you. How do you know that logic is a good thing? Can you prove that logic is a good thing? Can you do so without bringing your personal beliefs into it?

 

 

 

That is a completely nonsensical question. I have already defined logic above. As far as logic being a good thing, maybe itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not for you. I know that religion has always had a problem with free thought and analysis. Hmmmm. Wonder why that is?

 

 

 

As far as the monkey thing, I'm not even going to bother. If you want to debate evolution that's fine by me, but at least understand evolution first. If you were debating that in class you deserved detention. You should have attempted to learn the theory and then try to poke holes in it if you wish. But disrupting your teacher with irrelevant questions that only show you didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand the theory in the first place is extremely immature.

[Astralinre]

Godzira, I've got another question for you. How do you know that logic is a good thing? Can you prove that logic is a good thing? Can you do so without bringing your personal beliefs into it?

 

 

 

That is a completely nonsensical question. I have already defined logic above. As far as logic being a good thing, maybe itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not for you. I know that religion has always had a problem with free thought and analysis. Hmmmm. Wonder why that is?

 

 

 

Thanks for the insults. Allow me to rephrase my question in a way that you might not consider nonsense. How do you know that your reason can be trusted?

[Godzira]

Because my logic is my own, composed of evidence and depth of though. Surely, there could be mistakes in my logic which is why I stated earlier that all conclusions that I may draw are open ended. As new evidence presents itself I include it in my running analysis. So you see, it is not so much my reasoning that gives my opinions weight but the method that is followed in the course of that reasoning. I doubt there is a man alive that will say that looking at all available evidence with an open mind and extrapolating an open ended answer to the problem at hand is a faulty methodology.

[Astralinre]

Ok, you've explained your reasoning very well, but you still haven't told me why your reasoning can be trusted to be accurate? How do you know that you are perceiving and interpreting the evidence accurately?

 

 

 

I'm not trying to disprove the merit of logic, my point, as Ghost's point was earlier, is to show that every system of thought, when you go to the most basic level, is built on unproven assumptions. You assume that your logic is trustworthy. I assume that God exists and His word is trustworthy. You assume that your view is better than mine because it is grounded in logic, rather than in faith. My point is that your logic is also grounded in faith.

[Godzira]

Ok, you've explained your reasoning very well, but you still haven't told me why your reasoning can be trusted to be accurate? How do you know that you are perceiving and interpreting the evidence accurately?

 

 

 

I'm not trying to disprove the merit of logic, my point, as Ghost's point was earlier, is to show that every system of thought, when you go to the most basic level, is built on unproven assumptions. You assume that your logic is trustworthy. I assume that God exists and His word is trustworthy. You assume that your view is better than mine because it is grounded in logic, rather than in faith. My point is that your logic is also grounded in faith.

 

 

 

Believe it or not this is not my first run in with the philosophical reductionism debate. So, instead of reducing for another three pages, lets drop right to the bottom. Perhaps everything I know is flawed and nothing exists other than in my own consciousness. If that be the case it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the things I perceive are still my reality and thus the way I interact with that reality is still valid. So you see, I would need faith if I wanted to believe that everything around me is real as it appears. However faith is not required because real or not I accept it as my reality. That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

[Guest GhostRanger]

That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

 

 

 

That's a basic premise. It's only relevant depending on the topic at hand - and considering the topic at hand is to question that premise, there are no grounds for it. Once again, your logic, your reasoning - only takes you so far. Eventually you have to say "this is wrong, and this is right - because I believe it." You have to define wrong and right based on your own personal belief.

 

 

 

As Astra was trying to say, your logic only works for your own beliefs. I can logically show how giving to the poor could be wrong, and someone else could logically show how it's right. When it comes down to it - logic has nothing to do with it - it's your own personal belief on what is right, and what is wrong.

[Godzira]

That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

 

 

 

That's a basic premise. It's only relevant depending on the topic at hand - and considering the topic at hand is to question that premise, there are no grounds for it. Once again, your logic, your reasoning - only takes you so far. Eventually you have to say "this is wrong, and this is right - because I believe it." You have to define wrong and right based on your own personal belief.

 

 

 

As Astra was trying to say, your logic only works for your own beliefs. I can logically show how giving to the poor could be wrong, and someone else could logically show how it's right. When it comes down to it - logic has nothing to do with it - it's your own personal belief on what is right, and what is wrong.

 

 

 

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s take your giving to the poor example. If both individuals had the same methodology and the same information available the conclusion would be the same. If they drew separate conclusions then they did not follow the same methodology or they had different information available to them.

 

 

 

As far as the first part of your response, you are simply starting over again even after I just walked you through the entire process. I have shown how my logic can take me the entire way. You pulled out the last part of my post which was the conclusion. If you want to know how I arrived at that statement please read the rest of the post.