By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

 

I am

Theist 96 20.25%
 
Atheist 178 37.55%
 
Agnostic 96 20.25%
 
Spiritual but non theist 29 6.12%
 
Other 32 6.75%
 
God. 43 9.07%
 
Total:474
numberwang said:
G. Washington did not believe in morality separated from religion.

https://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/WashingtonFarewell.html

And he was entirely mistaken.

Feel free to look up the term secular morality and educate yourself on moral systems not based upon divine command theory...



Around the Network
OhNoYouDont said:
numberwang said:
G. Washington did not believe in morality separated from religion.

https://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/WashingtonFarewell.html

And he was entirely mistaken.

Feel free to look up the term secular morality and educate yourself on moral systems not based upon divine command theory...

How many systems are there?



OhNoYouDont said:
numberwang said:
G. Washington did not believe in morality separated from religion.

https://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/WashingtonFarewell.html

And he was entirely mistaken.

Feel free to look up the term secular morality and educate yourself on moral systems not based upon divine command theory...

 

care to elaborate? can you give an example of a prosperous society that flourished under this idea?

the only real examples i can think of are the situations like the soviet union... and we know what happened there



John2290 said:
Aura7541 said:

Round and round the fallacious carousel you go...

So you resorted to the same old Proof by Assertion and refuse to address your God of the Gaps fallacy. Looks like you have resorted to the Argument from Silence fallacy, too. So let's just recap. Your claims are solely dependent on Proof by Assertion and the God of the Gaps fallacies. When asked to prove your assertions to be correct, you have not fulfilled your burden of proof as you have provided absolutely zero citations and no direct evidence, and you also resorted to the ad nauseaum fallacy. And as the cherry on top, you responded to my continued skepticism with an Argument from Silence fallacy. Your thinking process is extremely predicable and can be easily refuted, so feel free to put in your last sophist words because the fallacious carousel is not my kind of ride.

I don'y want to get in on this, man but you sure do use the word fallacy a lot, Your use of the word so often is a fallacioius, itself. Try some critical thinking and stop reusing the same terms and regurgitating the same information you have learned but don't seem to fully understand or have not questioned in your own mind. Think freely, there is no crime in using your own thought process in an arguement and not someone elses that you have read to prove you are a master debator, it just makes you transparent in a much worse cocky sort of way. Again, Not getting into your discussion here nor am I insulting you, just some advice, I just couldn't hold my tounge.

I am the skeptic in the context of the conversation. I am not the one making the positive claims and therefore, the burden of proof falls on o_O.Q. I already laid out the framework for him to prove me wrong, but he has not even gone past Step 1. Point being, if your claim is based on a fallacy and you try to substantiate the claim with another one, you're going to have a hard time convincing people to buy your argument.

o_O.Q said:
Aura7541 said:

Round and round the fallacious carousel you go...

So you resorted to the same old Proof by Assertion and refuse to address your God of the Gaps fallacy. Looks like you have resorted to the Argument from Silence fallacy, too. So let's just recap. Your claims are solely dependent on Proof by Assertion and the God of the Gaps fallacies. When asked to prove your assertions to be correct, you have not fulfilled your burden of proof as you have provided absolutely zero citations and no direct evidence, and you also resorted to the ad nauseaum fallacy. And as the cherry on top, you responded to my continued skepticism with an Argument from Silence fallacy. Your thinking process is extremely predicable and can be easily refuted, so feel free to put in your last sophist words because the fallacious carousel is not my kind of ride.

 

lol... so all you can do is call out fallacies without elaborating on them?

this is absolutely hilarous, i am honestly lost for words

 

i'll try one last time

"""all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?""

I call you out on your fallacies because your arguments do not hold up. It is as simple as that. I also already noted that I elaborated on my reasoning, so the fact that you're repeatedly asking me the same question is a demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension rather than a demonstration of my lack of elaboration. The burden of proof is still on you and you still have not proven the causality between supernatural events and morality. Having offered zero citations, your argument is just as credible as the universe being created by a pink unicorn. Now that is hilarious.

Well, I've given you more than plenty of chances, but alas you just don't have the ability to make arguments that hold up to scrutiny. But let me guess, you're going to ask me that same question even though I have already elaborated a la ad nauseaum.



Aura7541 said:
John2290 said:

I don'y want to get in on this, man but you sure do use the word fallacy a lot, Your use of the word so often is a fallacioius, itself. Try some critical thinking and stop reusing the same terms and regurgitating the same information you have learned but don't seem to fully understand or have not questioned in your own mind. Think freely, there is no crime in using your own thought process in an arguement and not someone elses that you have read to prove you are a master debator, it just makes you transparent in a much worse cocky sort of way. Again, Not getting into your discussion here nor am I insulting you, just some advice, I just couldn't hold my tounge.

I am the skeptic in the context of the conversation. I am not the one making the positive claims and therefore, the burden of proof falls on o_O.Q. I already laid out the framework for him to prove me wrong, but he has not even gone past Step 1. Point being, if your claim is based on a fallacy and you try to substantiate the claim with another one, you're going to have a hard time convincing people to buy your argument.

o_O.Q said:

 

lol... so all you can do is call out fallacies without elaborating on them?

this is absolutely hilarous, i am honestly lost for words

 

i'll try one last time

"""all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?""

