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

Since your deity doesn't exist, it doesn't matter.



Feel free to check out my stream on twitch 

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

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

Ok..?  Who cares?

George Washington said and did some great things.  He said and did some dumb things.  This is one of the dumb ones.

When they've studied it, there is a negative correlation between religiousity and quality of life among nations.  Plenty of mostly secular countries (Scandanavian Countries, Israel, Japan) have been doing pretty well in terms of crime rates and other indications of morality.

Cerebralbore101 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't believe there is any official list of fallacies.  What you're probably referring to is the non-exhaustive categories of logical fallacies that we tend to address.  But, beyond those broad fallacies, there can be specific variations in regards to certain subjects.

The god of the gap fallacy (usually referred to as god of the gaps argument, but lets not split hairs) is a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy.  For example, we can't (although I'd say we can) determine where morality comes from exactly, so it must be god.  And he pointed out exactly where the fallacy was used several times.  When you say "100 years ago using radio waves for communication would've made you a witch.. you really think that in 100 years we won't uncover more hidden aspects of reality"  that is basically a textbook example of argument from ignorance.

That's not what argument from ignorance is. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html 

There is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance. 

There is no evidence against God, therefore God exists is another argument from ignorance. 

The argument from ignorance takes the form of "There is no evidence for A therefore not A", and "There is no evidence against B therefore B".

There is no evidence for god, therefore god doesn't exist is not necessarily an argument for ignorance fallacy.  In cases where we should expect evidence for something, then pointing out that there is not evidence can be a valid argument.  For example, if I claimed there was a fire in my house, and there is no scorch marks, no smoke damage, etc, then the lack of evidence is proof that there was no fire. 

It depends on the particular god you're arguing for, but generally, the absence of evidence is a pretty logical case against it, or at least a case for not believing in it.

As for the argument I gave as an example it is absolutely an argument from ignorance fallacy.  But, since people don't generally talk in logical syllogisms (and I find the particular poster isn't particularly clear) then it gets messy.

If you're saying it's reasonable to believe in god because there is so much we don't know, that is an argument from ignorance.  The argument goes, since we don't know everything, we can't completely rule out the possibility god is lurking outside our knowledge.  That means we don't have definitive proof against him/her/schlee/schler, so it is reasonable to believe in it.  

That is quite literally an appeal to what we are ignorant of to support a position. 

Likewise, claiming that god (fictive or otherwise) is necessary for objective morality (that has not been shown to exist) becaue nobody has provided another method (which people had) without positive evidence that god is necessary or sufficient for objective morality is definitely an argument from ignorance.  



I believe god exists...

I also believe that nobody has the right idea about who god is so...



TheBraveGallade said:
I believe god exists...

I also believe that nobody has the right idea about who god is so...

How exactly can you believe in something if you don't have the right idea about what it is?  

numberwang said:
Superman4 said:

Animals kill other Animals for food, we do the same. Killing for sport is wrong. Also I cant think of any animals that kill their own for food. Killing is a part of survival, when it becomes a part of sport or entertainment than it is wrong.

There are vegetarians who would call eating meat an evil act. Where is your morality now?

Then we have a moral dilemma.  We have people with different opinions, and they have to try to convince one another that there opinion is the right one.  And hopefully this process will lead to a better understanding and lead to a stronger moral position.

If there is a god, that doesn't change this, especially a god that doesn't communicate directly or in objectively observable ways.  Within religions there are tons of moral disagreements.  There is widespread sectarian violence in the Islamic world, centuries of violence between catholics and protestants, and so on.  Beyond those large scale conflicts, there are millions of small scale disagreements among people of the same religion, and the same sect.  

If we were 100% sure there is a god, then that still doesn't solve it.  Unless we decide to just follow god blindly because he's powerful, then his existence does not make morality objective.  We would need to figure out whether this god person's commands are just and moral, so we still have to make moral assessments.  And, we're going to have disagreements in that scenario.



numberwang said:
OhNoYouDont said:

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?

How many metaethical frameworks are there not involving a magical sky wizard? Dear god man, crack open a book and start reading. We have deontology, consequentialism, non-cognitivism, virtue ethics, just to name a few off the top of my head. 



Around the Network
OhNoYouDont said:
numberwang said:

How many systems are there?

How many metaethical frameworks are there not involving a magical sky wizard? Dear god man, crack open a book and start reading. We have deontology, consequentialism, non-cognitivism, virtue ethics, just to name a few off the top of my head. 

If every system is possible, you have no system.



Well if God exists then it is important to know whether He is omnipotent omnipresent all knowing far beyond the perception of humanity has a will has no beginning or ending and is incomparable to anything. Or is He not conscious but the unwilling unknowing creator of a random universe. If He has a will but is comparable within our perception has a beginning and ending or begets or is begotten then He/They are no God in my eyes. If God has no will or has a will is important if He has a will and has given us especially free will so that we may follow or disobey Him and then go to heaven or hell with this life being a test. I can only tell about my perspective which is a misunderstood perspective of a Muslim. I mean 99% of you don't understand the basics of Islam let's be honest. But in that regard if God exists as we in Islam are taught then we cannot do everything our heart desires and we have to be careful or halal and haram and everything like that and certainly Daesh, Al Qaeda, all our leaders of every Muslim nation especially Saudi Arabia and all the terrorists will be the first in hell. To me personally whether God exists or not is the most important question ever. Right there right then if God doesn't exist and I know it then I don't care about this universe I'll just off myself after random acts of who knows what. Frankly speaking my will to live is tied to my religion in which suicide is forbidden. Without religion Chaos for me is natural and I don't particularly care about anything especially not adult humans they are the worst of the worst animals and children and wold life and forestry are still things worth saving but I might as well even go on a killing streak before offing myself. Don't tell anyone that though I don't want to be stuck in a mental asylum even though I probably belong in one.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

numberwang said:
OhNoYouDont said:

How many metaethical frameworks are there not involving a magical sky wizard? Dear god man, crack open a book and start reading. We have deontology, consequentialism, non-cognitivism, virtue ethics, just to name a few off the top of my head. 

If every system is possible, you have no system.



So many different religions that I don't think any of them are truly right. I kind of adopted beliefs for a lot of the major religions. The best rule I believe to follow is the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated. This rule is pretty much in most major religions. It is kind of like karma also. If you are an asshole then you should expect others to be an asshole to you.



Cerebralbore101 said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"Why not just find out what behavioral patterns are more productive, and then teach them directly?"

 

several reasons - for one as i've said most of these concepts are very complex and, therefore, have to be encoded into stories to convey the meanings in a more effective way

 

also have you ever disobeyed good advice that was conveyed to you? i'm guessing that's the case since everyone does, however, you'd be more compelled to follow certain advice if that advice transcends your subjective view of the world or is assigned to something that transcends your subjective view of the world

 

and that's all a god is in this context - something that transends the limited subjective scope humans are plagued with

 

that's why in the past there were gods for many of the intangible concepts we deal with that appear to be constants such aphrodite for love and ares for war 

In that case I didn't misunderstand anything. Your position is literally that ethics can't be taught without attributing them to a god in a story. 

 

no, simply that its the best method mankind has been able to devise after all these years we've had civilisation

 

the fundamental problem is something can't be both objective and subjective at the same time, you have to first acknowledge that fact

 

this means that something that transcends the subjective view of people is necessary and you can disagree with that, but i can assure you that you won't be able to raise a compelling argument against it