I call you out on your fallacies because your arguments do not hold up. It is as simple as that. I also already noted that I elaborated on my reasoning, so the fact that you're repeatedly asking me the same question is a demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension rather than a demonstration of my lack of elaboration. The burden of proof is still on you and you still have not proven the causality between supernatural events and morality. Having offered zero citations, your argument is just as credible as the universe being created by a pink unicorn. Now that is hilarious.

Well, I've given you more than plenty of chances, but alas you just don't have the ability to make arguments that hold up to scrutiny.

 

"I call you out on your fallacies because your arguments do not hold up."

but... you haven't actually demonstrated how any of my arguments haven't held up

so far all you have achieved is to call historical fact (that people have assigned values to the concept of gods) a fallacy

 

"you still have not proven the causality between supernatural events and morality."

lol which was not my claim... you would do well to actually read what i've said instead of attacking a strawman

 

"Well, I've given you more than plenty of chances"

well i can't actually move forwards if you can't actually address what i'm saying lol or simply resort to calling facts fallacies

 

...i mean even now you still haven't realised lol



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Kristof81 said:

All primates show signs of morality. It's "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of relation, where wellbeing of whole group is more important than individual gains. It's pretty basic, natural behaviour, which simply pays off and chimpanzees or gorillas don't need God to explain this. 

well generally but that doesn't account for sociopaths or people who simply decide to revoke that social arrangement and that's where the problem of the subjetivity of individuals comes from

Of course. Thanks to our intelligence, our behaviours are more complex than any other creature on this planet. We have common trades as well as unique ones to our species (including all sorts of psychological issues). But there's a striking correlation between moral behaviour of group animals (like us) and their intelligence, so why would we be any different? 



Hiku said:

Sure. For many reasons.

For example, so we know if anti-gay movements in the name of god are actually for their own benefit, or if people are just being asshholes meddling in things that should be none of their business.
Or any other imposing action that is done in the name of god or religion. Jihad, etc.

I can answer that for you right now.....they are just assholes meddling in things that are none of their business. God or no God, man has no right to take the life of another in the name of anything, or dictate if what they believe in is right or wrong. If God doesn’t like gays than it is up to God to handle it. If God did exist and actually cared, why would Gays even be allowed to exist? Religion is BS plain and simple. It was designed to control people by satisfying the age old question of why are we here and where did we come from and does a very good job of keeping its believers loyal. All animals create life, we can even clone it and create new species if we wish to, at what point is God a God? Weather kills babies, Babies get eaten by Animals, babies starve etc. So any act that is out of our control is Gods will yet anything we don’t like and want to control is what God wants and can’t control? 



MarkkyStorm said:
PEEPer0nni said:

laws

Laws come from morality, not the opposite. Following laws does not make you a moral person and there's laws that are not moral at all. God is a way (that for me, seems the best) to define what is moral and what isn't.

About the OP: if you believe in God that question is useless, because you don't need to know for sure, you just need to have faith in it. But I'm quite curious to see what would happen if suddenly we could prove that God exists... Would people that not follow any monotheistic religion convert? Would they still live their lifes the same?

But religion was created by man which means that all of your "morality" comes from man anyway. Every Bible or religious text was written and interpreted and re-written by people. At no point has some mysterious book of instructions with no known origin been discovered that has come from some mystical being watching over everyone.



I was raised Catholic, but the stuff just doesnt make any sense, It's irrational nonsense most of it.  When I went through confirmation it only confirmed for me that I could not possibly allow myself to stay involved with it. 

Hopefully God does exist, and we would all better off to live life as though he/she does, but who knows.  



numberwang said:
kowenicki said:

 

If you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy not religion.

We had empathy as a species way before we had religion.

There have been thousands of gods, I just chose to belive in one less than you.

etc

etc

 

Can you objectively state what is right and wrong?

Religion is as old as civilization, the oldest buildings are often supposed to be religious in nature (Stonehenge, Göbekli Tepe...)

Ethical monotheism has only one god. Polytheism or paganism did not claim moral laws and is irrelevant.

Nothing is irrelevant, it shows a different belief system based on knowledge at the time. People are curious and want to know how things work, they will try and explain how things work even without fully understanding. Not so long ago people would be killed for witchcraft if they did something that people didn’t understand. You still have people stoning people to death in countries over fidelity or other beliefs. Religion would have you believe that everything is about it, which is not entirely true. Long before religion you had no religion and had the same problems then as we do today, murder, rape, theft etc. The only change is money and power given to the religious establishments. I get why 1000 years ago you could believe in magic and a sun god or any other god would have made sense, now though with the advancements in science and general understanding of how everything actually works to believe in a god is just stupidity IMO. No we are not the only life in the universe, which is proven as fact. The universe is expanding and new species are being found on earth almost daily, which is fact. Heaven and Hell, myth. Do people have a soul? No, do they have an energy that moves on after death? Yes. Again, Science shows that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. Do memories etc. follow that energy? Who knows, but I doubt it considering you can lose memories with even slight physical brain damage. The only time this planet will ever see peace is when religion is wiped out entirely. The day we all as a human race understand that all people are the same regardless of race or color and that we are all here for the same reason every other animal or plant are here ( procreation ) then we can all work together to improve as a species. Until that happens though we will continue to have wars over religion and land and millions will die over whatever religious belief is popular at the time.